Tradition vs. adaptation in religion -

[AnimeGirlConnoisseur]

Is it better for a religion to remain the same over time or to change and adapt as times change?

Allow me to explain where I coming from: The way I see it the important part of religion isn't the mythology or what it permits or forbids, but how it shapes a society. The real purpose of religion is to propagate ideas that help a group of people succeed., whether that be a community or a nation. Examples of these ideas include the creation of nuclear families (sexual promiscuity bad; marriage good) and creation of a civil society (Thou shall not kill; Thou shall not steal). Nuclear families are good, because that is the best way to create more well-adjusted people who can improve the status of their group (fight in wars or contribute to the group's economic output) and a civil society is good, because it makes people happy and promotes economic activity (stable countries with low crime rates and rule of law are more productive and better to live in than unstable countries without those things, even if the latter group has more natural resources to extract). All of this (under ideal circumstances) creates a virtuous cycle where a group of people (community/nation) grows stronger alongside their religion. As a group gains strength, whether that be in the form of economic out put or military strength, they become more capable of defending themselves and by extension their faith. The best way to summarize this is something that someone told me once "People think that you work for God and in turn God protects you, when in actuality it's the other way around: God works you and and you protect God".

So now that that is out of the way, how should a religion best achieve these goals within the context of tradition and change? When is it good for a religion to change? What aspects are acceptable to change and under what circumstances (if any)? Who should make these decisions?

I personally believe that the two extremes in this situation should be avoided. There are some aspects of certain religions that no longer serve their original purpose, while on the other hand there are some religions that have adapted to the modern world and have disconnected themselves from their purpose.

 

[The Last Stand]

If a religion would advocate genocidal habits towards its believers, it would need a massive change.

 

[Tim Buckley]

You know what religion and homosexuality have in common?

They're both natural and fucking gay.

Also it would be better if they didn't exist.

 

[Jewthulhu]

I feel that historical precedent has show change and the abandonment of tradition to ultimately be a bad thing. Look at the gross oversimplification of religion and blatant degeneracy in Protestantism. Look at the lackadaisical approach to morality and doctrine Catholicism took after the second Vatican council. You could even point to issues in historical Catholicism caused by its changes to the church doctrine.
t. Reactionary Orthodox sperg

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

In a sense I'm not sure it matters about how it affects society. It seems to me that the important thing in a religion is that it be true, not that it be useful. For example, prayer might not seem to have any obvious benefit, but it might be the right thing to do anyway just because God wants it to happen. But I know what you mean.

Religions that never adapt AT ALL run the risk of not being able to communicate with the larger world. I'm always a little nervous about people who object to Mass in native language, or people who don't like translating the Koran out of Arabic. That just seems like it shuts people out for no good reason.

However. The problem with changing with the spirit of the age is that sometimes the spirit of the age is retarded. See: Current trannymania.

Or to take another more concrete and also less retarded example. Scientists long believed that the physical universe is static. That seemed to be the case based on the best available information. Those religions that believed the universe had a definitive beginning would have been considered unscientific. But more recently, it seems that the physical universe DID have a specific beginning. My point is not to say "religion was right hurr hurr hurr", just that we should always be a little wary of bowing to conventional wisdom, because sometimes it turns out to be wrong.

Sometimes it's not even about changing with the times. Sometimes it's having the freedom to going back to the source. It can be dangerous to depend on inflexible tradition because you can actually cause problems within your own religion. Take having women clergy in Christianity. Protestants have the liberty to go back to the source and say "yeah, we fucked up, turns out we actually should have ordained women all along". Catholics and Orthodox have a much harder time with that, even if it's the right thing to do.

So how do you decide what's negotiable, and who should make those decisions? Depends entirely on the religion. They all have their own authority structures and core doctrines. I'm not sure you can come up with a one size fits all approach or even a heuristic.

 

[Shoggoth]

There's a difference between adaptation and compromise. To adapt is merely to react to a change in circumstances. some do so by compromising, some do so by sticking even harder to their core precepts (fundamentalism).
The problem arises from the question of any organization's purpose and point for being. As long as an understanding of what point traditions, mechanisms and practices serve is preserved, there's no problem adapting them in order to better maintain that idea. When it's lost to tradition and mysticism, however, you're basically carrying the corpse of your ancestors on your back and have only the choice of staying burdened by it or to abandon it and lose purpose entirely.

 

[???]

If you look at religion as a collection of heuristics honed over time then it does change and evolve on it's own, without any need for our input. The sects that survive are the ones with best adapted beliefs, even if it isn't apparent how those beliefs are useful regardless of their truth.

That said, it seems like a good idea to have a formal mechanism for dealing with intra-religious disputes, to resolve ambiguities in religious texts and commentaries, and to judge the correctness and other traits of new revelations (both current and recently uncovered historical ones, like ancient texts). As long as it's not highly centralized and therefore easily corrupted, and you have a means of recognizing religious authority of distant churches, it should work out.

Along with that, you should differentiate between commands that are universal (apply to all people, all the time) and particular (apply only to a specific people or in a specific time/circumstance). A command to avoid buttsex should be universal because it's an ideal way to spread disease, while a command to love thy neighbors should be particular based on proximity in space and perhaps shared religion and blood.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

The answer is obvious, Religion needs to adapt because the world changes in a way that could not be thought when it was first created. For example punishment for crimes can be more lenient rather than outright death/mutilation.
But there is a point where the religion loses its identity if it tries to appeal to everyone (which is my main argument against reform judiasm and modern catholicism).

 

[Michael Dummett]

If something is an eternal Truth, why should it adapt to temporal mores? Granted, sometimes the means can adapt to the age that it exists in, but if you change the Truth based on modern whims, then it isn't exactly an eternal Truth is it? That's the thing about religions: they don't propose themselves to be various truths that all may agree on somethings and use those to unify with one another. They see themselves as THE TRUTH. If you are willing to compromise on something that defines you and your mores and you see as the ultimate truth of reality, then you probably wouldn't follow it in the first place (or at least follow it stringently or put an effort into following it). If you start with religion just being social glue (which is one aspect of it definitely), then you probably won't see it the way I as a Traditional Catholic does, or a Theravada Buddhist monk does or a Alawite imam does and say that it needs to change in order to convene perfectly with society. Except that's not how religious people think of their faith at all.

 

[murdered meat bag]

Any serious religion is going to have its dogma and its theologumenon. A religion that changes with the times is so groundless it might as well be made up. How religion defines its worldview mustn't change, the applications of that worldview can change.