I know several non-theists, including atheists, who belong to religious communities because they value the benefits that such belonging provides. It helps, of course, that they belong to the kinds of religious communities that welcome people like them.
There are also plenty of non-religious communities that one can belong to. These also provide the “benefits of belonging” without having to be the odd one out (ie the person that doesn’t actually follow the one major point of the community itself). Therefore I agree with artsyhonker in not seeing the point. I’d only consider it the rational move if there were no such other communities nearby (or none that were attractive).
Sure. That makes sense, and if it weren’t for my actual experience with people who do seem to get benefits from that group membership that they consider worthwhile, despite also being members of other communities, I would agree with this wholeheartedly.
Of course, it’s certainly possible that they’re all merely confused and not actually getting benefits they value, or that they could be getting all the same benefits from their other groups and somehow don’t realize it.
Ah—no—you miss what I was trying to say. They definitely get benefits—not at all confused. I’ll try and give an example to explain what I mean—and I’ll leave religion out of it for the moment.
Lets say that near to me is the local football club, and the local wildlife-walks group. both of them have a thriving community and are welcoming and interesting people. Thus if I join either one I will be assured of the benefits of belonging to a community.
But lets say that I happen to have absolutely no passion for football, but really enjoy wildlife walks.
So—the rational move for me would be to join the wildlife group, in favour over the football club. not because there are no benefits to the football club, but because I would get even more out of being in a group where I share the passions and interests with the majority of members.
This is kinda what I was driving at. There’s nothing wrong with an atheist joining a local christian group to gain the benefits of community… but if there’s another local group that has the same sense of community—but founded around a principle that the atheist actually shares… then they’ll probably get even more out of it.
If, in that situation, I observed you evaluating both groups and choosing to join the football club, that observation would increase my confidence that you are obtaining something of value from the football club that you aren’t getting elsewhere, even if I have no clue what that might be.
(nods) Me too. The impression I’ve gotten from conversations with my non-theist friends who belong to religious communities is that they provide a more close-knit and mutually committed community than their secular equivalents. This is especially relevant for those with children.
Yes, I’ve found that most (but not all) hobby-based communities tend to be fairly loosely constructed. People are expected to hang around for a few years, perhaps, but not really to contribute more than just some passing time.
Exceptions I’ve found to this rule are: ethnic/expat groups, parenting support groups, and (strangely) some geeky groups: SF/F (in certain cities), and the SCA.
The latter was my biggest surprise, when I joined. There a third-generation SCAdians… some of whom have a fourth generation on the way.
AKA an excuse to have fun dressing up and feasting the night away after a day of hand-to-hand fighting (if that’s your wont)… along with a zillion other interesting things to learn and do, with the only caveat being a well-meaning attempt at remaining within the time period of “fall of the roman empire up to and including the early renaissance” (oh, and don’t take “renn faire” as a good example… in the SCA everybody is a participant, not a spectator).
Yep—it brings in most of the (male) converts… whereas the feasting/dancing/singing/cooking is what usually tempts in us womenfolk… this means that it’s not only appealing to the geeky types… but actually has an amazingly good gender balance. It also means that you can bring your SO and they will actually have something to do. This is a benefit of community-building not to be overlooked. :)
I was one of those people for a while. I was accepted, I think, because the particular group I hung out with had an overwhelming need to convert people, and couldn’t resist a juicy atheist/agnostic specimen like me.
I also sing in a church choir, which is kind of similar except that it’s explicit I’m there for the musical education and not the religion.
the particular group I hung out with had an overwhelming need to convert people, and couldn’t resist a juicy atheist/agnostic specimen like me.
Ah, that’s unfortunate.
As far as I can tell, the religious communities my atheist/agnostic church-going friends belong to consider them full-fledged members of the community no more in need of alteration than anybody else, which seems like a much more honest arrangement.
Though, of course, I have no way of knowing for sure.
I know several non-theists, including atheists, who belong to religious communities because they value the benefits that such belonging provides. It helps, of course, that they belong to the kinds of religious communities that welcome people like them.
