In modern times, what's new is good, and what's old is bad. At least, this is very much the case in the secularized West. How has this philosophy come about?

Technology is partially to blame. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a luddite. I have my Bachelors of Information Systems & Human Behavior degree, and I might experience withdrawl should I be forced to go without Internet access for an extended period of time. However, I recognize that the pace of technological advancement has accelerated rapidly in the last century. It's not quite true that computer equipment is obsolete as soon as it hits store shelves, but that's not too far off, either. Technology has become a huge part of most people's lives, and when it comes to technology, there's little argument that newer is better, and this attitude toward technology has (in part) contributed to the idea that what is old is bad.

While in previous cultures tradition and history were highly valued, this is becoming less and less the case in modern culture. "Who cares about the past? We're living for tomorrow!" is a popular (if unspoken) attitude. There's nothing wrong with looking forward to the future, but we have become historical amnesiacs and ignore our past at our own peril.

What relevance is this to faith? Only this: The Bible is an old book. The New Testament was written nearly 2,000 years ago, and the Old Testament is even older than that. (The fact it's got "Old" right in its name doesn't help either.) So is this one reason why some people in the west seem less interested in faith? Could "newness" be a possible reason why some modern religions like Scientology are relatively popular, despite their untenability? Examine your own thinking … has this sort of "old is bad" mentality crept into your own life philosophy?

(BTW, for good arguments not to give credence to Scientology see Xenu.net … or view the South Park Scientology episode on YouTube … yes, it's accurate.)