What does it mean to engage in interfaith dialogue on the internet?

by Feyza Yucel

In our increasingly globalized context, we must accept that there are a variety of faiths, cultures, and traditions occupying the myriad of spaces around us, each striving for, but oftentimes having difficulty with, establishing a peaceful coexistence. A common challenge for diverse modern communities is a lack of understanding between (and even within) communities resulting in misinformation, hatred, and animosity. Interfaith encounters are an interesting example of this, as they are sites of disagreement between groups which may include millions to billions of adherents. In the digital age in particular, interfaith encounters are a particular point of significance, as they have great capacity to both unite and divide. Through exploring both the possibilities and limitations of interfaith dialogue on the internet, I suggest considerations for interfaith encounters that enrich our understanding and love for one another.

Before deeply engaging with its expressions on the internet, we must first define interfaith dialogue. Importantly, interfaith encounters do not necessarily equal interfaith dialogue. It is not uncommon for individuals of differing belief systems to engage with one another online, across both secular and religiously charged conversations. However, these cross-religious encounters or interreligious encounters differ from interfaith dialogue in that interfaith dialogue is a deliberate attempt to get to better know and understand one another. Some scholars have defined the essential purpose of dialogue as to learn about one another, which necessarily entails change (Admirand). Interfaith dialogue must be approached with a sincere willingness to recognize biases from within and change one’s own opinions. Peter Admirand states that both sides must practice “an honesty and sincerity that can be self-critical (and justly critical of others), which does not mean a betrayal of one’s loyalties.” In this way, religious identity can remain a powerful influence in dialogue, but should not prevent the humility and open-mindedness necessary for personal growth.

Moreover, interfaith dialogue has a particularly significant purpose of reducing prejudice and ignorance, correcting misinformation, and establishing human connections across diverse communities. There is religion-based violence across the world, including within the United States, and much of it comes from a place of ignorance, deep-seated biases, and fear. Part of the reason people become so polarized or even defensive on issues of refugees, immigration, and religious tolerance is that they differ in exposure to people from these foreign or unfamiliar backgrounds. Many who fear “the unstoppable tide of Islam” have never seriously engaged with Muslims or Islamic belief. Establishing positive atmospheres in which non-judgmental and good-faith discussions of religion can take place would be a major step towards “enhanc[ing] tolerance and promot[ing] peaceful coexistence,” which the United States Institute of Peace states to be the goal of interfaith programs (Garfinkel). Regardless of whether one chooses to engage in such encounters, religion will continue to be a part of the internet, social media, and globalized conversations. And, if it “is not part of the solution, then it will certainly be part of the problem” (Sacks). Religion (and perceptions of it, blind to accuracy) will continue to influence public opinion, policy, and politics, but it is up to each citizen to make the choice to engage in dialogue. Rather than simply confronting dissent, interfaith dialogues are also an opportunity to look inward, which may even deepen one’s own faith or allow them to reach a deeper collective theological understanding (Orton). Dialogue is simply the willingness to listen.

It is impossible to discuss interfaith dialogue in the modern age without considering the role of the internet. With its scale and scope of reach, the internet is an invaluable resource and medium for dialogue. Due to ways in which the internet facilitates global populations in gaining “greater access to information, more opportunities to engage in public speech, and an enhanced ability to undertake collective action,” many have described it as an extension of the “public sphere,” a term coined by Jurgen Habermas to describe open and rational discussion in public, by the public (Kruse; Tsuria). The internet provides a medium with a low threshold for entry, especially in democratic societies, allowing a plethora of voices to be heard (Rasmussen). However, whether these voices are heard, or the matter of which voices are heard most is a different matter. One of the pitfalls of the internet is that it can serve as an echo chamber, or the reiteration of familiar and comfortable viewpoints. In this way, social media is a prism that reflects and refracts our social environment and perception of the world (Bail). The content we see on social media is not representative of the world, as not everyone has access to the internet, or access to the same degree. But importantly, it is not even an accurate representation of more local contexts. It is for these reasons that dialogue is essential: because without making a deliberate attempt to confront and learn from people of unfamiliar beliefs, we will continue to be unfamiliar to the majority of the world.

As a medium for interfaith dialogue, the internet offers several incentives and opportunities. One of the hallmarks of the Internet is that it allows for anonymity or the presentation of a different version of yourself. In an anonymous sphere, individuals need not be embarrassed to ask questions about unfamiliar topics (Theobald). In fact, even the most absurd of questions can be found on the internet, as well as many netizens willing to respond. Anonymity also allows for the shedding of certain assumptions about individuals. With only the information that someone may choose to put on the platform available to others, people can explore ideas and identities without automatically being perceived as a “white man” or “hijabi woman.” Further, and perhaps most importantly, individuals from all around the world have access to one another, allowing for conversations whose scale, extent, and reach would have never been possible just decades prior, and are still not possible outside of particular modern technologies. In a sphere that is so interconnected, it is only natural for the internet to be interfaith.