There are also plenty of non-religious communities that one can belong to. These also provide the “benefits of belonging” without having to be the odd one out (ie the person that doesn’t actually follow the one major point of the community itself). Therefore I agree with artsyhonker in not seeing the point. I’d only consider it the rational move if there were no such other communities nearby (or none that were attractive).
Sure. That makes sense, and if it weren’t for my actual experience with people who do seem to get benefits from that group membership that they consider worthwhile, despite also being members of other communities, I would agree with this wholeheartedly.
Of course, it’s certainly possible that they’re all merely confused and not actually getting benefits they value, or that they could be getting all the same benefits from their other groups and somehow don’t realize it.
Ah—no—you miss what I was trying to say. They definitely get benefits—not at all confused. I’ll try and give an example to explain what I mean—and I’ll leave religion out of it for the moment.
Lets say that near to me is the local football club, and the local wildlife-walks group. both of them have a thriving community and are welcoming and interesting people. Thus if I join either one I will be assured of the benefits of belonging to a community.
But lets say that I happen to have absolutely no passion for football, but really enjoy wildlife walks.
So—the rational move for me would be to join the wildlife group, in favour over the football club. not because there are no benefits to the football club, but because I would get even more out of being in a group where I share the passions and interests with the majority of members.
This is kinda what I was driving at. There’s nothing wrong with an atheist joining a local christian group to gain the benefits of community… but if there’s another local group that has the same sense of community—but founded around a principle that the atheist actually shares… then they’ll probably get even more out of it.
If, in that situation, I observed you evaluating both groups and choosing to join the football club, that observation would increase my confidence that you are obtaining something of value from the football club that you aren’t getting elsewhere, even if I have no clue what that might be.
Yup, no argument here. I would be curious to know what it was.
(nods) Me too. The impression I’ve gotten from conversations with my non-theist friends who belong to religious communities is that they provide a more close-knit and mutually committed community than their secular equivalents. This is especially relevant for those with children.
Yes, I’ve found that most (but not all) hobby-based communities tend to be fairly loosely constructed. People are expected to hang around for a few years, perhaps, but not really to contribute more than just some passing time.
Exceptions I’ve found to this rule are: ethnic/expat groups, parenting support groups, and (strangely) some geeky groups: SF/F (in certain cities), and the SCA.
The latter was my biggest surprise, when I joined. There a third-generation SCAdians… some of whom have a fourth generation on the way.
SCA?
The Society for Creative Anachronism
AKA an excuse to have fun dressing up and feasting the night away after a day of hand-to-hand fighting (if that’s your wont)… along with a zillion other interesting things to learn and do, with the only caveat being a well-meaning attempt at remaining within the time period of “fall of the roman empire up to and including the early renaissance” (oh, and don’t take “renn faire” as a good example… in the SCA everybody is a participant, not a spectator).
The hand to hand combat is tempting.
Yep—it brings in most of the (male) converts… whereas the feasting/dancing/singing/cooking is what usually tempts in us womenfolk… this means that it’s not only appealing to the geeky types… but actually has an amazingly good gender balance. It also means that you can bring your SO and they will actually have something to do. This is a benefit of community-building not to be overlooked. :)
So, it’s kind of like anime conventions and cosplay then.
Obviously we need to work out how to integrate costumes or cooking into LessWrong meetups...
Nutrition?
:)
Obviously the costumes need integrated paperclips…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Creative_Anachronism
I was one of those people for a while. I was accepted, I think, because the particular group I hung out with had an overwhelming need to convert people, and couldn’t resist a juicy atheist/agnostic specimen like me.
I also sing in a church choir, which is kind of similar except that it’s explicit I’m there for the musical education and not the religion.
Ah, that’s unfortunate.
As far as I can tell, the religious communities my atheist/agnostic church-going friends belong to consider them full-fledged members of the community no more in need of alteration than anybody else, which seems like a much more honest arrangement.
Though, of course, I have no way of knowing for sure.