When two Automobiles collide in an intersection there are a number of explanations for the accident posed by the participants and observers. Each individual may develop his own conclusion about the true cause of the accident. The conclusions can be based on observation, on a scientific investigation of the evidence, on past assumptions and even prejudices about they type of people or automobiles that entered the intersection. All of the conclusions can be right and all can be wrong. Ultimately; however, there was a true cause for the accident. It just may not be possible to know it from the observation point of the human inquirer.

The Problem for Religion The real problem for the dominant religions is that their core beliefs have been rendered false. In the 18th century the debate arose between faith and reason. Faith, the property of the church. Reason, the property of philosophy. This debate is centralized around the question posed by François-Marie Arouet (Voltaire) in 1747: why does evil exist in a world created by an all powerful and all good God? Theologians (primarily Catholic) set out to answer this dilemma with enough success to mollify their faithful. More significantly; though, this was a debate the religions could participate in on somewhat equal footing and match philosophical wits with the enlightened deists, atheists and agnostics. In the modern world the debate is no longer between faith and reason. Reason has given way to science and the scientific method and this poses an entirely different problem for religion. It is no longer a battle of ideas as it was during the enlightenment. It is now a battle of evidence. While religious defenders rightly point out that scientific evidence is incomplete and constantly changing the basic fact remains that not one piece of new evidence; not one paradigm change has ever given more credence to a faith-based world view. Equally troubling, religious thought has failed to keep up with changes in scientific evidence. This is what religion in the modern age must deal with and at present its only strategy is to shield believers from this evidence and simply pretend that it does not exist. While there seems to remain a longing for something binding and spiritual in the modern world, religion is becoming less able to fulfill these needs. The questions about the truth of religious tenets have simply overwhelmed religious leaders' ability to address them. Religion without political force behind it must rely on its own validity in order to remain relevant. In the modern West that political force has evaporated and the validity of most religious beliefs have simply failed to meet the challenges of science. Religion remains strong only in those areas where science is ignored. When forced to deal with science on an even playing field, the concept of a personal God and creator fails badly. The best example of this failure is the theory of evolution. Read any religious challenge to evolutionary theory and it quickly becomes evident they are challenging a 19th century version of the theory which is typically labelled as "Darwinism." Evolution is challenged either philosphically (it cannot be right because it doesn't make sense...) or by fringe science which uses the terminology of science in pieces in order to draw conclusions that really have no basis in the science they pretend to involve. Both approaches end up being pathetic when compared with what is known about the origin of life thanks to evolutionary theory. The simple reason that evolutionary theory is so widely accepted in science is because it not only provides the best explanations of natural phenomena but makes a wide range of predictions, that when tested, prove true. The scientific evidence for the evolutionary origin of species is so powerful that the only way God could create Man in his own image is if God is a single cell organism with a couple of proteins. These "facts" have caused many churches (most notably the Roman Catholic Church) to accept the validity of evolutionary theory in the hope that it wouldn't eventually rule out the possibility of a soul as well. Other churches such as the American Baptists and Presbyterians have taken a different approach. They simply ignore the evidence, and hope their flocks won't ask any of the difficult questions. Both of these approaches have been problematic. By opening the cork holding science apart from religion the Catholic Church ends up raising more questions than it can answer. Among nearly all population groups except the most poor and uneducated, Catholicism is on the decline. In countries with an educated catholic population such as much of Western Europe, Catholicism has declined so dramatically that it is becoming merely a cultural glue rather than belief system people actually accept. The head-in-the-sand approach taken by many American protestant churches has its own problems. It relies on keeping its flock uninformed and poorly educated. It also relies on strong-arm politics to keep evolutionary theory from reaching the christian children. Ultimately, in the age of information, this is likely to slowly fail. These religions will either have to evolve or eventually decline as well. The percentages of people identifying themselves as "christian" has been steadily declining since at least the 1990s. This is simply a consequence of not being able to keep enough of the flock uniformed and ignorant. The problem for faith-based religion gets compounded when they are forced to accept the findings of science because of its accuracy. A good example of this is DNA and genetics. It is difficult to find many people with even a minimal knowledge level that argue genetics is garbage