We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue. I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
Religious diversity is widespread today and it is often appealed to as a sufficient reason to not be committed to any one faith. What do you think of this position?
15 comments:
Our culture pushes us in the direction of “pick and choose,” yes. I think the exposure to so many different religions causes people to treat faith as they would anything else they’re being marketed. The choices are overwhelming, so why choose? This is also evident in the trend away from marriage and toward cohabitation and the idea of partnership. I think the trend of thinking is, why be committed to any one person in marriage( or God in religion), possibly missing out on another spiritual or relational experience that would fulfill me later on? I think this trend of thinking traps people in a self-centered limbo. Nothing is gained because nothing is sacrificed or risked.
Erin,
Thanks. I think your cultural analysis is insightful. A couple of questions come to mind. Does your portrayal of the overwhelming character of the choices being marketed "so why choose," actually result in a choice? Considering the lack of commitment for certain beliefs, that you so rightly point out, not just become a commitment to others? In other words, I'm wondering if you think that certain non-choices and non-commitments are not in the end what they appear because there are other choices and commitments that are already in place?
I understand that people struggle, when they can not grab/hold a position (and sometimes/often the diversity leads to contradictions).
And a lot of diversity causes hate and pain. (But maybe this is more caused by man than by the diversity?) Once you suffered here, it will not be easy to overcome these feelings and regain trust.
Others might just use it as an apology. (And it seems to be a good one.)
Hi Greg!
I guess what I'm saying after considering your follow-up questions, is that there seems to be a cultural habit of choosing in the moment, based upon the feelings in the moment. We are so good at keeping the options open to change the mind at the last minute if the feelings change at the last minute. There is a choice, but the choice seems to be quickly abadonded if feelings fade. The current cultural choice, then, seems to be based upon ourselves, our feelings, above all else. We are too often our own gods, and our personal happiness is our religion.
Lukas,
Thanks. I wonder though if not grabbing hold of one position is grabbing hold of another.
Hi Erin,
Good responses. Commitment phobia indeed has a high profile in our culture - being committed to being un-committed. So true, that feelings reign and are almost never considered to be possibly deceptive.
Is there any neutrality (and not only for decision or grabbing...)?
Lukas,
No, I would wager there's no neutrality. If God is not neutral, I don't assume any one else could be. That's of course, an old Enlightenment-modernist, rhetorical construct that amounts to illusion.
I do think that we can take distance from the positions we hold and the presuppositions we have, but we can never not belong to a set of beliefs - whether we're aware of them or not.
I think it's typical of a popular eclectic sentiment. So while the non-committal might be our particular cultural expression, the eclecticism itself has a strong cross-cultural allure that is going to find some cultural expression as long as diversity is present. What I more specifically notice is that religious diversity is appealed to as sufficient reason to reject exclusivity, and that if we don't look too closely (despite claiming we need to simply look deeper), we'll find them ultimately compatible. Our non-committal is part of our own religious expression; ironically since I think it's embedded in a narcissism that I believe is one of the few consensuses that the religious traditions are unified against. As for eclecticism itself, it tells me they probably don't have much in way of familiarity with the various theologies of the traditions; however, I'm not sure a theological acuity is necessarily a good thing.
Joshua,
Thanks. Yes, I agree with this. One of the things I think about though is that this seems to often be a religious matter in a somewhat isolated way.
Here's what I mean. It looks to me like people are pretty willing to line up with a political, social, and economic viewpoint in the midst of a diversity of options, but when it comes to religion, somehow it's different.
Am I off on this? What do you think?
If any of you following the comments so far would like to respond to this, I'd love it.
I completely agree with that with qualification. While I think they're willing to line up on other issues, I'm not sure how much "holding an opinion" signifies a commitment. Also, I'm not comfortable with the contemporary category or conceptions of religion. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you agree on both those points.
But within this contemporary schemata, there's a conformity dynamic paradox. Of utmost concern is people asking, "is this normal",
In lieu of the "individual and diversity" self-description, we find a drive that results in sameness. Sometimes this is good, many people will conform to respectable behaviors and viewpoints merely cause they don't want to be stigmatized. Whether these are normal may be besides the point of the discussion they should be having, but it's better than not engaging in those activities or avoiding others. On the other hand, it can lead to what can only be described as suffocating.
The viewpoints allowed are only within a narrow spectrum, despite being untenable with the slightest degree informedness. So if say one held a valid enough economic viewpoint to have been able to of predicted the housing bubble, then I'm willing to lay down money they hold an economic viewpoint that carries with it a marginalizing stigma tag. Indeed after the fact, their economic solutions are all but ignored in favor of a "diversity" of solutions offered by sides that have established creditability, and in which people align themselves and their viewpoints.
So I think religious matters are treated in an isolated fashion, but in this conformity context. One that has also legitimatized narcissism to a point, which is antagonistic to religious devoutness. And as to the question of why it is isolated, I approach that question from a quasi-historical/sociological viewpoint that probably isn't the best, in that it's only peripherally practically minded.
As for religious matters, the word that pops to mind is schizophrenic. Particular which the term Christianity is used, people are trained to revert to defunct arguments that are predicated on assumptions that if clearly stated would be rejected out of hand (due to not being in fashion).
But in the broader backdrop of what constitutes "religion" beyond the more modern category, there is a cluster of assumed values and secularized practices that perhaps should be reinterpreted as a particular religious expression in opposition to traditional religiosity. And in that bag is "tolerance", "respect", openness, liberal neutrality, even if superficially adhered to. And at the superficial level, religion symbolically represents opposition to it. And so taking a stand with religion risks I think being alienated from the status quo. Within the schemata, holding to traditional religion means taking a stand against for instance the ideology within the political schemata. It rubs against the "good" economics of that sphere.
Junk, I lost a huge previous post. But what I got at was I completely agree with qualifications that I believe you do as well. So that rather than diversity, there's a conformity paradox. The main qualifications were to the dominant category or conceptions of what is religion and that holding an opinion signifies commitment.
So that even within other areas, such as politics or economics, one's only allowed a viewpoint within a narrow spectrum. For instance I'd be willing to bet that if an economist predicted the housing bubble, they'd have a viewpoint with a stigmatizing label attached, and in the diversity of solutions that being align themselves with, it's still within a credited, recognized circle who are blind-sided by consequences.
People strive toward normality, and one of the frequently asked questions especially with youngsters is "is this normal?". While this can be good, even if besides the point in discussion, it can lead to people appropriating respectable behaviors and viewpoints while rejecting others purely from the desire to not be stigmatized. Even if among those who revolt against oppressive, suffocating tendencies, there's an ironic standard of conformity by which their revolt is judged.
So I don't think you're off on that at all. But I'd frame it in such a way that questions our contemporary schemata of religion, while connecting with issues like narcissism which similarly counteract religious commitment.
Joshua,
One huge post come through and then another after it saying you lost it??
Good. Yes, for sure there are lots of features that come into play, including hedonism and narcissism. Religion tends to become an issue where diversity is an excuse to follow the cultural osmosis, when many of those in this category would take a clear position on several other issues that are just as diverse.
Well, the first post (which didn't make it) was a longer expounding of the second (which did); but I think you summarized perfectly what I was trying to say in both posts with that last sentence.
Post a Comment