Rite and Reason: The election of Pope Benedict XVI has brought the issue of inter-faith dialogue into sharper focus. In his first sermon at St Peter's Square, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger promised "open and sincere dialogue" with everyone, even "those who follow other religions or who simply are looking for an answer to fundamental existential questions and have yet to find them", writes Joe Humphries
The commitment was welcome and, early signs indicate, genuine. In the first months of his papacy Benedict met some prominent Jewish and Muslim leaders. He has described inter-faith dialogue as a "vital necessity" for Catholics, and has gone some way to repairing damaged relationships with the followers of eastern religions.
But what of people of no religion who in Benedict's words, "search for the good for man and society"? Has Benedict engaged with them?
If so, progress has been minimal. In his address at the world youth day vigil in August, the new Pope drew parallels between secular thought and totalitarianism, saying: "It is not ideologies that save the world, but only a return to the living God, our creator, the guarantor of our freedom."
The speech had echoes of his homily during Pope John Paul II's funeral Mass in which the then cardinal warned Catholics against secular philosophies like "collectivism" and liberalism. He claimed: "More and more, we are being dictated to by a [ moral] relativism which accepts nothing as definitive and which takes as its ultimate benchmark the ego and its desires."
While his papacy is in its early days, there are fears that Benedict will continue to characterise secular philosophy in wholly negative terms. This would not only cut off an important avenue of dialogue for the church but reverse progress made under John Paul II.
While Benedict's predecessor described "the truth of Christ" as the definitive answer to humanity's problems, he stated "a philosophy in which there shines even a glimmer of [ that] truth . . . will provide a potent underpinning for the true and planetary ethics which the world now needs".
In many secular philosophies, there is more than a glimmer of Christ's true teachings. What might be termed "humanism" celebrates many of the same virtues that Jesus endorsed - virtues like tolerance, compassion and justice. The same goes for what might be termed "caring pragmatism", a philosophy that underpins much non-religious humanitarian work.
Demonising secular thought, therefore, would not only undermine the cause of inter-faith dialogue. It would also bring Benedict into an unholy alliance with Muslim extremists whose depiction of secularism as a Godless refuge for the morally depraved has helped to fuel much of the recent religious violence against "the West".
But before secularists condemn Benedict for failing to be more understanding, they must ask themselves: What have they done to advance the cause of inter-faith dialogue? Such dialogue is, after all, something they should try to promote too, given the undeniable role religion and ideology have played in human conflict.
All too often the non-religious opt out of inter-faith debate - in part, it seems, because they believe religious practitioners are hopelessly beyond reason. As the author John Gray observes, "Among contemporary philosophers it is a matter of pride to be ignorant of theology."
Rejecting the possibility that they might learn something from a Catholic priest, for example, or an Islamic cleric, secular critics of religion feel more comfortable carping on the sidelines than engaging in difficult but necessary dialogue. In fact, at times, such critics have the appearance of agent provocateurs, stirring up anger on all sides so that if hostilities arise between religious practitioners they can stand back and declare: "I told you they were crazy."
Those who belong to no organised faith (and I put myself in that category) have a choice between supporting the further polarisation of faiths, or opting to engage in sincere dialogue with religious practitioners. Conducting such talks will not be easy. But a good starting point is to look at what unites rather than divides us.
A much-overlooked fact is that both religious and secular traditions celebrate common virtues such as those mentioned earlier - tolerance compassion and justice - and other virtues like humility, honesty, self-discipline, loyalty and love. Such virtues may be understood differently by, say, a Christian compared to a Muslim, but they do nonetheless provide a common language around which a universal human ethic, so passionately sought by John Paul II, could be created.
Secularists who endorse virtues like those above have nothing to fear from a debate about ethics with Christians, Muslims or the followers of other major religious traditions. Avoiding such a debate will only serve the cause of extremists who wish to drive a wedge between religious and secular thought.
Moreover, if secularists don't stand up for their values they will only have themselves to blame if some religious leaders, perhaps Benedict among them, assume they have none.
Joe Humpheys is a journalist with The Irish Times. His book The Story of Virtue: Universal Lessons on How to Live was recently published by Liffey Press (€16.95)