Religion and Digital Culture Q&A

Although there were a number of interesting remarks made by the three guest speakers (Chris, Nabil, and Pauline), the main issues addressed where the idea of digital religion and where the future lies for both religious institutions and well as their individual constituents. It is fair to say that all the guest speakers were cautious when defining “digital religion”. Chris stated that religion in itself is hard to define, and those who study religion know this best. Religion is different for many people. For example, one might say that they come from a religious family. Does this mean that they heritage follows one religion, or simply that their family attends church regularly? And so, the word religion truly complicates the definition of digital religion. Chris also said that since the word digital encompasses so many forms of media, the easiest way to define digital is to describe it as a computer-mediated communication. Nabil also wanted to emphasize that this idea of “digital religion”, is only a new form of ancient practice. Although the medium itself is novel, the practices behind it are not. Pauline touched on the subject of religion 2.0 (as well as religion 3.0), that enables religion to be highly accessible through use of new mediums, such as the internet. From her perspective, she was more closely interested in the social and technical affordances that a “digital religion” would cause. She added that although it provides the means for new social opportunities, it would also present challenges for parties involved.