Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Science On Religion

Home
Religion News
Religion surrounds us

Religion surrounds us

Last updated on: October 15, 2014 at 4:09 pm by Connor Wood

Religion surrounds us 2014-10-15T16:09:03-04:00 Connor Wood

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Connor Wood

I visited the Midwest for a wedding last weekend. With family, I spent one day driving around Lake Pepin – a drop-dead gorgeous wide spot in the Mississippi River between Wisconsin and Minnesota, ringed on all sides by stunning, 200-foot forested bluffs and limestone cliffs. For lunch, we stopped in a café in Lake City, Minnesota, where the service was friendly, the views pleasant, and the gift shop brimming with ornamental crosses, religious inspirational plaques, and illustrated children’s Bible story books. For a Boston resident like me, it was a reminder of how religion functions in the vast majority of settings and cultures around the world: instead of being a side note or addendum to real life, it is life. It permeates the physical and mental environment, setting up a powerful ecology of symbols and ambient reminders of a transcendent worldview. The effects are both sublime and sobering.

In his magnum opus A Secular Age, the Canadian philosopher Charles Taylor argued that, for the vast majority of human history, the religious and the everyday aspects of life were not separate. Quotidian life was permanently infused with sacred symbols, references, and acts. It’s only been in the past 200 years that this total integration of the religious and the secular has begun to break down, and the religious side of things has come to be seen as merely an optional add-on to regular life. For us in the early 21st century – particularly those of us who live in large cities or college towns – it’s almost impossible to understand how profound a shift this has been in human affairs. For us, the secular world is taken for granted – it’s the way things are, at the root level. It’s common sense.

You can see how truly weird (or WEIRD) our viewpoint is when you pay attention to what humanities students call “material culture” – an academese phrase that means “the stuff that we keep around.” Religious and secular cultures are both massively informed by the physical things that characterize their respective environments. And those things are very different. Evangelical American Christian homes are liable to display lots of crosses and inspirational sayings. Observant Catholic households often have iconography and statues of saints. A secular house, meanwhile, might have nonreligious artwork, reminders of personal hobbies, or multicultural travel mementoes.

Or you could just decorate with photos of Lake Pepin.

Of course, I’m generalizing. There’s no one feature that universally characterizes secular settings in the US, other than a probable lack of overt religious symbols. But in any given space, the physical objects, images, and symbols are not only signs of somebody’s personal predilections – they’re engines for the maintenance and continual reinforcement of a particular worldview. Worldviews, after all, don’t just pop fully formed into our minds. Like sand castles, they have to be continually propped up, bolstered, and sculpted back into shape in the wake of tides and time. The things we keep around ourselves are tools for doing exactly this. Hang Islamic calligraphy on every wall, and you’ll be continually prompted to see the world in one way. Fill your walls and hutches with astronomy photos and smiling pictures of Carl Sagan, and you’ll be tacitly reinforcing another view.

It’s not only stuff, either. Actions and habits are also key ingredients in the soup of worldview. Not too long ago, some American housewives would churn butter while singing religious songs. Each song might have verses of predictable lengths, and so you could time your churning according to how long it took to sing, say, eight verses of a particular hymn. But the point of singing these songs in this context wasn’t overtly religious. The point was to churn butter. It just happened to be that the songs were hymns. The result was that religious stories and references were integrated wholly – unnoticed, in fact – with the flow of everyday activity. This wholesale mingling of work and religion enabled a sort of ambient, passive reuptake of religious attitudes and symbols in the course of daily life.

This, I think, is close to how most humans around the world have lived throughout history. Consider the five times-daily call to prayer in Muslim countries: for people haggling in the marketplace, that constant (and beautiful) reminder of the Muslim faith is ambient – it’s just part of the fabric of living. You don’t have to do anything to seek it out. It comes to you. The same thing with little white Congregationalist churches in rural New England towns: the bell ringing the hours each day or tolling out Christmas carols in December is an ambient reminder of a particular culture and tradition. Each peal asks you to step into a unique place in relation to the world – even if you were just minding your business, walking down a country lane.

Cognitive scientists of religion are beginning to attend to this rich religious saturation of everyday life. One writer, Joseph Bulbulia of New Zealand’s Victoria University, describes a “charismatic ecology,” in which signs and symbols are generously scattered throughout the social landscape. These symbols – such as crosses, calligraphy, or bells – serve to activate and strengthen religious commitments, forge cultural unity, and “sync up” people with one another across wide geographical areas. These effects make society easier to coordinate, and to give individuals reassurance that the other people around them are committed to the same basic principles and values.

