I’ve read Ehrman, he’s great. — Noble Dust

Yes, and he's not anti-Christian. Much of what he says is consistent with what has been said here in terms of his finding value in Scripture. His atheism is based upon his inability to harmonize evil with there being a perfect creator, but he's very clear that it's not based upon the incredibility of reigious doctrine.

What's interesting about this case (at least according to this), is that he "has given Congress and the Intelligence Community Inspector General extensive classified information about deeply covert programs that he says possess retrieved intact and partially intact craft of non-human origin." — Michael

I wonder like if it has four foot pedals and a steering wheel that requires twelve hands or something like that.

I'm highly skeptical. It seems impossible for something like this to have been covered up for so long. — Michael

It is impossible that 100% of the time when a UFO crashes, the government gets to the scene first and cleans it perfectly outside the presence of any witness or video. And this happens not just in the US, but everywhere on the planet. And every government also must have a secret pact to conceal the information, working in harmony, even those countries currently at war, and they then store these alien vehicles in some warehouse, where every person involved has taken a solemn vow of secrecy that has never been violated until this lone voice.

For some reason the UFO stories started gaining popularity on FoxNews and in conservative circles. I guess it goes along with the government conspiracy theory thing.

So for me, there is justification for secular humanist education and some forms of assertive atheism. — Tom Storm

Your objection seems more pointedly towards theocracy than a literalist fundamentalism. You don't need to counter the religious efforts at political control by enforcing some sort of atheist control. I'd think disallowing either would be the goal.

How exactly does an allegory work to provide sustenance to a believer, any suggestions? — Tom Storm

Sure, I think it a fascinating story that posits that there is nothing is more condemnable than to have the power to discern good, evil, and knowledge and not know love.

Is that not the story of Jesus, whose necessity arose from the eating of that impregnated apple?

But that's not a story I focus on, but I get it. We don't need any actual apples, serpents, or crucifixions for that to have meaning.

Importantly, that story has the attention of a culture, and so it matters. That is where we look for meaning, so that's where we find it.

A quote from the Reform Jewish prayer book:

"Help us to see, wherever we gaze, that the bush burns unconsumed .
And we, clay touched by God, will reach out for holiness, and exclaim in wonder:
How filled with awe is this place, and we did not know it ."

That is, the miracle of the burning bush is all around us, but, obviously, there is no real burning bush. I don't see how literalism (as opposed to allegory) could work. Do we look for real burning bushes and actual parting seas?

Give me examples from the torah or talmud OR ANY OTHER SCRIPTURAL SOURCE, that you use to guide your own life and the life of your progeny but make sure the example is theistic in content or in 'spirit' and let it be held up to critical assessment by others. — universeness

But this just again misses the point. It's not that I'm evasive at all. You're just not following the argument or you're choosing not to. If I were to spill out massive amounts of theology (which I will for the sake of argument), am I really going to be interested in your cursory take of it, and do you not see that your take on it would be entirely irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether I subjectively find value in what I cited? That is, the question is not whether it passes muster for you, but you've got the impossible task of convincing me that it's subjectively valueless to me despite my insistence otherwise

By analogy, can you not see the folly in trying to convince me I'm not actually inspired by the sunrise? That you may just see the cycles of time and planetary movement isn't relevant to me.

But, since you asked, let's look at Leviticus 19:16. This sets off the prohibition of not being a talebearer among your people, which, at first glance appears to simply be a simple proscription against gossip. Let's turn though to the Chofetz Chaim, the seminal volume on Leviticus 19:16 and see what it has to say. But, let's jump ahead to Chapter 10 for the hell of it, and see when such speech is permissible. Sometimes it's permissible you say? Yes, read on: https://torah.org/learning/halashon-chapter10/

Take a look at that and outline it for me. Your task isn't to show me where it's not valid or where the analysis comes short, but it's to explain to me why it's of no significance in my life, even if I insist that it is.

Author's intentions are transcended. — Tom Storm

Along those lines, generally the interpretation of a poem isn't accomplished by cross examining the poet. That would imply the poem is a puzzle with a single answer for us to see if we can get it right

Didn't you? If an interpretation does not prove the existence of an interpreter then I shall consent to be called a fool. — Vera Mont

If defer to rabbinic interpretation as much as you'd defer to a literary critic.

