religion as lifestyle

Maybe the reason I'm so bummed about getting older is because our culture is so disposable. You get the feeling sometimes that everything that matters to you has now been declared irrelevant, because the march of trendy fashions has moved on and you left the parade.

I think one of the strongest things that attracts people to religion is the idea of ancient traditions that buck the trend of constant change. The idea that you are thinking thoughts similar (if not identical) to those of your great-great-great-grandfather, sitting in the same pew, hearing the same songs and sentiments -- it's very comforting. Sharing that feeling with a whole community, bigger than your immediate family (who you are of course perpetually annoyed and disappointed with) -- this satisfies a strong craving that seems deeply wired into our subconscious.

When we're younger, there's a similar feeling but it's focused on newness, on defining our generation. New music, new styles, new modes of thought -- we share them with each other, but our parents are shut out. I think that's fine, but it shouldn't mean the other pull -- for continuity, tradition, sense of connection with other generations past and present -- should go by the wayside.

Maybe this is something the "atheist jihad" types don't really understand. Most people feel compelled to practice their faith even when elements of it are obviously intellecutally difficult to defend. Science itself has a long and venerable tradition, and thinking about it, most of my friends who would be categorized as hard-core secularists do in fact have a connection to a tradition -- the tradition of intellecutal pursuit, usually in an academic setting. They are comforted to walk the paths of Harvard, Oxford or Princeton, thinking of the great tradition of intellectual achievement that has gone on there before their time. And of course the celebration of rational discourse and scientific method goes back farther than modern history, to the ancient Greeks, and the 'classical tradition' that was discovered and reanimated in the renaissance. (or something like that, I'm no historian...)

I think this is why the strong-arm approach of the likes of Dennet, Dawkins, Hitchens, and Sam Harris sounds so tone-deaf to me. They argue that even moderate religion is an 'enabler' of fundamentalist thought, because the culture of tolerance keeps moderates from criticizing their less moderate peers. There is some truth in this, but it's not something "wrong with religion", it's a simple moral failing of those particular people.

What *is* 'wrong with religion' (at least some religion) in my mind is that the desire for community and tradition is bound up with ideology and ancient, rationally unsupportable ideas that no longer serve their original purpose. Examples are easy to come by -- sexist and racist attitudes; irrational, unscientific dogma; and an unwholesome attitude of "our people are special, and everyone else is not blessed by our God".

Is it possible to save some of these traditions while jettisoning the parts that don't make sense, and actually cause strife in the world? I'm not sure. Seems like it would be a good thing.

Another approach might be to develop new traditions, that have some familiarity with the old, but are based on ideas that are in sync with what we now know about the world, and with the idea of a global civilization that needs to be at peace, even if it's not a single, uniform one-size-fits-all culture. For that to happen, there will need to be some common agreement on certain moral codes -- it can't be complete moral relativism. That's the failing of extreme liberal secular humanism -- the political correctness of never criticizing anyone's beliefs or values. Some traditions and values can stay, but some just have to go, as painful as that may be to those who wish to hold on to them.

It might seem naive to think this could happen, and I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime. However I've noticed that people can often change their allegiance to a new set of traditions and values, *if* they have a compelling reason to do so (such as being in love with someone where adoption of a new tradition is necessary to live in harmony with the extended family).

I once met a lady on a plane who was "shopping for a new religion" (her words, not mine). I think she was Lutheran and her husband was Catholic (or something like that), and they were trying out various churches in their new neighborhood -- Methodist, Presbyterian etc. (by new religion she really meant 'new sect of Christianity'). What struck me was how easily she contemplated the change -- as if it were like choosing a school for her kids, or a new place to shop. I was amused to think of all the saints and martyrs turning in their graves over her easy ability to be blissfully unconcerned about the various doctrinal differences that must have been so deeply divisive way back when, causing schisms, inquisitions, murder and mayhem. But then I thought well, she's not a theologian -- it just doesn't matter to her precisely what her Church believes, because she's not interested in doctrine. For her, it was a social choice -- who her friends would be, who she would be associating with. It occured to me that most people probably treat religion that way -- not as a strict dogma, but as a lifestyle choice.

I actually think that's a good thing.