I can understand your frustrations and offense to the LOST finale. I think my reaction is a little different than your own. On this blog, I wear my academic hat (for the most part). I’m not attacking anyone who says that “there is more than one way to God.” That is a different angle on the investigation of religion. I’m not sure what LOST is doing with the idea of the divine. Here I am interested less with where all religions believe “we are going” after death and more with the importance of distinctions between religious traditions. I am pointing out that grouping all these religions together flattens them all out and creates something that no person from any of these traditions could really embrace. In other words, I’m more interested in the social implications here than the theological ones — except for those theological implications which are connected to the social distinctions.

Also, I disagree with this statement: “The Church of Hodge Podge doesn’t require thinking and understanding. It is all about what make me feel good.” There is some element of choosing the religious ideas which bring the most comfort, but I wouldn’t write off people who go this route as lacking “thinking and understanding” in their formation of religious/spiritual identity. In fact, many of them would say the same for followers of traditional religions. I don’t think that’s a helpful remark on either side.

But secondly, and more importantly, regarding syncretism, I think you have a point. Each religious tradition is, of course, not a single, monolithic thing. Religion adapts and transforms over time based upon various contextual factors. Scholars of religion and religious leaders today need to consider their own context of globalized religious ideas and how that affects religious identity in our own time. The situation today is fundamentally a different thing than the sorts of adaptations and diverse manifestations of particular religious traditions over time. Each religion, of course, has the definition given to it by the educated elites who eventually define its boundaries. At the same time, popular religious practice inevitably combines the prevailing ideology and practices of their own time and place, often unconsciously, into their more “established” religious identity. In other words, there has always been some sort of blend, even if that blend has been given general contours and guidelines by religious leaders.

The issue today is that people (especially those in the West) are disenchanted by the religious traditions with which they are most familiar (for those in the West, often Christianity, perhaps fundamentalism or even nominal Catholicisim). They seek to find meaning in a blend of religious ideas. The thing is, these are people who usually know they are gathering a variety of religious ideas and picking which ones “work for them” the best. This is a different cultural phenomenon than the long term evolution of a particular religious community. I have found, too, that this religious blend is typically more focused on the gathering of appealing religious ideas more than defining ritual practices and/or communities.

Still, though, it is an important point that needs serious consideration. We cannot pretend that religious “traditions” are “pure” and thus cannot be “contaminated” by contemporary ideas.