The history of research on VR and religion

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Literature review

The literature review consists of four parts. The first section provides a brief history of the research on VR and religion. However, since a lot of literature regarding VR and religion comes in the form of articles from a wide range of authors, the second section is structured thematically and introduces various topics that relate to evangelization in VR. The third section introduces the reader to the primary researchers whose work offers some foundational considerations for this research. The final section deals with the doctoral research from Stamper, since it deals directly with the issue of evangelization online, whereas the previous researchers dealt more generally with religion online. Thus, the literature review narrows down from the general to the specific.47

The history of research on VR and religion

The impact of VR on religion, and especially the formation of religious identities, is a comparably young research field. It is an interdisciplinary endeavour, drawing mostly but not exclusively on religious, social and media studies. A survey of past research reveals three distinct waves (or phases):
The first wave of research is dated loosely to the mid-1990s. During this early stage of research, “the very novelty and potential of the subject were grasped with enthusiasm” (Højsgaard & Warburg 2005:2). Radical changes were anticipated. Yet, this enthusiasm soon vanished. Religion online closely resembled what was done offline, and many people have remained suspect of VR. But most importantly, it has not had as positive an influence on humanity as first anticipated by – for example – facilitating tolerance. Even early enthusiasts like O’Leary, while not denying the impact of VR, are now uncertain if the changes are for the better.48 Expectations, too, have been lowered. Dawson, for example, now expects in his article Religion and the Quest for Virtual Community that “to the extent that they [i.e. virtual communities] ever become common, [they] are unlikely to operate as substitutes for more traditional forms of social relations. Life online will likely complement life offline, and there is no reason to expect that religious use of the Internet will differ” (Dawson 2004:79).
This sobering experience has led to the second wave of research (Campbell 2013:9), which is now coming to terms with “what kind of knowledge we actually have about the religious usage of the Internet” (Højsgaard & Warburg 2005:2). Although VR has not affected religion in the ways first anticipated (correlating with the overall experience of early VR), the effects are still noticeable and profound, especially with regards to computer-mediated-communication (CMC), but also on the way people develop their religious identity (Radde-Antweiler 2008:1).
The third wave of research focused on theoretical and interpretive research (Campbell 2013:9) and asked how one ought to research religion in VR (we will return to this discussion in the research design).49
A fourth wave is currently anticipated, which could further refine the results of the third wave and create “typologies for categories and interpretation” (Campbell 2013:10).

How to evangelize an avatar: A thematic overview

This section is structured thematically in order to introduce some themes which are relevant for evangelization online and have contributed to the development of the questions used for the expert-interviews. The remainder of this literature review is guided by the question: Which challenges and opportunities does VR offer for evangelization? As with so many cultures and developments, it will become evident that VR contains aspects which are suitable and helpful for the presentation of the gospel and others which are opposed to the gospel and are in need of redemption.

The challenge of the reality of VR: Is it real (enough)?

Even if we agree that the concept of an augmented reality best describes today’s use of the internet, CMC and the like, for most people what is done in VR (e.g. Second Life) is considered less real or not real at all. As Nord (2008:85–100) has shown, this raises various metaphysical questions. Yet, the concern here is not with the reality of VR or FR on a philosophical level, but instead on the nature of people’s VR experiences. Estes, for example, makes the following provocative suggestion with regards to realness of religious actions in VR: “I would challenge any Christian who says that virtual churches are not real to go to a temple of a non-Christian God in Second Life and bow down and worship an idol” (Estes 2009:33). His point being that for most of us this would feel real enough to be wrong, thus why should a church service held in VR not also be real enough?50 Even if one wanted to challenge his logic, it still shows that what is done in VR is not irrelevant to FR.
Furthermore, Wagner seems to have found indications that some people consider something done in VR even more real than in FR.
[Prayer apps] beg the question of why users feel compelled to issue the prayer through virtual reality, rather than simply closing their eyes. The authenticity of the prayer, in this case, seems to be dependent on passage through virtual space.
(Wagner 2011:103)
Thus, it is proposed here that the realness of VR – at least to some degree – depends on how the user sees it.51 While for some VR is nothing but a communication medium, for others it is an essential part of their life (reality), and has a redemptive dimension (see 3.2.6).
And yet, even for those who see VR as a lesser reality, it can still be the best available reality. A common critique of VR is its inability to convey physical affection, such as a hug. However, a person who does not receive hugs, comfort or the community he or she longs for at a brick and mortar church might gladly receive a “feel hugged” from somebody met in VR. Thus, Campbell argues that although a virtual community is considered to be inherently less meaningful than a FR community (even by users), for the individual it can still be the best option. She observes that it is possible for people to be in the physical presence of one another and yet “they are together alone”, while people gathering online can be “alone together.” She writes: “Online community is not the same as embodied interaction. Yet when offline options do not provide the spiritual connection many individuals so long for, it can become, as one member of a Christian email list stated, a ‘Godsend’” (Campbell 2005:xvii).