I didn't defer to an interpreter.

Do you accept all of 'the story' as true? — universeness

Pay attention or leave the conversation. This entire conversation revolves around my position that the literal truth is irrelevant and the historicity of the account highly doubtful. You're a one trick pony with your only ability to point out that Christian fundamentalists have an unsustainable position.

How do you know which religious scripture it REALLY wants you to follow. — universeness

Pay attention. I've offered no special status to the text, nor suggested it is of any more divine origin than any other text.

I'm not going to restate it. Just scroll up and see if you can follow how I've placed the value in the interpretation. These are people looking for meaning, not inerrant gods decreeing truth and who can't be defied.

If the wisest if rabbis utters bullshit, it remains bullshit.

The book is holy, but the what the priest says, goes. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure what you're suggesting you're summarizing, my view or a simplified view of Orthodoxy? It sounds like neither.

Are the traditional Judaic scriptures any more reliable than the bible, as a guide to how a human should live their life?, in accordance with: — universeness

So the story goes, at Mt. Sinai, not only was the written law handed down (the Torah, meaning the five books of Moses), but also the oral law, which was passed down by word of mouth and eventually written down (the Talmud). They are read and interpreted together, neither having higher authority than the other.

This leaves open rabbinic interpretation as important as the text is itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah#:~:text=According%20to%20Rabbinic%20Jewish%20tradition,threat%2C%20by%20virtue%20of%20the

It is also why criticisms related to simplistic literalism apply only to limited theological systems, like contemporary Christian fundamentalism, but really not to others.

Nevertheless, in my own experience, I can't think of anything I have gained in wisdom from a work of fiction. — Tom Storm

Since the value of the work of fiction is in its interpretation in terms of what it evokes from the reader and not as much in the literalism of the text, those works that have been most subject to interpretation and analysis would offer the greatest amount of wisdom.

While you might learn something of value from spending months dissecting the Grapes of Wrath, it would pale in comparison to other works that have been subjected to thousands of years of analysis, especially if those offering that analysis were the best and brightest of their time.

In other words, why would I ever select the Bible, with all its absurdity, contradiction, and violence as a fictional centerpiece of wisdom? I didn't. Others did and I benefit less from its black and white text as I do its interpretation. But that's somewhere where fiction has led to meaning.

Does it follow from this that the creator is created too? Anyway, as you might expect, I’d go a bit further and say that the creator is also a fiction. A meaningful one. — Jamal

I think your response to your own question was correct because your question implied a scientific response only to someone so programmed to look for one.

It’s kind of frightening that the idea of artistic truth seems so alien to people now. Worthy of a separate discussion I’d think. — Jamal

And an offshoot of theism, which is that there is an intentional creator, is that the non-fiction is as much a creation as the human fiction, allowing both the same sort of analysis. That is, read the tales of your life as you would a novel.

And we should assume in the best written of novels, no word is superfluous, but adds something to the novel. That is, every event matters and you matter., meaning the world could not exist without you.

And none of this requires some leap of faith. It's just a perspective (either culturally instilled or by personal decision) of how you look at things.

History is broken and remade by - fiction? That much is undeniable. And that is worth consideration by any philosopher. — unenlightened

The point is often missed that fiction and truth are not opposites. The point of most fiction, or at least the well written sort, is that it contains much truth.

That is where most truth, or at least the wisdom sort, is found.

And if we can glean deep meaning from the complex tales from the imaginations of great storytellers, surely we can do the same from turning that analysis onto the stories of our own lives and those around us.

This is to say, if we can find deeper truths in fiction, surely we can do the same with non-fiction. Science doesn't have a monopoly on analysis of the world, but the world is as much subject to literary analysis as are the creations of our minds.

The optimist thinks it will happen, come what may, thus nothing already experienced matters at all. In contrast, the hoper wants it to happen, despite everything. — Jamal

But who wouldn't be a hoper in your scenario? It would seem I could think the past has borne nothing of worth or value but stil hope tomorrow it will. Hoping is just wishing. I wish I would win the lottery, even though I never play it.

