From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Followup-To: talk.religion.misc
Summary: Because People Need People
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Center for Re-iterative Studies Studies Studies Studies Studies
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 03:01:04 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) calls me on an important question:

>In article <1992Dec12.053417.15150@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>I would argue that anyone who opines that people join religious
>>movements in order to "explain the origins of the universe"
>>simply does not understand why people DO join religious
>>movements.
>>In that case, it is no wonder such people are taken by surprise.
>
>Hmm. Certainly in the past one of the prime functions of religions was
>to explain the mysteries of the earth, like the sun, moon, seasons,
>triple Goddess, etc. In the present, science has assumed that function.

Yes, I agree. I do not agree that people join religious movements
in order to provide alternative explanations to science, however.

It may be useful to recall that religion does not make sense outside
of a social context; indeed, I would argue people cannot be whole
without involvement with other people. 

If "primitive" religions started as a vehicle for people to come
together in order to confront the `Vast Mystery', and to attempt
explanations, I think it is important to realize the various
components: i.e., that they came together in order to try and
make sense of the `mysterium tremendum', the `mysterium fascinans'
in which they found themselves living.

The seemingly awe-inspiring sight of lightning, thunder, volcanoes,
day & night, the stars in the sky, etc. But, they came together.
Let us not forget also, that it was religous men (ouch! patriarchy!)
who `started' science: the need to know with some degree of confidence,
the need to `make' meaning has always been at the heart of the
religious quest.

The question becomes: Okay, well, that might have been all they
could muster in say 2,000 B.C.E., but we have Science now, we
don't need religion. . .

We are also grasped with the knowledge that part of the indescribable
joy of life also lies in the `irrational', or `trans-rational'. Does
a painting lend itself to scientific inquiry as far as aesthetics?
Does music? Does any art, finally rely on a completely rational/
empirical view?

Of course not. Do we live for other than technology? Will there
always be something new to learn? Will there always be something
unexplainable in our lives? Will there always be a need for
creativity? A need to look beyond present explanations of 
reality? Will people always and forever continue to attempt to
find meaning in a seemingly chaotic world?

I hope so.  Hence the need for religion. I believe one can be
an atheist AND have religion (I have posted on that before).

>And we are also somewhat
>comforted by ideas like: there is no cure for AIDS now, but scientists
>are working on it.

So they are, and so they should be. But we need something more
than that to comfort friends who are dying. 

>So, in your opinion, why do people join religious movements  today?

I think they join for two reasons: one is that most of us know
we are alive, and that we have to die; it is important to be able
to make meaning in our lives, in order to provide the fullest
life we are capable of, not only for ourselves, but for those
we care about and those who care about us. 

People join a community of faith in order to not make that
journey alone; to learn from other's lessons, to gain new
perspectives: to be part of something larger than themselves.

A community of faith, unlike say USENET, requires people to
go out of their way to physically meet, to confront, to accept
each other with all that that implies, in order to be fully
human, in order not to live in a vacuum.

Dano
Xref: sparky alt.atheism:23776 alt.atheism.moderated:474 news.answers:4588