http://www.gutenberg.org/files/621/621-h/621-h.html
And it's easy to see the parallel the author makes. Every minute aspect of modern living has become "religion". And there is a very public jockeying amongst a high priest class of prognosticating pundits all vying for influence and attention.
But in the most fundamental matters of import beginning with the categorical assumption is essential. Namely, that there exists for any given problem, an optimal answer. It is simply a matter of collecting empirical evidence and making the appropriate analysis.
Steven Pinker argues in his most recent book that if there were "no Hitler, there would be no nukes!" It was only the pressing war that goaded formerly peacefully inclined nuclear physicists to construct such technologies. With the resultant problems we now face of non-proliferation, cyber command and control, etc.
And the logical extension would then take the form: well the Five Eyes nations or G-7 that represent our democratic allies need to develop the next generation of weaponry. To maintain the balance of power shifted in our favor. And so the policy of "mututally assured annihilation" continues ad infinitum until someone happens on a doomsday apparatus ;)
But it is far from optimal. An optimal solution would be something akin to peaceful equilibrium throughout the planet. With space based deterrents against alien attack. But barring an actual concrete threat in that regard. We lack the foresight and will to make it happen.
Obviously I believe part of the solution is electing more scientists and rational thinkers in positions of power. Which brings us back to square one. How to effectively communicate and "nudge" an outcome that foments optimal solutions.