From: dsoconne@quads.uchicago.edu (Daniel S OConnell)
Subject: Re: Why People Join A Community of Faith
Keywords: Death, Life, Community, Atheists, The Religious Moment
Reply-To: dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:26:17 GMT

pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) queries:

>In article <1992Dec17.030104.1767@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>dsoconne@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>pharvey@quack.sac.ca.us (Paul Harvey) calls me on an important question:
>>>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.
>
>I find this very interesting. What you are describing is culture or
>family or tribe, is it not? Are the majority of people so disconnected
>from each other today that religion is required to bring them together?

Family or tribe? Perhaps. Yes, I think the majority of people feel
"disconnected"; i.e., estranged. Kinship groups, families (of various
stripes), help people make sense out of the world, and provide
a socialization that allows people to feel a connection with others.

Certainly the radical privatization of the 1980s has helped this
trend; there doesn't seem to be much of the "public" life anymore.
A peer group or group of individuals who come together to form
a common association serves a variety of needs.

I would say that religion isn't contingent upon forming a community;
but a `belief system', even if it is as simple as respect for others
in one's continuing search to the meanderings on route to the big
Questions, is helpful.

Obviously, some people feel so disconnected from "public life", that
they feel only a reactionary approach is possible: hence, the
fundamentalists.

>Are the only group rituals of significance today religious?

Any group ritual that has `ultimate' significance will have an
element of the religious.

>Is this something that atheists are missing?

No, because atheists (like anyone else) can have epiphanies, can
have religious moments, without a theistic perspective. Religion
is not required to have a religious experience.

>And, speaking of journeys we make alone, of course each of us dies
>alone, it is the one heroic act we all get to partake in, alone. Is
>it fear of this one solitary journey that encourages people to join
>religious groups, under the illusion that the whole group will pass
>through as a group and not as individuals?

I don't think so. Death as one of the big questions might fit into
it certainly. The fact is, though that Death merely provides (inter
alia) the motivation to ask the Questions and get on with it.

As you have correctly noted, Death is one journey we all take alone;
however, Life is a journey we all take alone also. There may be
other people on the journey with us; and that can help provide
a `reality check'; but ultimately there are things only an individual
knows.

How can I communicate the fullness, the ineffableness of who I am?
To really tell you who I am would require that you live my life as
I have. This is of course, impossible, which sets up the essential,
and the existential estrangement that is an inextricable part of
the `loan' of life. The formation of community, particularly one
formed around the `religious' questions is an attempt to find 
some solace with other sojourners who are on similar journeys.

>Is a religious group a substitute family, where instead of
>a domineering father who forces the family together despite personality
>differences, one has a domineering God image instead, performing the
>same role?

It could be, but as you point out, this could be trading one
dysfunctional family for another; perhaps a certain amount of 
this is inevitable as we all have some urge to work out the
conflicts of our childhood in our adult life. But, this needn't
be the model to follow.

One difference here, is that we don't get to choose our biological
family; we do get to determine who we will spend our lives with
(to some degree).

>And, does a religious group make one "fully human and not
>living in a vacuum," or is it only an illusion? Why is this
>sounding like Bradshaw's dysfunctional family?

Because one cannot be fully human as a completely isolated person.
We are social creatures, and although a dysfunctional family may be
normative, it needn't be the aim.

Dano