science. However; accepting the validity of genetic science makes accepting many religious tenets difficult, if not impossible. The entire Book of Mormon has been invalidated by genetics. The Book of Mormon teaches as its absolute truth that native Americans are among two lost tribes of Israelites who crossed the ocean to settle in the new world. Genetic evidence has shown this to be absolutely false. The teachings within the Book of Mormon are simply untrue. Reason could never have produced such a definite conclusion but the scientific method has done just that. In order to cope with the problem the Church of Latter Day Saints has simply ignored it in the hope that its followers will ignore it too. This forces the Church to live in an isolated bubble filtering what its believers must see and hear. It makes exposure very risky. It is quite likely the Church leaders biggest fear was a prolonged presidential candidacy for Mormon believer Mitt Romney. He would have been forced to address all the questions the church wants ignored. The faith that has best coped with the problems of science is Judaism. Christianity has at its core the belief that Jesus died to forgive man of the original sin created by Adam. If the account of Adam created in total by God in the book of Genesis is allegorical and myth presumably the son of God would have known this. The whole premise for his death does not make any sense. For obvious reasons Judaism does not have this problem. Their problem is one of interpretation, or rather re-interpretation. Rabbis work to reconcile the scientific knowledge with what is written in their Bible. While they can make an impressive reading of the Bible codes and interpretations to demonstrate that the Bible tells the same story as science this approach has a major problem. Science is being used as the truth that the Bible is said to mimic. The Bible can be interpreted to show that it too discusses the Big Bang but it wasn't until the theory became established that Rabbis tried to find this connection. For thousands of years they believed in the literal version as written. While genetic DNA evidence does show that the Jewish people have a common origin point in the middle east, the scientific evidence does not stop there but continues on much farther back to a common ancestral point 150,000 years ago, in Africa. From a strictly natural explanation perspective the Bible is irrelevant. It is simply not needed to explain natural phenomena. It may have other uses but as an explanation of the natural world it can be discarded and human knowledge of the world will not diminish one bit. As the world becomes more educated and science progresses, religion as a truth-based belief system is destined to become less relevant. While the number of adherents that align themselves with a particular religion may remain roughly stable the core level of belief is on the decline and certain to continue, giving way to "cafeteria style religion" where follower pick and choose what they want to believe. Only the Islamic world has managed to keep modernity from encroaching on its followers. The birth rate of ignorant peoples is hardly the way to deal with the progress of science.

The Problem for Atheism In his wonderful dissection of religion, Dr. Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion lays out a masterful case for the scientific explanations of the natural world and shows the religious explanations to be little more than myth and superstition. In the 18th century there were scores of theologians willing to address the philosophical challenges made by enlightenment thinkers such as Voltaire and Hume. In the 21st century theologians are no match for the challenges posed by scientific conclusions such as those exposed by Dawkins. After his withering critique of "God" as a concept, Professor Dawkins likens the revelations of science to a force that drops away the black burka of myth and superstition. "What science does for us is widen the window. It opens up so wide that the imprisoning black garment drops away almost completely exposing our senses to airy and exhilarating freedom." As long as Professor Dawkins' arguments remain within the realm of the natural sciences they are devastating to religious belief. However; his final chapter is one of joy and optimism for a future without burkas, and communion wafers, and holy water. It is at this point that Dawkins strays from his scientific approach and moves badly into the area of sociology and political science. In fact, his final conclusions do not follow from any particular argument, reasoned or otherwise. His optimism about a world without God seems as much myth as the mythology he destroys. The primary question for atheism is what glue would it put in place to hold society together? Political philosophers have wrestled with this question for ages by positing concepts such as natural laws and a social contract. The dilemma for an enlightened, secular world is that not many people are actually enlightened or secular. As soon as societies began to exist beyond the tribal level religion became a fixture. The earliest societies such as the Hittites and Egyptians all based their societies around Gods. That we now know these Gods to be imaginary seems irrelevant. The Roman Empire is possibly the best example of this idea. The Empire was not particularly concerned with particular beliefs and people were generally free to worship and believe whatever gods they chose. However; they had to perform the rituals and sacrifices dictated by the Empire. In Rome it was the ritual that was important, not the belief. Jews were unique in the Empire because of their small number and unique written history. They