The challenge of authority: “Like” is the new true

For the formation of one’s religious identity, people now “cobble together a religious world from [all] available images, symbols, moral codes, and doctrines [while] exercising considerable agency in defining and shaping what is considered to be religiously meaningful” (Roof 1999:75). The established authority of traditional religions (particularly, but not exclusively) are currently being challenged. The internet is filled with different voices and they all seem to come with equal authority.
The obviously constructed and pluralistic character of religious expressions online tends to have a relativizing effect on the truth claims of any one religion or its authorities. […] Moreover, the easy coexistence of so many different and openly heterodox views in cyberspace exposes the Net surfer to a more fluid doctrinal environment, one that has the potential to encourage individual religious and spiritual experimentation.
(Dawson & Cowan 2004:3)
Thus, people can be exposed to a greater plurality of religions. This could to lead to a change of course towards or away from the Christian faith. Alternatively, it can lead to a unique blend which results in a form of hybrid or augmented religion.
Furthermore, the reliability of the information found on the internet is not so much based on the author’s credentials in FR, but on the number of people in one’s network (i.e. group of friends) “liked” this source. For example, a user might consider reading a new blog because many of its followers/subscribers are people whose own work the user has appreciated in the past.
What happens when we start seeing the Web as a matrix of minds, not documents? Networks based on trust become an essential tool. You start evaluating the relevance of data based not on search query result but on personal testimonies. (“This information is useful because six minds I admire have found it useful.”)
(Johnson 2003)
Thus, religious beliefs remain a work in progress, fluid and negotiable (Wagner 2012:99), where orientation is found through loosely held networks.
Wagner further points out, that these networks provide us with a sense of grounding:
By utilizing social media apps connected to a specific community, we can argue against our own postmodern dissolution, suggesting that we may be entities-in-motion, but we can ground ourselves […] in singularly defined religious communities. […] Social media apps work as portals into such communities, but they also signify our desire for such grounding.
(Wagner 2012:106-107; cf Campbell 2005:188-189)
Thus, these social media apps provide a sense of belonging and community, but a very loose one. One could say that perhaps there are many opinions online without many convictions. Inthe end, the person relies on his or her own rationale for determining the validity of his or her beliefs.52
For those evangelizing online the question arises with regards to how authority is established online and how one can present an integrated and coherent picture of the Christian faith in an environment where so many different opinions are presented and where people patch-work their religious beliefs.

The challenge of liquid identity: The creation of multiple identities

Not only are one’s beliefs more liquid in postmodernity (Bauman 2005), but so is one’s understanding of identity (including one’s religious identity). VR enhances this development by allowing us to “painlessly manipulate our identity” (Filiciak 2003:90) and even to create several identities.
People use virtual identities to work on their FR lives (Turkes 1997:192). A good example of how people use their online identity to explore other religions comes from Wagner. She reports a Muslim woman who attended a Synagogue in Second Life because she was too self-conscious to attend one in FR (Wagner 2012:110).53
More than with any other medium, VR enables one to hide or alter one’s identity. Yet, it is uncertain how much this is actually practiced.
The Internet may enrich the process of identity construction through providing new possibilities of creating and acquiring the tools, skills and knowledge needed for handling the increased insecurity and ambivalence of late modern society. Thus, the Internet might expand the possibilities of the individual in his or her project of constructing a meaningful, integrated self-identity that might also be communicated in social interaction.
For those interacting with others in VR (i.e. online-evangelists) the questions of how an avatar affects the interaction, how this relates to the person’s understanding of him- or herself, and is that actually important, still remain to be answered. These are questions which are addressed in the expert-interviews and are further reflected on at the end.

The challenge of anonymity: Whatever happened to civility?

Despite the early, and at times prevailing, optimism for the benefits of VR, it has the potential to bring out the worst in people. Much of Second Life has been taken over by pornography and gambling (Mayr 2008), and in forums or chat rooms much of the dialogue can be described as rude, even hateful (Schirrmacher 2009). The situation is so bad that Introvigne (2005:113) comes to the conclusion that: “The Web is not the best place for recruiting; it is an excellent place for spreading rumours, slander, and defamation against a given target.”
Although others have had the opposite experience, it still provides challenges for those who want to evangelize in this context and also raises further questions: How do evangelists deal with insults or threats? Is there a need for them to protect themselves? Can self-disclosure become dangerous? This is of particular interest because one way of creating credibility is through self-disclosure.

