I think all cities benefit from some kind of commonly shared activity: a festival or a carnival, a public concert, or an art show. Something that has very broad appeal. It seems to me what you are saying is that churches fulfill that need in communities (often by default) and therefore should be kept and/or celebrated.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of garbage that comes with the church community, namely religion. It seems a much better investment would be in actual culture (see above examples: art, music, games, etc...). If we stop accepting churches as default community centers, other more profitable (culture-wise) avenues will be explored.
I think this is a good idea. I’m not saying that churches should be celebrated, more that the need they fulfill should be recognized. It’s simplistic to say “people who’ve lost religion don’t have anything to replace it” but that’s the feeling I have, although I’m sure what’s actually happening is more complex and subtle.
Hmm, I agree that many people want a support-group to help get through the bad-times and help celebrate the good times, and I can see the echo of tribalism in that. so perhaps we are reaching for a form of tribalism that is no longer an inherent part of our current “melting pot” society.
We try to form supportive communities of one type or another—whether through friends we met at school, or some other tribe we identify with. Not many of these modern communities are as close-knit as the original tribe, but church is one with a strong world-view—extremely strong opinions including supportive, normative belief-systems—thus people that want a strong social network will often gravitate towards church—or cults… don’t forget them as supportive societies full of positive-reinforcement thinking.
It’s fairly well established (AFAIK) that people without friends or support networks are not as happy as those that are well-integrated into their own society. So yes, I can even see that people without a social network would seem less happy. In a highly-religious neighbourhood, I can easily see that the social pariahs (ie the atheists) would be unhappy. As would any “outgroup” be if they were forced between choosing to abandon their own strongly-held beliefs… or being alone.
Think what it would feel like to you to be the only Christian in an all-atheist community. You would be alone, with the only people as friends unsupportive of your views. You would probably seem unhappy too.
Thus I do not think it correct to draw the conclusion that religious == happy and atheist == unhappy. I think it’s better for you to realise that “person with friends == happy” and “person with no friends == unhappy” the “religion” part is entirely orthogonal to the question here.
but “make person with no friend believe what I believe just to fit in” won’t work either, if that person is a rationalist. “everybody local to me believes X” is not sufficient evidence for a belief…
though it might be sufficient reason to pretend to a belief in order to enjoy the benefits of the in-group… but that’s another issue.
Is there a Unitarian Universalist congregation in your community? Pentacostalists can be more fun than UUs, but it’s something. (I don’t know where you live; I believe that UUs as such only exist in North America, but hopefully there’s something similar wherever you are.)
My parents took us to a Unitarian Universalist church when I was growing up. I remember it being pretty boring. Then again, I had the attention span of the usual 7-year-old, so it might be worth going back.
As it happens, I was at a U-U service yesterday morning for the dedication of a friend’s child, and was reasonably pleased with it.
One thing I liked about it was the emphasis on community and mutual support and mutual attentiveness, and on being welcoming to whoever happened to be present regardless of their religious affiliation or lack of it.
But it wasn’t the most fun morning I’ve ever spent, certainly.
If you go, I predict that it’ll be more boring than the Pentacostalist church, but less boring than it was when you were 7. (In case there’s more than one in your area, they can also vary considerably.)
I think all cities benefit from some kind of commonly shared activity: a festival or a carnival, a public concert, or an art show. Something that has very broad appeal. It seems to me what you are saying is that churches fulfill that need in communities (often by default) and therefore should be kept and/or celebrated.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of garbage that comes with the church community, namely religion. It seems a much better investment would be in actual culture (see above examples: art, music, games, etc...). If we stop accepting churches as default community centers, other more profitable (culture-wise) avenues will be explored.
I think this is a good idea. I’m not saying that churches should be celebrated, more that the need they fulfill should be recognized. It’s simplistic to say “people who’ve lost religion don’t have anything to replace it” but that’s the feeling I have, although I’m sure what’s actually happening is more complex and subtle.
Hmm, I agree that many people want a support-group to help get through the bad-times and help celebrate the good times, and I can see the echo of tribalism in that. so perhaps we are reaching for a form of tribalism that is no longer an inherent part of our current “melting pot” society.
We try to form supportive communities of one type or another—whether through friends we met at school, or some other tribe we identify with. Not many of these modern communities are as close-knit as the original tribe, but church is one with a strong world-view—extremely strong opinions including supportive, normative belief-systems—thus people that want a strong social network will often gravitate towards church—or cults… don’t forget them as supportive societies full of positive-reinforcement thinking.
It’s fairly well established (AFAIK) that people without friends or support networks are not as happy as those that are well-integrated into their own society. So yes, I can even see that people without a social network would seem less happy. In a highly-religious neighbourhood, I can easily see that the social pariahs (ie the atheists) would be unhappy. As would any “outgroup” be if they were forced between choosing to abandon their own strongly-held beliefs… or being alone.
Think what it would feel like to you to be the only Christian in an all-atheist community. You would be alone, with the only people as friends unsupportive of your views. You would probably seem unhappy too.
Thus I do not think it correct to draw the conclusion that religious == happy and atheist == unhappy. I think it’s better for you to realise that “person with friends == happy” and “person with no friends == unhappy” the “religion” part is entirely orthogonal to the question here.
but “make person with no friend believe what I believe just to fit in” won’t work either, if that person is a rationalist. “everybody local to me believes X” is not sufficient evidence for a belief…
though it might be sufficient reason to pretend to a belief in order to enjoy the benefits of the in-group… but that’s another issue.
Is there a Unitarian Universalist congregation in your community? Pentacostalists can be more fun than UUs, but it’s something. (I don’t know where you live; I believe that UUs as such only exist in North America, but hopefully there’s something similar wherever you are.)
My parents took us to a Unitarian Universalist church when I was growing up. I remember it being pretty boring. Then again, I had the attention span of the usual 7-year-old, so it might be worth going back.
As it happens, I was at a U-U service yesterday morning for the dedication of a friend’s child, and was reasonably pleased with it.
One thing I liked about it was the emphasis on community and mutual support and mutual attentiveness, and on being welcoming to whoever happened to be present regardless of their religious affiliation or lack of it.
But it wasn’t the most fun morning I’ve ever spent, certainly.
If you go, I predict that it’ll be more boring than the Pentacostalist church, but less boring than it was when you were 7. (In case there’s more than one in your area, they can also vary considerably.)