On page 369 in your text is a “Mass Media In Social Life” relating to God on the net. At the end of that article are these questions: How do you think that the Internet might change religion? Can it replace the warm embrace of fellow believers? Do you think it can bring comfort to someone who is grieving for a loved one?
I got a 45/45 on this one. Seems like the grading is getting easier as the end nears. Good for me though :-) Here it is:
Religion on the
Internet
How do you think that the Internet
might change religion? It changes how
the people get information about religion. They no longer have to go to a
physical church to hear the gospel or message. They can do it from their own
home or anywhere for that matter with a computer. I think the Internet is a good
tool that religions are able to use and it can serve many purposes. For one, they
are able to reach millions of people with the hopes of bringing in new converts.
They can also get their message out to members cheaply and quickly. Even the Pope is on youtube.com (Henslin,
2011). It’s changing the way people get the teachings and messages from their religion
or church. Internet video is becoming more popular with religions along with websites,
newsletters and blogs.
Can it replace the warm embrace of
fellow believers? I don't think it can. There have been a number of attempts to
create online Christian communities, usually supplementing, but occasionally
attempting to replace, more traditional, brick and mortar Christian communities
("Religion and the," ). From what I’ve seen, it may change the way
people get communications from their church, but I can’t see it replacing the
physical church and warm embrace of fellow believers. From another website: Church of Fools is an
experimental online site in which worshippers move around a virtual church
building using avatars ("Religion and the,”). Again, I think this is an
attempt to replace a physical church, but it doesn’t replace face-to-face
socializing with fellow members. It may help temporarily or be used as a bridge
to the “warm embrace”, but it cannot replace it. From a functionalist viewpoint
I don’t think it can bring sufficient “emotional comfort.” As one Christian
says, “For us to truly communicate the love and grace of Jesus Christ, we must
have a personal relationship with people to witness to them. The sound of love
and concern in someone’s voice, a gentle touch and the look into someone’s eyes
are what really make a difference (Hearne, 2011).”
Do you
think it can bring comfort to someone who is grieving for a loved one? I think it
can, but only for a short duration. It may temporarily bring some level of
comfort to someone who is suffering, but we need personal contact with people. In
all of the information I scanned on the Internet I haven’t seen one article
that says it will replace face-to-face contact, but it is a good way to stay in
contact with the person who is grieving. It’s a good way to touch bases until the next
time you can get together with them. As
I stated earlier, from a functionalist perspective I don’t think it can bring
sufficient “emotional comfort.” The
answers that religion provides about ultimate meaning also comfort people by
assuring them that there is a purpose to life, even to suffering (Henslin, 2011).
I think this can only be fully achieved with personal contact, not by a
website, blog or other electronic media. While technology has brought with it
the benefits of convenience, flexibility and global connectivity, it’s also
made us long for the warmth associated with more tactile experiences; those
things that have a human touch ("The human touch,”).
There are
four concerns or questions that many people have. These are (1) the existence
of God, (2) the purpose of life, (3) the existence of an afterlife, and (4) morality
(Henslin, 2011). From a functionalist perspective religious sites on the
Internet can help answer these questions. The Internet may help to serve the
function of “emotional comfort”, but I don’t think it can replace face-to-face
communications. The Internet can also
help the religion re-enforce the guidelines for everyday life which serves the
function of “social control” and a website or online community can help its
followers to keep up with teachings and practices which in turn re-enforces
“social solidarity” within that community. I don’t believe the Internet is
completely sufficient though. The Internet can be used as a tool or aid, but I don’t
think it is going to completely eliminate the traditional approach.
It’s true;
there are many ways that the Internet can change religion. Our text book lists
new ideas from online prayer requests to virtual church services. I think the Internet is a good tool for
religions to use to help market their own beliefs and it’s a good way to make
contact with thousands and potentially millions of people either who are
already members or who are potential converts. It’s just good business for
them. Can it replace the warm embrace of fellow believers? No, it won’t replace
face-to-face contact with fellow members. The sound of a person’s voice, the
smile on someone’s face and the warmth of another’s touch can’t be replaced
with a computer screen. We are social animals who crave the real company of
others.
References
Hearne, R. (2011, July 08). [Web log message]. Retrieved
from http://www.ntcumc.org/_blog/The_Lay_Leaders_Blog/post/Texts_and_tweets_can't_repl ace_old-fashioned_face-to-face_contact/
Henslin, J. (2011). Essentials of sociology: a
down-to-earth approach. (Ninth ed., p. 368, 369). Pearson. Retrieved from http://www.coursesmart.com/SR/3803881/9780205841141/369
The human touch. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://contributor.corbis.com/content/Creative
Research/Macro
Briefs/100222-ExecSummary-HumanTouch-EN.pdf
Religion and the internet. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_the_Internet
