Freedom, Secularism and the Loneliness Paradox

We are freer than any generation before us. We can leave our hometowns, abandon religion, cut ties with toxic family members and build lives wherever we want.

But are we all built for an independent social life?

Across much of the secular world, loneliness is rising. The very freedoms that liberated us from rigid social structures may also have dismantled the communities that once sustained us.

Modern secular societies face a paradox: The liberation from inherited communities has given individuals unprecedented autonomy, but it has also dismantled many of the social structures that once protected people from isolation.

Until recently, most people had at least some kind of built-in socializing structures – and one of them was their town’s religious congregation. The freedom to choose whether you want to keep contact with your family, or whether you wish to reproduce or not was practically non-existent or not considered.

Now we can cut contact with toxic family members. We can choose to not attend any religious congregation. We can work from home and avoid “office politics.” But many of us were born in an old world which doesn’t exist anymore so, naturally, we weren’t prepared for a reality in which we’ll have to either create our own social connections independently – or have none.

This creates some kind of a “price of loneliness” to freedom – you have the freedom to move to another city and get rid of the societal pressure of your hometown, but it comes at a cost. Nobody to call for help when you catch the flu. No local friends unless you put yourself out there. We are in times when social anxiety seems to be rising, but I think it’s always been there. Many people have always been shy or socially anxious, but only now is it coming up to the surface – now that being social is the prerequisite to not being lonely. Because there’s no “automatic” community to be a part of.

So what do we do? Well, the extroverts among us find this truly liberating. No one has to socialize with people they have nothing in common with, so they get out there and find the ones with whom they feel a connection. But for the introverted? The socially anxious? That’s a completely different story.

After around a decade of serious decline in religious participation, we are now seeing more and more people going back to religion or other “traditional” social circles. Many go back to the office despite still having the option to work remotely. Many even quit retirement just to not feel socially isolated. I’ve even seen atheists go back to church – despite still not believing. They usually claim they go there for a sense of community, and that’s where it hit me: Religions, especially the highly conservative sects, are trying to make a comeback by filling in the community gap.

They’ve been trying to attract atheists and secular people through new interpretations: “This religious tradition won’t be forced on you. We’ll still accept you if you don’t become observant, but you can do this symbolically – like fasting to empathize with the needy, for example.”

Don’t be fooled – these aren’t people of the egalitarian religions or reformed ones. These are missionaries of Orthodox, Catholic or other high-control religious sects, trying to speak to you in a secular language. They know most secular people care to keep the freedom to not commit religiously, and pressuring them to do so would push them to quit entirely – so they no longer scold the non-observants.

They claim to accept everyone now – even atheists – but once you’re in their turf, you’re still expected to “respect” religious conservatism – which often translates into expectations of deference to conservative norms. You’re expected to “respect their disrespect” one-sidedly when they ban women from active, equal participation and reject same sex marriage. They act nice to create sympathy and community ties, so you’ll be more inclined to blink an eye when their leaders get involved in all kinds of corruption or try to pass religion-favoring bills.

“Cult strategy” is the most dangerous part of this weaponization of the lack of community by religions and other authoritarian or extremist groups. When so many people no longer have built-in community experiences and remain lonely – especially during mentally challenging times – those groups jump in, giving them a feeling of acceptance and belonging (no barriers like being “cool,” “interesting” or “successful”) and a sense of fellowship. They support each other during tough times, because they have something in common – a belief that some divine authority, or some ideological leader, or a revolutionary government will save them. All you need to do is to accept the narrative and loyally commit to it and you’re in. You’re finally “popular”.

By now, every freedom loving independent thinker should be aware of the risks of relying entirely on someone else during challenging times. Whether it’s your family, the government or any other institution – if you give them the power to “feed” you, you give them the power to “starve” you. However, many people aren’t mentally equipped for full independence, or aren’t willing to pay the price of freedom once realizing it.

So what should we do? We can’t afford to let extremist groups capture so many people. We can’t just let them capitalize on “community.” We can’t afford to let them monopolize and weaponize it: We know what happens when they do.

On the other hand – there’s only so much we can have in common with someone who is “just an atheist,” or “just freedom loving.” As odd as it may sound, I guess faith in an invisible man who lives in the skies gives many people the kind of useful common ground needed to become a community filled with people who support each other through thick and thin.

What’s the future of community? Hopefully not religion or nationalism. Being accidentally born into the same nation doesn’t necessarily mean we have anything in common. If the only thing we share is the country we were born in, then we don’t actually have anything in common. I’d have much more in common with a secularist from another country than with a religious person from my own.

We will have to find a way to redefine community bonds, ones that are made by choice and are based on common interests and shared values, rather than habitual ones, while also tolerating diversity of thought and opinion. The kind of communities which can survive long distance; the kind of connections we don’t completely lose in relocation.

Maybe we should bring book clubs back. Maybe we should knock on our nice neighbors’ door and invite them for coffee once in a while, or go out more. Create shared-values-based communities. If not everyone is mentally capable to pay such a high price tag for freedom – we must figure out ways to lower the price or make it easier to pay.

The challenge for secular societies is not only to defend freedom from traditional authority, but to also build new forms of belonging strong enough to sustain it.

We may not yet know exactly what these new communities will look like. We don’t have all the answers, nor do we believe in a divine authority which claims to have them. The only thing I know is that we have to find a solution for the many great people out there, who are lonely and don’t have any communal support – before the ones with malicious intent do.