The challenge of continuity: Bridging the worlds

Robinson-Neal explores the impact of VR on FR with regards to worship services and her findings are rather sobering.
In response to a question about whether participation in virtual church impacts real-world worship, sixty-four per cent felt that there was no impact, twenty-nine per cent felt that virtual church enhances their real-world worship, and seven per cent did not have a response. … [Thus, O]nline worship exists less as a support to real life worship and more as an outlet for curiosity about the experience for many who participate in it.
(Robinson-Neal 2008:237-238)
However, the strength of her research and conclusions is somewhat in question. Of those interviewed, only 57% were Christian. This would explain the lack of impact on real-world worship since the virtual church, for many, would be the only actual church service attended. However, this also reveals that 43% of the people are willing to do something online which they would not otherwise do, showing the great opportunity that VR offers. A more in-depth research has been done by Campbell in which she concludes that people have a general desire to integrate FR and VR.
Online communication often creates a desire for individuals to go beyond the screen and transcend the limitation of online textual interaction. […] It is […] misleading to identify online interaction, especially online community relationships, as mutually exclusive, distinctly separate from an individual’s offline relationship. Many have described online community as complementary to offline relationships.
(Campbell 2005:148)
The same conclusion is drawn by those looking at online education.54 Thus, as stated at the beginning, people seem to naturally create a hybrid world (especially communities) and augmented reality is presently enjoying a wide reception.
However, this seems to be truer of social-oriented platforms and less of those which are game-orientated. Games can be connected with FR – so called augmented reality games – but this is presently still considered a fairly new development.
Yet, as Haese argues, that the user remains emotionally connected in VR. The psychological effect experienced in VR can carry over into FR (see 2.4.2.3). This transfer of what is experienced in VR into FR, especially emotion, has been identified in the field of psychology where studies have shown that phobias can be lessened through virtual exposure (cf Schubert & Regenbrecht 2002:255-274).
This raises the fundamental question of how a conversion online expresses itself offline and even more fundamentally, if there is even such a dichotomy. This study can contribute to an answer by showing how online-evangelists create bridges between VR and FR or intentionally decide not to.

The challenge of VR as a religion and an escape

In 1984 Gibson wrote the sci-fi novel Neuromancer, in which he coined the term cyberspace. Through this novel he not only ignited the imagination of sci-fi fans, but also those of computer scientists, hackers and academics (Bell 2007:17) by forging a new vision for the future. Offering more than technology, VR can offer a new way to see the world, identity, reality, life, etc. To some, VR satisfies the desire of escaping death: Virtual Immortality.

1. Introduction 
1.1 Research question
1.2 Rationale of this research
1.3 Demarcation of the study
1.4 Sequence and summary of chapters
2. Definitions 
2.1 Missiological foundation
2.2 Evangelization
2.3 Contextualization
2.4 Virtual Reality
2.5 Conclusions
3. Literature review
3.1 The history of research on VR and religion
3.2 How to evangelize an avatar: A thematic overview
3.3 Current related research
3.4 The rhetoric of online-evangelism
4. Research Design
4.1 Epistemology (Philosophy of Science)
4.2 Empirical Theology
4.3 Methodology
4.4 Research technique
4.5 Conclusions
4.6 Interim summary: ETP cycle (Phase 1-3)
5. Round 1: Initial measurement of opinions
5.1 Data collection
5.2 Data analysis
5.3 Summary and results of the coding process
5.4 Summary of contributions by experts
5.5 Conclusions
6. Round 2: Statistical group feedback
6.1 Data collection
6.2 Data analysis and findings
6.3 Conclusions
7. Round 3: Saturation of opinions
7.1 Data collection
7.2 Data analysis and findings
7.3 Conclusions
8. Identity, avatars and cyber culture
8.1 Identity and the role of an avatar
8.2 Cyber culture and its impact on evangelization
8.3 Summary
9. Credibility, ethics and relationships online
9.1 Credibility through the community and the story
9.2 Relationships: Touching the heart in VR
9.3 Summary
10. Contextualizing for evangelization online
10.1 Discernment in online evangelization
10.2 A cycle of discernment and modification
10.3 Summary
11. Retrospective methodological reflection
11.1 Quality criteria for empirical research
11.2 Reflection of the research process
12. Conclusions
12.1 Summary of findings
12.2 Contributions of this study
12.3 Future research
12.4 Recommendations for implementation
12.5 Concluding remarks
Reference
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT