The science of nutrition is a fairly new science. You have dietitians who recommend meat, you have dietitians that abhor it. There are those who look at sugar as poison, there are those who think 'natural' sugar is ok. There are those who think eggs are healthy, there are those who think the cholesterol in eggs is in a dangerous dose. Basically, no clear consensus.
Not only is there much disagreement over issues of health foods, but many argue over foods that we really don't understand. What do I mean? Well as nutritional science gets more and more precise, we are breaking down the elements of nutrition into finer parts, finding new 'benefits' to certain foods. It went from the basic 'protein, carbs, fat and fiber' to several different amino acids, a bunch of ___ose's (ose being the suffix for carbs), trans fats, saturated, polyunsaturated fats, etc.
Take bioflavonoids for example - it's a relatively new concept in nutrition, changing the way we look at fruits and vegetables. Many intuitively think of veggies and fruits as healthy, they don't need to hear about the presence of some sort of chemical compound to get them to understand the health benefits. Another example: I subscribe to Runner's World magazine and they have a column on nutrition in which every month showcase another 'wonder' food. One month it said how cinnamon is great for runners due to its anti-inflammatory properties. Another week it was turmeric. If I tallied all the foods they've showcased over the years, it would probably include most of the foods I already am eating.
Let me be clear: I am not against the search for these nutritional elements - in fact I applaud such efforts. It's just when people get caught up in the roller-coaster ride of nutritional science that some people get a bit sick.
So what is my point? And what has this got to do with religion?
Ok, so as a bit of a health nut, I find that the only way to navigate this nutritional data is to have an overarching philosophy, one that can withstand the daily ups and downs of nutritional science. My personal philosophy is that we should eat as naturally as possible. I won't go into too much detail about my particular philosophy; that is a story for another day. But basically, picking a philosophy (and sticking with it) will allow one to filter through the constant bombardment of nutritional studies, many of which contradict each other. Over time, however, one is expected to make adjustments to his or her dietary plan, based on the prevailing science. BUT that same overarching philosophy stays the same, unless there is a reason to believe the philosophy was ill-conceived.
Imagine a tree in a hurricane: It is the tree with strong roots and flexible limbs that survives. The philosophy that can maintain its roots while slowly swaying with prevailing science is the one that will survive the test of time. NOTE: I am not commenting of a particular philosophy, but rather on how to approach it.
The same thing applies to religion. Without commenting on the validity of a particular religion (just like I refrained from commenting on a particular nutritional philosophy) the religion that lasts is the one that has strong roots, yet can change with the winds of time. If a religion is being approached in a very traditionalist and rigid manner, it will eventually get swept up in a sea of change - as no one can live in a bubble forever. If a religion is being approached with weak roots, it will have the same fate as well - except the reason being a inundating flood of change.
Strong roots and flexible limbs. That is the key. In religious circles, some call it contradictory, some call it controversial - I just prefer modern orthodoxy.
