A very interesting piece. I do wonder though, if focusing on rationalism in a religious context isn't just a symptom of something larger. I feel like The Enlightenment itself is coming to an end, or at least, going through a profound change. A century ago, even fifty years ago, a reasonably well-educated person could grasp the outlines of human knowledge. You didn't know 99.999% of the facts, but one could understand the world sufficiently well enough that you could easily look up and understand the outline. It was difficult to come up with a subject that couldn't be adequately understood in outline in, say, Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, which was about six inches thick onion-skin volume. Today, that's not remotely true. It is almost impossible for a single person to keep up with even what the newly emerging fields are, let alone have the dimmest idea of what's going on in them. Three hundred years ago we knew very little about the world. Today, the typical person knows very little about what is known. It's an interesting symmetry around a sort of golden age where intelligent people were is a sense the masters of their world. I.e., The Enlightenment.

The other thing is, I'm mystified by why any intelligent person gives Dawkins the time of day when it comes to his religious views. He was a brilliant scientist, but his arguments about religion are strictly high school level. Whether you are an atheist or a religious person, they are an intellectual embarrassment.