For hope to have any value, you must have the optimism it can happen. That is what causes you to act. The thought it can occur is what motivates you. Without it, you never ask that girl out, apply for that job, are do whatever you think is a risk taking venture that might pay dividends.

Why waste it on those who have lived in a religious environment and rejected it? Very few people have been complete strangers to religious ideas and need to be informed. Most unbelievers came to their unbelief through experience and do know exactly what they're missing - what they often feel they have escaped from. In many cases I know of, atheists had simply stopped believing over time because they found the doctrine unconvincing. None of these people will be lured back into the fold by someone saying, "But it works for me." — Vera Mont

I'm in favor of whatever reason proposed for not trying to proselytize, so if that's another reason, then that's good by me.

I've known people of all stripes: those that never considered religion, those that had it and left it, those that left it and returned, those that never left it, and those that weren't ever totally sure where they stood.

Like I said, it's really none of my concern to figure out where you are and to try to move you.

Optimism is often facile and banal. — Jamal

Yeah, well you know my views on this, which is radical optimism.

Sure, I'm an atheist and I don't have any particular need for religion, I just think a lot of people probably do. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this is fair to an extent. I would just change the need to want, meaning I could live without religion. I just don't want to.

Part of the assumption many make is that the religious irrationally rely upon the impossible in order to cope, as if they possess a fragility non-believers don't have. That's really not the case, and I think it's why some religious people try to persuade non-believers to their point of view because they feel that non-believers are missing out on something meaningful. I'm much opposed to proselytizing because I think it's annoying, condescending, and generally ineffective. I don't think people come to religion through badgering and I don't think it matches many people's personality types. If an atheist tells me they are fully happy without religion, I would have no reason to doubt that.

In other words, religion was being lost, and without anything to take its place, bad things happen. — Jamal

“God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console our selves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has so far possessed, has bled to death under our knife, who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What purifications, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history so far!”

Oh we have many many millions of years, not 5 more years (Hear D. Bowie below).
So how about a 100 year or thousand year or ...... year plan?
We just have to avoid extinction events and causing such ourselves. — universeness

The reference was to Stalin, hoping to illustrate that these attempts are not benign.

"either the ball is green, or the ball is not green" is always true, regardless of the colour of the ball.
I don't care about your concern with logical tautologies. In REAL human life, ALL totalitarian dictators past and present are god wannabees, and you holding up an irrelevant shiney from propositional logic, in a futile attempt to dilute from the observed behaviour I am referring to, is part of why I claimed earlier that your theism manifests in you at times, in rather sinister ways. — universeness

Yes, logic is just a shiney diversionary tactic. I'll try to avoid it.

The USSR, and China are just another two failed attempts to 'get it correct.' — universeness

WE MUST TRY TRY TRY and then ......... TRY AGAIN! Until we succeed, on a global scale. — universeness

Let's first focus on eliminating the ongoing repercussions of the last failed attempts before we start rolling out the next five year plan.

BUT, this is a religious position! All totalitarian, cult of personality, autocratic control level of a large mass of people, are IDENTICAL imo, to the rule of a king or a messiah who claims to have gods sanction, (the so called, divine right of kings) to BE what they/he/she/hesh wants to be, ie, YOUR GOD! — universeness

If you can't offer an example of an atheistic leader who is evil even in the hypothetical because definitionaly their exercise of power is "religious" in an essential way, this is all tautological. I'll stop offering counter examples to disprove your argument so that you can tell me there are no married bachelors.

Also keep in mind, some 95% of Nazi Germany were Christians. — jorndoe

But from same article: "Many historians believe that the Nazis intended to eradicate Christianity in Germany after victory in the war.[17]"

"Nazi ideology could not accept an autonomous establishment whose legitimacy did not spring from the government. It desired the subordination of the church to the state.[38] Although the broader membership of the Nazi Party after 1933 came to include many Catholics and Protestants, aggressive anti-Church radicals like Joseph Goebbels, Alfred Rosenberg, Martin Bormann, and Heinrich Himmler saw the Kirchenkampf campaign against the Churches as a priority concern, and anti-Church and anticlerical sentiments were strong among grassroots party activists.[39"

This is an example of an atheist dogma, certainly an example of the enforced secularism and not a religious evil.

