A similar approach can be adopted to all the great religious and spiritual questions: ethics, forgiveness, sin, love/charity, prayer, death, afterlife and so on. Human beings have been wrestling with these ideas for as long as we have had language. We will most assuredly continue to do so, whatever the churches and humanists may say. So why pretend that the debate ended 2,000 years ago, or 500 years ago, or that we are liable ever to arrive at final answers to such infinite questions?
While there will always be many opinions on these issues, is it beyond the capacity of modern, educated humans to be tolerant and respectful of the views of others so long as they don't try to impose them on their neighbours?
While the argument so far has been essentially intellectual, the implications are very practical.
If the scriptural (or revealed) religions - for us, primarily, Christianity - could accept publicly what so many of their own theologians already accept privately, (namely that their version of the truth is not the last word but, rather, just one more attempt by human beings in an age-long series of attempts to comprehend the place of human beings in the universal order of things), then we could move forward.
We could arrive at a grown-up situation where all such attempts enjoy mutual respect and would be free to redefine themselves in the light of scientific and philosophical advances.
As things stand, Christianity and most of the other revealed faiths of the world are stuck in a particular period of cultural development, be it the early Chinese empire, the ancient civilisations of the Indus valley, the Golden Crescent of the pre-Athenian Middle East, the Graeco-Roman era, the dramatic flowering of Arab culture in the sixth century, or the post-Renaissance of the 16th century.
As a result, their scriptures - and thus many of their beliefs - are couched in the language and metaphors of that period. In their different ways each tries to redefine their message to reflect the needs and intellectual perspectives of successive ages. However, in this they are severely handicapped by an insistence that the original scripture is an unchallengeable statement of the Divine.
In an age of relativity, quantum theory and post-modernist thinking, such absolutist claims look increasingly improbable and unhelpful.
All knowledge, all understanding, surely, is provisional and open to further refinement?
For their part, the secular humanists should acknowledge that there are, have always been, and very likely always will be, realms of human experience which go beyond rational analysis and prescription.
Religion, in fact, has throughout history been an attempt by mankind to put all of their experience into some kind of explanatory framework.
I see no good reason why humanism, rationalism, scepticism and free thought should not be seen as an integral part of that great human enterprise.
Just as religious traditions have had to take on board, however slowly and reluctantly, the thinking of ground-breaking scientists and philosophers - Indian, Greek, Arab and western European - so too today both Christians and humanists should accept the contemporary view of reality as an eclectic synthesis of science, philosophy and the subjective insights yielded by art, music, poetry, reflection and shared human experience.
THIS is in fact how most of us, including priests, ministers and rabbis, live in practice. So why not just admit it and discard the old absolutist pretensions? The great scriptures will always have an honoured place as sources of great human wisdom and of inspiration, but without any suggestion that any one of them is the last word on the subject.
This radical but simple shift of perspective would allow the great religions, spiritual and ethical traditions, to collaborate in many areas of modern life.
For those brought up in, and still comfortable with, the Catholic tradition, all of the ancient liturgy and spiritual practice could remain as a framework within which the human business of living and coping goes on.
For others, the Reformed (Protestant) tradition is more meaningful and familiar. It too, along with the Muslim, Hindu, Bahai'i, Buddist and other traditions, would offer alternative approaches to living in a sane, fulfilling and satisfying way.
And, of course, for the more rational among us, the secular humanist tradition offers a less subjective, less intuitive framework for living.
It is very probable in such a world that people would move, as I have, from one spiritual tradition to another, as their thinking, their values, and their spiritual insights develop. Millions of others would die in the same tradition into which they were born.
More importantly, however, there would be spiritual, emotional and philosophical support available to everyone and all kinds of new, imaginative blends could emerge. Personally, I would love to find and live within a synthesis of oriental Tao and Buddist thinking and Western religious humanism.
Christianity in its early centuries represented one of mankind's greatest spiritual advances. Its 2,000 years of history are studded with unparalleled achievements in the realms of art, architecture, philosophy, music and social action, as well as some very human lapses.
If Christianity wants to remain relevant to the needs of people in the 21st century I am convinced it must take on board the contemporary perspectives of humanism and transform itself into a non-dogmatic, humane spiritual tradition firmly rooted in the philosophical and religious history of Europe. This is already happening among progressive, liberal Christians. But it is without the blessing and acceptance of Church authorities. Now, why might that be?
Mr David Kelso is former convenor of the Humanist Society of Scotland, and was until recently chief inspector of post-school education at the Scottish Executive Education Department. He now works at Glasgow Caledonian University. He writes here in a personal capacity.
