On God and Religion being taught universally, Dam Dennet Ted Talks

  As a child, growing up in secular based UK education system, but having already experienced God's intervention in my life (both physical, existential and emotional) I went on to study at one of the world's top 5 universities. It was remarkable how uniform the belief system of my functionally secular teachers were, and how none of them regarded themselves openly as believers in any philosophical or religious system.
The people who 'deconstruct' others' beliefs, have to do so on the basis of their own inviolate assumptions. Everything is framed through a set of unprovable assumptions, including science. Anyone who has studied modern philosophies, including the philosophy of science, finds that there is no agreement between 'secular' philosophies. Who's version of reality is going to be the arbiter? And for the empirical scientists among us, check out why no serious philosopher of science says, "Who needs beliefs, I have data!" There's a good reason logical positivism died, as the observation of data, depends on your initial assumptions. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that science sprang from a Jewish/Christian root. It was theological assertions (as well as classical philosophy) that laid the foundations, the necessary assumptions, that drove science forward. It's no accident that the early scientists were Christians in the main, nor that classical Greece and Rome were unable to develop modern science. Where modern science has spread, these assumptions, perforce, have gone too.
Lastly, the meme that there exists such distinct and separate entities of 'Science" and "Religion" is an artifact of the last 400 years or so. The Greek philosophers of the past would not have recognised the distinction between these things. In fact, they frequently wished to ascend from Natural Philosophy or History to things we would regard as spiritual speculations, so far is their belief system from our modern conceptions.
So, who's reality does Mr. Dennet propose we believe?
_________________________________________
Matthew, what an excellent response! Allow me to admit it parallels my own observations and conclusions, so that would give me bias. Admitting bias is so important in going forward in philosophical communications. Otherwise, as Mr. Dennet demonstrates, one's thinking becomes lost in denial--a denial that omits the observer's perspective and inclination and preclusions. Only then can this sort of discussion progress logically. Who can converse with one blinded by his own denials, who refuses to acknowledge that his a priori is no a priori at all? There is no escaping this dialogue needs to begin in the middle.