I did that because Slate grabbed the word "Twaddle" before I did.

Trump is fading. Soon worship of him will fade and disappear. It's a transient infatuation that is doomed to be a disappointing flicker in time.

Even that paragraph is Codswallop. Truly. Well-written codswallop, but facile codswallop nonetheless.

that the guns, God 'n' gays crowd will latch onto. That mindset isn't going away, ever. If we're lucky it will never achieve national power again, but religious fanaticism channeled into secular goals has alway existed and always will.

It's not some new phenomenon that the writer just identified for the first time.

the word, codswallop! I don't think I've encountered that one before,and I come from places like the hometown of Longfellow and such where there was a healthy helping of Old English slang still about.

And it made me laugh!

People need meaning in their lives that it is at once personal and social. Religion furnishes this quite naturally, but atheism can't do it. So what can give meaning in a secular society, especially social meaning?

Connection with the physical world at any scale. Intellectual and artistic pursuits. Meaning is everywhere. Inside and outside of ourselves. Simple.

But many people need social meaning, something larger than themselves that they can tap into. Not everyone can create and choose meaning for themselves.

Hobbies that involves others. Sports. The list is endless.

There are too many choices for some. For others, the modern world is too fragmentary, none of the choice have sufficient cosmic implications.

Formalized and/ or institutionalized religion provides a place, both emotional and physical, and it provides a structure for people.

Some prefer a more open process, some prefer a more structured process.

Atheism doesn't provide it because it is a non-belief. The Myth of Progress can provide it, but progress may just be a dream, and we may be waking up from it feeling hungover.

But people are also social beings, and group activities and identification are essential.

ascended, and ALL creatures do see him with their believing/unbelieving natural eyes, then what shall ye people utter? If not tongue tied or eyes not open?

Not being smart *ss by this. But there's this, the flip side. Non-believers are so positive there is no God, a Higher Being. Well, what if there is. Will many say oh, crap. Or say it's a joke, a hallucination.

I don't know and I don't humanly care. My spirit is downcast at the thought, but it's not my responsibility.

Still 'n' all, 💙 you.

But I do think that many people need a spiritual life. If they don't have a tradition that speaks to them, they can go down some dark paths. I do have spiritual life that draws from several traditions and from western philosophy. Could be just our own brains generating content, could be something more.

People need something. I think that is the point Sullivan is trying to make.

Did not mean to respond to you specifically and intention not directed at you personally.

or maybe just not part of people because I feel no need for a grand narrative. For my part you have walked firmly onto speak for yourself territory.

Instead of accusing me of speaking for you personally, maybe you should have sought clarification or just presented yourself as a counter example?

My apologies for not scrupulously including appropriate qualifiers in each post lest someone show up in the middle of a subthread without reading the whole thing, thinking I was speaking of him or her personally or intentionally excluding him or her.

There are plenty of secular societies that appear to be getting along fine without religion. Atheism makes no claim other than no belief in gods, so complaints that not believing in any gods does not provide a framework for finding personal and social meaning are irrelevant

Sullivan proceeds with the usual pile of canards about atheism. He just can’t quit his right wing roots.

The social meaning I said had no name, I then identified down thread as a "grand narrative." I need to clarify that. We have a thing called American society - shared history, social norms, and a sense of common destiny as a group of people. Secular nations generally have this sort of thing and if the basic narrative breaks down, there can be conflict. That's what I mean by a grand narrative.

We see this in the UK. Are they part of some sort of European superstate, or are they different from The Continent? You can make a common destiny out of either one, but they have to choose now and can't decide. Therefore they have a conflict. For better or worse, they will eventually go one way or another, or maybe find an alternative that transcends both on a sort of Hegelian synthesis.

We find similar tensions in America and elsewhere these days.

Just as I said.

Do you go so far as a claim of infallibility?

Free but not infallible.

Things and people speak for themselves. Only a fool speaks for others. And there's the problem, innit?

So they call every belief a religion. It would be more accurate to say that everyone needs a belief system and religion is just one set of options.

People can disagree with what he's saying. But he is talking about the human condition - how can we reconcile our natural impulses to enjoy life with our knowledge the we, and all of our friends and acquaintances, are going to die. Discussing the issue can help us come to terms with it.

He quotes Bertrand Russell and John Stuart Mill in the article. Both were intelligent, well-respected thinkers, certainly not religious, and both seemed aware of the issue and willing to confront it: