As modernism fades, I think these issues will become less important, icons of disappearing "age of reason" bias. The ways we determine "truth" are not absolute, but culturally conditioned. It is not surprising that any given faith - a product of a millenia or two ago - would fail the tests of epistemology of recent centuries: they evaluate renaissance straw men.
Indeed, they are unconvincing. It tells us only that religious adaptations of cultural standards are as momentary as culture itself.
Thus it even was with Galileo - opposed by the Pope, who was under pressure from the academic community, not because Galileo contradicted Christianity, but because Galileo contradicted common cultural...

As modernism fades, I think these issues will become less important, icons of disappearing "age of reason" bias. The ways we determine "truth" are not absolute, but culturally conditioned. It is not surprising that any given faith - a product of a millenia or two ago - would fail the tests of epistemology of recent centuries: they evaluate renaissance straw men.
Indeed, they are unconvincing. It tells us only that religious adaptations of cultural standards are as momentary as culture itself.
Thus it even was with Galileo - opposed by the Pope, who was under pressure from the academic community, not because Galileo contradicted Christianity, but because Galileo contradicted common cultural views. Neither prevailing philosophers nor theologians nor scientists recognized the conflict as that of cultural assumption layered on top of religion, not religion itself.
The Right is the last great bastion of modernism in the West. Ironically, many of the arguments of atheists seem to swim in the same sea.

masbury said:

As modernism fades, I think these issues will become less important

I'm not sure if I understood your point completely or not.
To suggest that the points presented above are new arguments is a bit naive (if I understand your usage of "modernism") as most have been argued for centuries. The modern era has provided us with a much more efficient and world reaching method of sharing information and as such has allowed questions and comparisons of religion to become available to the common people. It is really the ignorance of the majority of religion that allows it to flourish because most (even today) simply accept what they are indoctrinated with as truth because they ...

masbury said:

As modernism fades, I think these issues will become less important

I'm not sure if I understood your point completely or not.
To suggest that the points presented above are new arguments is a bit naive (if I understand your usage of "modernism") as most have been argued for centuries. The modern era has provided us with a much more efficient and world reaching method of sharing information and as such has allowed questions and comparisons of religion to become available to the common people. It is really the ignorance of the majority of religion that allows it to flourish because most (even today) simply accept what they are indoctrinated with as truth because they have no real comparison to any other truth. By making the points against religion (and their supporting logic and data) more commonly available it wears at that common ignorance. It at least allows them to see that their belief system is not unique nor widely accepted.

So barring some cataclysm that knocks us back to to the bronze age (in technological terms, one could argue we are still there theologically) "modernism" is only going to adapt with technology and provide even MORE argument, evidence, logic, and truth to combat the complacent thinking of religion - thus remaining ahead of the past and "modern".

I guess I see suggesting "modernism" fading is like those people that equating the internet with a fad, telephones and a hobby, and automobiles ans a passing fancy for the rich.

That is, if I'm understanding the term "modernism" correctly. Which I'm not all that sure that I am in the context of this clip.