Paul Tillich said, just before he died, that his dream was that one day people in the west could speak of God again without shame. I thought a bit about this and came to realize that, at least as a purely logical and rational concept, God can be given certain attributes (such as simplicity, perfection etc. etc.) and his existence could be discussed in the same way one discusses other conceptual theories - such as the Multiverse, the Hive-mind, Panspermia, different interpretations of QM and Time-theory. There is nothing more wrong with discussing the logical attributes of God as a foundational explanative theory than discussing, and eventually deciding, upn whether one accepts a certain theory of time or not. However, since Nietzsche, Freud and Darwin, this has somehow become a taboo - and one could not discuss the logical implications of a perfectly simple being as an explanation behind our contingent existence. At least not with anyone in academia today. Discussions of God are answered with derision and ridicule - even though most have no understanding of the logical structure behind, say Augustines or Aquinas', worldviews. But it gets worse, if one for example finds Aquinas concept of contingent and necessary objects as a useful logical distinction then one could not bring it up - because it immediately threatens one with the taboo taint of possible theism. Whole areas of logical discourse are simply neglected - because they carry the God-taint. But it gets worse. A culture that so fears the taint of God eventually must cut itself of from, and indeed revolt against, any historical understanding of ones roots. Not because of a romantic notion of kindness against our forefathers but simply because a true understanding of human rationality (or wisdom as we call it) requires a foundation that can't be found in the empiricism of scientism. I always wondered about those persons, who I think rightly, so objected to Dawkins spiteful ridicule of theism. Have they never been to a University in western europe? Why on earth react to Dawkins? He is a mere brain-child of western nihilistic culture. As John the Baptist was the prophet of Christianity so Nietzsche was the prophet of Modernity - and his predictions have become all too true. To me, the typical western individual today, lives his life without hope - and has learnt to shut of that need in the same way as a quadriplegic shuts of the hope of ever walking again - because thinking about it hurts. What is the cause behind this rotting of the western mind? Was Nietzsche correct? Am I wrong in this diagnosis of western culture?