In my ever so humble opinion, this article on religion in the Muncie Star Press is a jumble of vague language. I suspect the author is capable enough but is dancing around some uncomfortable truths.

The article says that Americans are “less dogmatic” about religious beliefs than they used to be but that might not be the case in Muncie.

[I]n Muncie, where Christian attitudes are dominant with limited voices from other religions, the path to eternal life continues to be in traditional beliefs.

Oh, so Catholicism? That’s pretty traditional – not like that Johnny-come-lately rabble rouser, Martin Luther. And don’t get me started on that radical John Calvin. Talk about your non-traditional iconoclasts. But, we don’t really get a hint from the article about what constitutes “tradition.”

Another winning passage:

Charlotte Overmeyer, associate pastor of High Street United Methodist Church, agrees with the importance of learning about other faiths and though she stands strong in her Christian beliefs and that path for eternal life, she doesn’t find harm in discussions alternative faiths. In fact, she, like some other religious leaders, would like to see more religious diversity in Muncie.

“Diversity is kind of exciting to me, to meet people of other faiths,” she said. “Can I listen to other people? Can I explore what other people believe? I’m not threatened by that. I’m glad for the discussion.”

I’m completely thrown by the phrase “that path for eternal life.” Which path to eternal life is that? Adherence to Methodist teachings? And what of those people of diverse faith? Are they off the path? And, if so, are they just on the planet to provide exciting discussions for true believers before they go to hell?

As to the central point of diversity, I think a certain degree of self-righteousness has to be built into the DNA of any religion, otherwise it doesn’t survive through the ages. I’ve found the notion of memetics to be helpful in thinking about religions and their component beliefs. With memetics, religions and other ideas act in many respects like independent organisms; using people as sort of hosts that assist in replication. Like any other organism, religions have to look out for their own integrity so they can be replicated from host to host in substantially the same form. A successful religion pretty much has to have a mechanism for rejecting foreign invaders — like white blood cells in the human body, equipped to destroy pathogens.

If a religion, as an organism, doesn’t have mechanisms built in to ensure replication in substantially its original form, it will dissipate and cease to exist in a recognizable form. Consequently, a successful religion is not likely to hold as a central tenet that any old religion will get you to heaven. There would be no impetus for people to pass the religion to other people intact. A religion that specifies that its adherents are going to heaven and adherents of other religions are going to hell has a competitive advantage in the ecosystem of ideas — up to a point. Once competing adherents start killing each other off, the religions start losing overall adherents. Sort of like when the white blood cells in the body get out of control, causing more problems than they’re solving.