Of course, a major problem immediately makes itself apparent: a charismatic ecology only works within its own boundaries. For a Christian, the sound of the Muslim call to prayer doesn’t evoke ingroup solidarity or trust or noble sentiments. On the contrary: it seems alien, strange, even dangerous. It can even evoke hostility. Across the world, this unfortunate pattern repeats: different cultures’ symbol ecologies are largely mutually unintelligible. The rich tapestry of symbols that works in one setting seems like arbitrary gibberish in another.

The cosmopolitan dream, which is exemplified by modern academics in cities like Boston or Berkeley, has always been to overcome these incompatibilities – to establish a worldwide sphere of mutual, unconstrained cultural compatibility. Since the 18th century, earnest cosmopolitans have striven to marginalize religious symbol systems in order to accomplish this, because religions are what cleave us apart from one another. What we need, they believe, is a system based on enlightened, objective truths, one which will be equally valid anywhere on earth. Thus, we need a material culture that doesn’t remind us of religious traditions. We need to fill our walls and cities with secular reminders, in order to constantly evoke a universalist worldview that knows no boundaries.

And they’re partially correct. While I was sitting in the Lake City café with my family, our discussion turned to the finer points of Calvinist theology, and also brushed on Hinduism. The café was quiet and our voices carried. Our conversation marked us clearly as outsiders to the American Christianity evoked by the tschotskes around the room. Quickly, I noticed that other patrons had begun casting looks our way – looks that weren’t entirely friendly. Why? We were puncturing the bubble of faith with our highfalutin talk of objective views and foreign religions. What’s more, we were calling attention to the mechanics of faith. This faux pas was like interrupting a young courting couple to explain precisely how their body language signaled their strategic assessments of one another. It was a reminder that some things in human life only work when we don’t pay attention to them. Flirting is one of them. Ambient religion is another. And so when you expose yourself as an outsider in an insular religious setting, you are setting yourself up for a bristling reaction.

As the uncomfortable responses to our lunch conversation demonstrated, the fabric of ambient religion is easily torn, which is why cultures around the world cram themselves chock-full with so many physical and ritual reminders of their beliefs. The sociologist Peter Berger calls this the “sacred canopy:” an all-encompassing tapestry of symbols and stories that informs our understanding of reality, but which is always vulnerable to tearing or fraying. It requires constant vigilance and upkeep. One rip in the fabric – one Hindu Ganesha statuette in a café full of crosses – and the whole canopy starts to unravel. And when you put a hole in someone else’s sacred canopy, that person tends to get angry. A tremendous amount of world history can be understood in light of this simple fact.

Still, there is real comfort and value to be found within intact religious worlds. I felt it when I walked into the café, with its warm, unselfconscious flaunting of a unique culture. I could plainly see it in the middle-aged woman I sat next to on my return flight, a Christian former military officer and rural Minnesotan who spoke glowingly about being born again, about how it had made her less ambitious, less selfish, and more humble. It was lovely just to listen to her. In my experience, acquaintances who are most comfortable simply inhabiting a particular religion are happier and more balanced than those who are always probing and challenging, or who allow others to shred their sacred canopies with foreign symbols or critical suspicion.

I’m not speaking scientifically here. I just mean that there is real good and real bad to be found in religious culture. It crafts meaning and it alienates the outsider. It builds comfortable rapport within its boundaries and sets limits on who’s in and who’s out. This paradox is not neatly resolvable. It’s a genuine incompatibility, an irksome but fascinating example of the immortal tension between the universal and the particular. And I’m done trying to have it one way or another. I’ll just keep being frustrated and dazzled – equally – by the whole shebang.

______

Note: It’s conference season, which means I’m busy preparing presentations and collecting data and staying up late nights running statistics and drinking a lot of coffee. I won’t be posting every week like usual for at least another month. Thanks for being patient.

Editorial

Ideology and religion

Modern culture and religion

Previous Post

October 2, 2014

Sex, the cuddle chemical, and religion

Next Post

October 29, 2014 Theology: It matters.

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Cognitive Science of Religion Costly investment theory Cultural psychology Editorial Evolution Evolution of Religion Evolution of religion series Evolutionary psychology Ideology and religion Modeling Religion Project Modern culture and religion Most Popular Practice of science Religion and education Religion and ethics Religion and health Religion and perception Religion and prejudice Religious violence Religious ways of thinking Science and religion Scientific study of religion Secularization Spirituality Uncategorized

Select a Month July 2022 February 2022 December 2021 October 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 September 2016 August 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who was Moses' wife?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Leah Zipporah Rachel Miriam