were given somewhat of a "pass" regarding the rituals as long as they paid an extra tax. Christians were not so fortunate. Christianity was persecuted because christians refused to perform the state rituals. In most cases the martyrs were given numerous opportunities to merely perform a particular ritual or sacrifice and escape punishment. Christians were free to believe whatever god they wanted. They just had to perform the same sacrifices that all other Romans performed. It appears society needs a supernatural and Voltaire's statement that if God didn't exist man would have to invent him seems painfully true. No society to date has existed without some form of religion to glue it together. Even in the "secular" Soviet Union of the 20th Century the cult of leadership assumed the role of God and the state was never successful eliminating the Orthodox Church from society. Humans are social animals but not herd animals. At a tribal level where everyone knows everyone else and tasks/rewards are shared equally religion might not be necessary. Beyond this level there appears to be an actual need for a construct to glue humans into a social herd. It is unclear what atheism would employ to replace this glue. The real problem for atheism is not on a societal level. It is on a personal level. What exactly is the meaning of life for a cat? He's born; wanders the world for a while; dies; and his ashes return to the soil to be reincarnated in some different molecular form. How exactly are humans any different now that we understand the principles that put homo sapiens on this planet? If "meaning" has to be created by each individual, what about those individuals incapable or unable to create it? Does life simply become a hedonistic pursuit of physical pleasure? After all, that is what the cat's life is all about. The problem with enlightenment (gaining a true understanding of nature) is that it reveals there to be no "meaning" or "purpose" to life beyond procreation of the species. The other problem with enlightenment is that it is a one way street. Once an individual has "seen the light" it is impossible to go back to blissful ignorance. As soon as someone learns that 2+2=4 it is impossible to argue that 2+2=5, no matter how much one tries. It is equally impossible to simply pretend that the sum is 5 because deep down the truth is already known. It is for this reason that life systems such as Buddhism fall short for atheists. The "way of life" aspects of Buddhism may be appealing to Western materialists but there is a level that requires a supernatural belief that most atheists will find impossible to accept. Again, once 2+2=4 is known pretending otherwise is futile. Ultimately, the only option for atheists is hedonism. It may manifest itself in different forms but it is the only pursuit that makes any sense if there is no afterlife and no intelligent creator needing to be appeased. In his great novel "The Razor's Edge" W. Somerset Maugham chronicles the life a man in pursuit of the meaning of life. At one point the author asks the protagonist what he'll do when he reaches the end of his search. The fictitious response is quite painful: "I suppose I'll know what to do when I get there." Ironically, near the book's conclusion it is assumed that the protagonist, Larry Darrell, has actually become enlightened and figured out the meaning of life. The author then revisits the question of what he will do. Darrell's answer: "I think I'll drive a taxi in New York." It is quite interesting that the two movies based on this book both have somewhat happy endings. Even in the novel Darrell seems content with his choice. It is hard to conceive; though, that this will be a satisfactory answer for most atheists. Unfortunately, it is even harder to conceive of a different answer. There is a strange statistic among natural scientists. Most believe in God. It is usually not the personal God of the American Baptists or the vengeful/loving God of the Catholics, but it is a spiritual God nonetheless. Three explanations for this have been posited. The first is that it is cultural to maintain the religion of one's youth even if it is not practiced or even thought about much. These scientists may simply not think about the conflict between science and religion because it is not going to produce anything productive. A second possible explanation comes from molecular biology. The shear complexity of even the most simple organisms leaves open the question of a creator. Again, they may not spend much time dwelling on the nature of this creator, but simply assume one must have existed. The third possibility is the old "Pascal's Wager" approach. It doesn't really hurt anything to believe in God. There appears to be a level of enlightenment that most people do not want to cross. Because there is no reward for attaining the ultimate "enlightenment" beyond some form of personal satisfaction it is not a worthwhile pursuit for most to undertake. That Professor Dawkins feels the pursuit of natural, scientific knowledge is a reward of its own doesn't seem to be shared by many. The only other option for atheists is some form of hedonism that may be equally unappealing. Science has shown that religious belief is essentially myth and superstition yet there doesn't seem to be much reward for producing this conclusion. It is naive to think that just because religious conflicts have been the primary form of conflict and exploitation throughout human history; eliminating religion will eliminate conflict. Even if religion is just the opium of the masses there are plenty of other reasons for humans to hate and exploit each other. There may simply be no good reason for people to be atheists.