If you guys are interested in Hitler's religious beliefs, you can read them here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler#:~:text=In%20Hitler's%20eyes%2C%20Christianity%20was,the%20survival%20of%20the%20fittest.

They are, as I have said, inconsistent and varying over time. He was not a religious ideologue or zealot. It's just not a credible argument to make that Nazism was just yet another iteration of religion gone wrong. He is known for genocide, the murder of those based upon their genetic heritage without regard to belief. A fully devout German Christian, sworn to uphold the ideals of Nazi ideology, lock step in every way with Hitler, willing to lay his life down for the German God, whoever that might be, would have been murdered alongside the Chasidic rabbi if he were born of a Jewish parent.

I've often wondered if Mormons are protestants. They were born out of the early 1800's American rise in religion, but they were also ultimately driven out by protestants too. Accepting them back into the fold of Christianity, which does seem to have happened from my vantage now, is a relatively recent phenomena -- I recall Christians handing out anti-Mormon literature growing up. — Moliere

Did you grow up in the U.S. South? Mormons have historically been especially disfavored in that region, although that is changing.

Mormon theology is unusual enough to wonder where it should be properly placed. I guess it goes under the general heading of "Protestant" just because it's Christian and not Catholic and it's doubtful it could have emerged without the Protestant Reformation.

Their acceptance of Jesus as savior places them in the Christian camp I'd think, but I agree, they are an unusual lot.

But there are some interesting associations in this space. — Tom Storm

I still think placement of Nazi nationalism as a religious movement is a specious argument, fully understanding Hitler's use of whatever was available to him to promote his brand of nationalism.

The first line of Luther's writing you cited states, " First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools … This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians." That is not something that would uttered by Hitler or that is part of Nazi ideology.

In reference to Kristallnacht, that erupted over the murder of a German diplomat by a Polish Jew in retaliation for the displacement of Jews of Polish descent from Germany. That had nothing to do with showing the world "we are Christians."

Like I said, the thesis that all organized social evil is somehow traceable back to religion is just not supportable, and it seems quite a stretch to apply it to Nazi Germany. I also can't see how you could extend it to the various other oppressive governments over time, especially communist ones that considered themselves atheist. It just seems an attempt to force the facts to fit the conclusion that religion is inherently evil, which I see as an ironic turn in and of itself. It's a black and white good/evil dichotomy positing a Satanic force, much like you'd expect to be argued from a religious perspective.

In a way, the Holocaust was part of a wretchedly long (sub)culture, an abominable "tradition", that you could hope ended, though it doesn't quite seem like it. :/ — jorndoe

Anti-semitism predates the Protestants and Christianity itself.

As to whether Hitler used prior prejudices against Jews to his advantage, he did, but the argument that Hitler himself was religiously motivated is not supportable given his clear views on Aryan ethnic superiority and his classification of Jews based upon genetic lineage and not upon belief.

This attempt to present him as a misguided Christian soldier seems pretty strained to make the point that it is religion that leads to all evil.

As to his personal religious views, Hitler was not clear or consistent and debate remains over exactly what they were. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler

He wasn't a nuanced thinker obviously, and it is clear that religious ideology was neither central nor even a piece of the puzzle informing his actions.

I'm not discounting moments of religious terror like the Crusades, but the Holocaust wasn't one of them. The argument that religion is the source of all evil is just not a reasonable thesis, and that is what motivated this line of conversation.

Take psychopathy. On the extreme end, you get arsonists, rapists, and bloody murderers who don't feel much. — BC

But I see the question to the individual to be a subjective inquiry, in terms of what he prefers as opposed to what society prefers.

If I think my ethnic nose more an annoyance than a point of pride, and we have a cure for such things, it's my call to make, no apologies.

If through diligence and commitment to our cause we once and for all eradicate the unsightly noses of the world with perfect button noses (think Peter Cottentail), the world might suffer from lack of diversity, but I impose martyrdom on no one, and do not require anyone suffer for the greater good by being keeper of the nose.

But should you want to keep your elephantitic honker as is, let your freak flag wave proudly in the sneeze.

I just got a copy of The Will to Believe in old school paperback. I'm either getting really old, or it's the microfiche version.

