Modern technologies have a significant impact on how society perceives religious symbols and practices, transforming traditional approaches and creating new standards for interpreting spiritual content.

Digital Faith: How Technology Transforms Religious Traditions

Modern technologies have a significant impact on how society perceives religious symbols and practices, transforming traditional approaches and creating new standards for interpreting spiritual content. In a technological world, people are accustomed to ready-made algorithms and step-by-step instructions, which contrasts with the depth and complexity of traditional religious practices.

For example, one source points out that traditional religious practices, such as those in Orthodoxy, do not offer a “ready-made technology” that can be easily provided to a “client.” This creates a situation where missionary technologies that promise quick answers – “How to enter the Kingdom of God in five steps” – become more attractive to the modern individual, who has been raised in a rapidly developing technological civilization ( link txt).

At the same time, amid increasing secularism, modern society begins to view religious symbols through the lens of rational and legal norms. In this context, religious symbols and mentions of God in public documents are interpreted as a potential form of discrimination, further complicating their perception in the digital age—a time dominated by ideas of equality and the inadmissibility of privileges for any group ( link txt).

Moreover, the success of some new religious movements lies in their technological character: the simplicity of their forms and clear instructions allow them to effectively spread their ideas. In contrast, traditional religious practices, which contain elements of mystical ambiguity and deep historical complexity, are often perceived as difficult to absorb by modern individuals accustomed to fast and straightforward information acquisition ( link txt).

Thus, modern technologies contribute to the simplification and standardization of religious practices, which, on one hand, makes them more accessible and understandable to the masses, and on the other hand, leads to traditional, less “technological” forms of religious symbolism and practices losing their appeal in an era of rapid information exchange and strict demands for transparency and efficiency.

Supporting citation(s):

"In one perspective, it is exactly the mismatch between Orthodoxy and the 'spirit of this age' that can make Orthodoxy more appealing. For example, consider the problem of missionary technologies. Modern civilization is technological. And a person raised by it is always looking for technologies. '

How do you learn English in 20 lessons?

', 'How do you get rid of a binge in 5 sessions?', 'How do you build your summer cottage in one month?', 'How do you enter the Kingdom of God in five steps?'. But Orthodoxy is not technological. Unlike modern sects, we do not have a ready-made technology that can be offered to a 'client'. That is why we lose to those who have these technologies. Occultism is very technological: 'Do you want to achieve enlightenment? – Here is your mantra, here is your guru, here is your pose; go and sing!'. Neo-Protestantism is quite technological. 'Do you accept Christ as your personal Savior? Hallelujah! You are saved! Sign here and put the date!'. A neo-Protestant remembers how he was converted." (source: link txt)

"Militant secularism, rapidly gaining momentum in today’s Europe, is also a pseudo-religion with its own unassailable ideological tenets and moral norms, its own cult and symbolism. Like Russian communism of the 20th century, it claims a monopoly on worldview and does not tolerate competition. That is why secularist leaders react painfully to religious symbols and jump at any mention of God. 'If God does not exist, He should have been invented,' said the enlightened deist Voltaire, emphasizing the significance of religious faith for the moral health of individuals and society. 'If God does exist, one must remain silent about Him,' insist modern liberal humanists, who believe that God has no place in the sphere of public life. In their opinion, the mention of God in documents of public significance, as well as wearing religious symbols in public spaces, is a violation of the rights of nonbelievers and agnostics. However, they forget that the prohibition of mentioning God and wearing religious symbols is discrimination against believers, who are denied the right to openly practice their religion." (source: link txt)

"— So, is our society pagan or atheistic? — I remain convinced that we live among pagans. An atheist is an extremely rare creature; atheists should now be included in the Red Book. If he is an atheist in relation to the Bible, he is by no means an atheist when it comes to horoscopes, Eastern calendars, and the like. — In your view, what is the strength of the new religious movements? — Partly, it is in their primitiveness. That which is simple becomes effective in the modern world. For sectarians, preparing a preacher is not difficult at all. Memorize the Bible – and off you go with your songs (with 'gusli'). But Orthodoxy is a whole library. One must know the history of the church, our liturgy, the works of the holy fathers, philosophy, and the history of religion. The main reason for the success of all these movements is their technological nature. In Orthodoxy there is a fundamental ambiguity, even for ourselves. Any Orthodox person, when asked how they came to the church, will tell you, 'I don’t know, the Lord brought me.' There is some mystery of personal conversion here." (source: link txt)