It's difficult to consider Steyn and Dawkins in the same mindset and not point them at each other. Richard Dawkins' arguments boil down to the pure idea of science being enough to feed the human mind* (God Delusion, p 362). Religion is a by-product of the software we possess. We have everything we need to lead fulfilling lives. If we didn't have a moral base already established we would not have been able to create religion in the first place. The idea of moral is a misnomer. What we consider moral is simply what has proved to be advantageous to our species: cooperation, protection, etc. A biological Game theory, of sorts.

If that is the theory, and we are lead to consider that secular thoughts are enough to progress our species, then Mark Steyn torches it with a study of demographics. The West's secular population replacement rates are in steep decline, while the non-secular Middle East's rates are exactly the opposite. In practice, it appears that the secular team is losing numbers fast, while the groups that posses the strongest faiths, either christian or islamic, are adding to their ranks. As a biologist, I would be interested in hearing Dawkins' response to current reproduction trends. Regardless of whether or not religion propagates misunderstandings about our species, I agree that it does, religion sure seems to be better at convincing people to have more babies, which is the name of the game.

With that said, the absence of belief that is atheism is not unifying. As convincing as Dawkins' arguments are, I still find myself coming to the conclusion that the secular society is not workable on a large scale, where variables range from desperate poverty to physical deformities. "What's that you say? You were born with a spine that resembles a pasta dish? Well, that's too bad, hope you make the best of your one time around." It is nice to suggest that the idea of humanity can be enough to organize, motivate and unify a society. In practice, without the top-down influence of a higher power, I don't see society motivating behind common ideas.

If we remove the labels that religion affords, then we are forced to organize under other lesser labels, either race, nationality, political party or even a local sports franchise. The thing that religion has going for it is the trump card. Conflicts that arise from differences in race or politics can be unified under a religion. The idea of a common humanity is still one notch down on the ladder.

I absolutely believe that the concept of an after life/supreme leader is complete bullshit. At the same time, once the genie is out of the bottle, it's hard to put her back.