Scientists tend to have a abstract, mathematical idea of God that makes sense intellectually, but that is neither spiritual nor compelling. Religious leaders often have a very theological image of God, possessing spiritual (and possibly personal) value, but making very little intellectual sense. The layman generally has a muddled conception of God that may be personally compelling (and possibly have spiritual value) but that clashes with the muddled conception he (or she) has of science. There is a unavoidable split between the scientific and religious views of God and the Universe, and most people are caught in the great divide.

This situation is so familiar that we tend to accept it as a given, but science and religion have not always been opposed (nor are they opposed in most other cultures). At one time, even in the Western world, science and religion were very closely and harmoniously aligned, with humanism situated comfortably in the middle. A theological speculation could spark a scientific discovery, which (in turn) could lead to new insights about the human condition.

What happened to change this situation? Science, and the scientific conception of the universe, grew and changed, and religion stayed the largely the same. Theological concepts that had been developed to respond to contemporary ideas were retained long after their utility was over. Western religion was soon equated with the scientific worldview of an unmourned era. Eventually the disconnect was so great that religion lost all connection with scientific validity, and the great schism occurred.

The fact that this is a disaster may not be immediately clear. If you are not inclined to religion, your response may be "who cares?" or "what difference does it make?" Yet even an atheist must recognize the huge impact religious belief has upon society.

For our purposes here, when we refer to “God” we will be referring to the conception of a unified ultimate essence underlying the mundane manifestations of reality. The above definition has been chosen as broad enough to have “something for everyone”:

For a monotheist, this ultimate essence is simply God. For a polytheist, it is the essence underlying the gods. For a Taoist, it is the Tao (the Way), for a Buddhist, it is Nirvana. For a scientist it is the “Theory of Everything.” For atheists, it can be viewed either as a depersonalized fact of existence, or as an imaginary concept with practical utility.

Given the above definition, everyone has a concept of God. Every person either makes assumptions about the ultimate nature of reality, or accepts the assumptions that others have made. These assumptions, in turn, shape her or his worldview, which shapes her or his morals, values, and priorities.

A strong (shared) conception of God, whether right or wrong, provides the following three benefits:

• Unity: Every human being is a unique individual, which means no two are alike. Therefore, between any two people, there will inevitably be differences. The only way of surmounting these differences is to place them within the context of a larger commonality. As the commonality becomes more encompassing, the differences become less divisive. As the ultimate source of commonality, a strong conception of God is a powerful source of unity.

• Focus: In order to be effective, any group must have a focused sense of purpose, a central vision to which everything must relate. If this is not true, the organization's energies will dissipate across a host of competing goals, lesser visions, and meaningless details. The more stable the center, the more focused, vital and enduring the organization will be. As the ultimate source of stability, a strong conception of God is a powerful source of focus.

• Determination: A person's determination to complete any given task is directly related to the perceived importance of that task. The importance of a task is determined by its impact, and its impact is a measure of its scope. If I believe what I am doing is important to God, then I believe it is important to the universe. Therefore a task (no matter how small) that relates to my conception of God will be perceived as possessing the largest possible scope and impact. In this way, a strong conception of God is a powerful source of determination.

Without a viable religious backbone, American society has begun to degenerate, losing unity, focus and determination. As we move into the next few years, the danger is that our country will become vulnerable to attack by groups or countries with stronger theologies --either the fundamentalist militias from within our borders, or the theocratic nations from without. Either eventuality would be disastrous not only for the country as a whole, but specifically for the central American ideal of religious tolerance.

As for religious humanism and scientific humanism, they still exist, but each has been overshadowed by its a- and anti-humanist counterparts. The problem in both cases is that the dyad is unstable. The humanism in each is vulnerable and peripheral.

Therefore, unless the schism can be repaired and the complete triad restored, the future of humanism as a viable philosophy seems bleak.