Nevertheless, there are countless criticisms of the Internet as a space for interreligious dialogue because the encounters there cannot always be described as “dialogue” in the first place. Individuals engaging with so-called interfaith dialogue online are of a particular slice of the population, those who are already interested in participating in these types of discussions. Moreover, the types of conversations that result from people interested in discussing religion can result in echo chambers, as in the case when Christian discussion boards may echo similar sentiments, which are in turn very different from Muslim discussion boards which similarly echo a relatively narrow set of beliefs and assumptions. Further, while the Internet may be diverse, not all spaces on the Internet are so, especially under the framework of the “social media prism” mentioned previously. People can create online personas, with no way to verify who they truly are, and claim to speak for a particular population, including typically excluded populations. These individuals are often wholly unqualified to speak as representatives of a belief or tradition but may nonetheless claim so. Through the internet, it is very easy for misinformation, miscommunication, and misunderstandings to develop. Individuals can lie, put forth false or misleading arguments, or simply try to enrage others and spew hate online. What’s more is that it is very hard to regulate such conversations, as the Internet as a whole does not have moderators that regulate how people are able, or ought, to respond to one another.

All of this is to say that just because there are problems or concerns with the internet as a space for interreligious dialogue does not mean that interreligious dialogue is not possible at all online. If the internet can be thought of as a public sphere, we can simply try our best to make it a healthy and democratic one. Therefore, we should not be afraid of engaging in conversations with unfamiliar others. Richard Rorty famously described religion as a “conversation stopper,” but that is far from the truth for all religious encounters. Rorty argues that arguments on religion are often based on subjective premises based on faith and not reality, but faith and reality are not mutually exclusive. Faith is a part of many people’s reality and identity, and researchers have shown that the Internet can indeed be helpful for things such as identity formation or construction, especially in younger populations (Campbell. Of course, just because it is a site of identity formation does not mean that there is necessarily dialogue. If there is an attempt to dominate over another viewpoint, group others’ religious convictions into “good” and “bad” ones, and claim a monopoly on truth, there cannot be effective religious dialogue between faiths. But, if, as another scholar, Jeffrey Stout, states, we think about religion as an amplifier, there is plenty of good to be amplified. Interfaith solidarity can be a powerful means for social change, identifying and achieving common goals while building mutual understanding. It is merely how one approaches it that determines if progress can truly be made.

Thus, the question of dialogue is not so much about the Internet as a whole, but how it’s engaged with. Interfaith dialogue is a difficult task to achieve online, but it is not impossible. If communities can be formed online on the basis of mutual trust, openness, and honesty, with both sides genuinely willing to engage and learn from one another, interfaith dialogue can be a great means of establishing deep relationships and connections in a pluralistic society (Tsuria). There is no one-size-fits-all approach to dialogue in both the Internet and beyond, and different approaches may work for different contexts (Orton). But, given that people are already prone to discussing religion on the Internet, it is necessary to develop spaces in which people are expected to abide by certain social and moral norms of kindness and respect. If we conceptualize the internet in a Foucauldian sense, as a site of struggle, in which norms and concepts are negotiated, and in which discourse is the medium through which power and knowledge are passed through, we can work to ensure that the norms negotiated are ones of compassion and open-mindedness (Tsuria). Various scholars and theologians have debated how to establish fruitful interfaith dialogue, and there is no simple or fool-proof way to ensure it occurs. Nevertheless, by having epistemological humility, generosity, hospitality to the truth of the other, commitment to growth, and empathy towards others, we can make meaningful steps in its direction (Cornille). We must approach interfaith dialogue with hope, gather the support of community and religious leaders in spearheading and continuing conversations online, encourage moderation of platforms that establish values to foster understanding, and evaluate the algorithms unique to online spaces which amplify polarization and reduce toleration. Only then can we put our best foot forward towards inter-religious peacemaking.

Resources

Admirand, Peter. “Humbling The Discourse: Why Interfaith Dialogue, Religious Pluralism, Liberation Theology, and Secular Humanism are Needed for a Robust Public Square.” Religions 10.8 (2019): 450.

Bail, Chris. “The Social Media Prism.” Breaking the Social Media Prism: How to Make Our Platforms Less Polarizing. (Princeton, NJ, 2021): 41-53.

Campbell, Heidi. “Who’s Got the Power? Religious Authority and the Internet.” Journal Of Computer-Mediated Communication 12.3 (2007): 1043-1062.

Cornille, Catherine. “Conditions For Inter‐Religious Dialogue.” The Wiley‐Blackwell Companion to Inter‐Religious Dialogue (2013): 20-33.

Garfinkel, Renee. What Works?: Evaluating Interfaith Dialogue Programs. Diane Publishing, 2008.

Kruse, Lisa M., Dawn R. Norris, And Jonathan R. Flinchum. “Social Media as a Public Sphere? Politics on Social Media.” The Sociological Quarterly 59.1 (2018): 62-84.

Orton, Andrew. “Interfaith Dialogue: Seven Key Questions for Theory, Policy and Practice.” Religion, State & Society 44.4 (2016): 349-365.

Rasmussen, Terje. “Internet and the Political Public Sphere.” Sociology Compass 8.12 (2014): 1315-1329.

Rorty, Richard. “Religion as a Conversation Stopper.” Philosophy And Social Hope (New York: Penguin Books, 1999): 168-174.

Sacks, Jonathan. The Dignity of Difference: How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2002.

Stout, Jeffrey. “Is Religion a Conversation Stopper?” Democracy And Tradition (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 2009): 85-91.

Theobald, Simon. “Faith, Interfaith, and Youtube: Dialogue, or Derision?.” Literature & Aesthetics 19.2 (2009).

Tsuria, Ruth. “The Space Between Us: Considering Online Media for Interreligious Dialogue.” Religion 50.3 (2020): 437-454.