You're kidding right? — Darkneos

Not really. You presented the question starkly enough that the response seemed unavoidable. If it's nothing but trouble, like a broken leg, then why wouldn't you cure the fracture? This isn't to condemn those with broken legs, but it's not to humor those with broken legs either by suggesting broken legs are as good as unbroken ones.

I'm also very open to the idea that autism offers some advantages, even if it's just a certain pride in uniqueness, but I defer entirely to those in the know on that as to whether it is worth it for the individual to protect.

This is to say, if you tell me you've got a problem, real or perceived, and there is a cure, why would I intervene on that decision? By the same token, if you have what I think to be a problem, but you don't think it that way, why should I intervene there either.

My point is should there be an option to cure it for people who have had it be nothing but trouble for them? — Darkneos

Yes.

Why would we not cure something that is only trouble, as if we should respect and protect the existence of trouble?

An interesting and paradoxical thing about many fundamentalists I have known is that they are not particularly familiar with the Bible - apart form a few frequently recycled quotes. Pastors may in theory have the same status as others in the congregation, but generally hold a degree of power over interpretation and the culture of their church, often through charisma or personality. — Tom Storm

This is Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalism. It’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations. — Jamal

An interesting fact about many of the churches of Southern Appalachia is that they're entirely unaffiliated with any denomination. Unlike major denominations with founding theologians and stated ideologies, these rural churches lack that. They were formed by traveling pastors, often with limited education, with fire and brimstone speeches in their distinctive barking voice, with the powers of heaven causing wild gyrations, speaking in tongues, and protecting them from the serpents they handle.

The religion of the common man.

This is Protestantism in general, not just fundamentalism. It’s why there are thousands of Protestant denominations — Jamal

I offer the Mormons as a counterexample of a Protestant denomination with a hierarchical structure, with its President afforded the status of prophet, much like the Catholic Church, thus providing an authority outside its sacred texts.

Branch Davidians being another, but that didn't end well.

tradition. (Add extra negative epithets to taste.) I think it is clear that it is reactionary, and specifically reacting against science, particularly evolution. — unenlightened

This article addresses this question, making the interesting point that literalism as we know it today, has its roots in the Protestant Reformation. It was then that the power of the Church was supplanted with the power of the Bible because they took away the Church's authority in offering any clarifications. Once the Bible became the final word, it's word couldn't be questioned.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/21/biblical-literalism-bible-christians

This explanation also offers an explanation to who pointed out that a priest friend of his suggested looking to be Christlike as opposed to applying a strict adherence to the text. The priest was obviously Catholic and would not have been as influenced by the Protestant traditions.

It is a peculiar fact about the Christian fundamentalists that they deny their clergy special elevated status (as you might see in the Catholic Church or even among orthodox rabbis), but everyone is offered the same status in the eyes of the community in their ability to interpret scripture, with everyone with the same right to go back to the text and argue their point. I see that here as well among the religious critics, where they ask how in the world can a particular passage be interpreted in such a way when it says what it says, trying to decontextualize a thousands of years conversation to just looking at a few limited words on the page.

The majority of negative events in human history can be traced back to religion. The current trend of homophobia for one, nazi Germany, etc. — Darkneos

You really do seem to be ignorant about human history. — Darkneos

The Nazis didn't murder the Jews because of religious differences. A Jew who disclaimed his Judaism was no safer than a devout one.

Nazi Germany is a good example of a war that was not about religion. It was about ethnicity.

Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, Putin, all devotly religious folks I suppose, trying to impose their brand of religion on the masses. I'll have to read up on that. I wasn't aware of that.

This just sounds like making excuses for the text or religion. Never mind that the text itself contradicts itself multiple times and makes exceptions for followers that it doesn’t for others. Not to mention preach some awful things. — Darkneos

This objection is irrelevant to my point, which is that the intepretation is what is relevant, not the text. I highlighted that point in my last post.

