>The new thing is that we’re too smart and cool for all the things religion teaches, while we scratch our heads trying to solve all the problems it gives you the solution for.
First of all, that isn't new. The Renaissance, when philosophy, science and law began to divorce themselves from religion, started about 700 years ago.
Second, nothing useful taught by religion actually requires religion itself. You don't need to believe in salvation through faith, or the Holy Trinity, or Hell and brimstone for the teachings of Jesus to be useful. That isn't religion, that's philosophy.
>Second, nothing useful taught by religion actually requires religion itself.
This hinges very much on your definition of "useful;" if you don't believe in God or the resurrection of the dead, then talk concerning them is of course pointless. But if you do, they are very useful indeed.
My definition of useful in this case is humanistic. The utility of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't depend on belief in the supernatural, nor do concepts like grace and forgiveness.
First of all, that isn't new. The Renaissance, when philosophy, science and law began to divorce themselves from religion, started about 700 years ago.
Second, nothing useful taught by religion actually requires religion itself. You don't need to believe in salvation through faith, or the Holy Trinity, or Hell and brimstone for the teachings of Jesus to be useful. That isn't religion, that's philosophy.