That you can show me the text is contradictory says nothing of the interpretation, which is where humans are deciphering meaning. If your point is that the text in inconsistent, vague at points, and clearly the result of a cobbling together of many ancient documents, I know that.

also the problem with interpretation of a text is that people can use it to justify just about anything they want to so you’re not really helping your cast but more illustrating a huge problem with religion. — Darkneos

Interpretation necessarily involves imposing some sense of wisdom and logic upon the text in order to obtain palatable results. Do you not impose your wisdom and logic when describing your ethical conclusions? Can't you manipulate whatever secular means you use in determining your ethical conclusions to justify whatever result you want? It's not like religion has a monopoly on justifying bad acts.

This reminds me of my friend John (who is a priest) who says 'Forget Jesus, be Christlike!' Is this the kind of thing you mean? — Tom Storm

That approach I think works for any religion, and I think it adds tremendous depth to the religious text and it removes the simplistic objections from the atheistic camp.

Taking what you say further. If you ignore the physical, actual Jesus, but instead focus on what he represents, you have to ask yourself what to do with all the theology surrounding his existence. That is, God supposedly literally gave his only son to assist humankind in cleansing itself from the original sin of Adam eating from the tree of knowledge, a rejection of which results in eternal damnation.

This changes the discussion from a simple tale of snakes in a heaven like Eden to an elusive metaphor, asking why consuming knowledge casts one out of Eden, and why the possession of knowledge without an acceptance of an object of absolute love from a creator would lead to such a condemnable existence.

And this story I've just told is uniquely Christian. Jews, reading the same text, don't place signficance on the fall of man, continue to believe humans are born into perfection, believe atonement for sins occurs by asking for it and not by accepting any Jesus like messiah, and they have no theology of eternal damnation, traceable to inherited sin, personally caused sin, or otherwise.

So this is the same story, but with very different results, begging the question of what the text actually means. And this is where I think the atheists miss the point. They either say the text is absurd in its literal sense in that it demands the acceptance of talking snakes or they think the text is meaningless because it means whatever anyone says it means.

Thousands of years spent analyzing a text through different contexts is certain to yield varying results, but the point is that everyone is using it to consistently find meaning applicable to their existence, which is how the interpretation should be judged, not the literal words of the text. So, when you say "be Christlike," what you mean at a more meta level is to search for our purpose and meaning, whether that be through figuring out the metaphor of Christ, figuring out the necessity of following the legalistic rules of Judaism, or understanding the metaphor and underlying purpose of any religion.

My grandma, who was born in the 1880's, was a typical European Christian of her time. In the 1970's she told me no one had ever gotten to the moon because God and heaven 'are in the sky and people can't get there until they die' — Tom Storm

I don't place Granny outside the time period described by @unenlightened in his reference to the rise of Christian fundamentalism. It's dated to beginning in the late 1800s, so Granny doesn't serve as an example of more long standing fundamentalist tradition.

Wiki offers support for this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_fundamentalism#:~:text=In%20its%20modern%20form%2C%20it,theological%20liberalism%20and%20cultural%20modernism.

The Christian fundamentalist movement, which is a naive literalism that tries to limit interpretation to the actual text, specifically denying that it requires special understanding, is a new idea.

Using Judaism as its ancient predecessor in interpreting religious text, even though they did believe the Torah the inerrant word of God, never took such a simplistic literalism for interpretation.

Midrashic interpretations are far (far far far) from literal.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

The basic movement then would be from Religion/culture to science (as "religion") + religion + "culture". And from Selves to "selves". But "selves" always long to be Selves and in order to do that there must be a movement back to Religion/culture (fundamentalism). — Baden

I take this analysis as possibly descriptive of Western social secular evolution, but I don't know how applicable it is to Near East, Far East, African, South American, and maybe even some even European countries as well. I don't know if you meant it more generally, or whether you were trying to describe just one idiosyncratic system.

I also don't necessarily see religious thought as dominated by secular reasoning as you do, as if it became generally subservient to it, but I see an emergence of separate cultures (religion vs the state) to greater and lesser degrees at odds over time. I also think there have been religious cultures that never wavered and never embraced secular reasoning within this Western culture you describe.

I like the metaphor of the divergent roads of thoughts, one attributed to Athens and the other to Jerusalem. Philosophy versus faith.

I don't deny attempts at melding these positions over time, but I don't accept the notion that the roads ever fully merged but then later diverged again. I see two separate roads with the travellers of each having varying levels of political influence over one another over time, often imposing their values over the other.