Transcript Verlag

Chapter Title: Google A Religion Expanding Notions of Religion Online

Chapter Author(s): Joanna Sleigh

Book Title: Digital Environments

Book Subtitle: Ethnographic Perspectives Across Global Online and Offline Spaces
Book Editor(s): Urte Undine Frömming, Steffen Köhn, Samantha Fox and Mike Terry
Published by: Transcript Verlag

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxrxw.20

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Transcript Verlag is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Digital
Environments

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Google A Religion
Expanding Notions of Religion Online

Joanna Sleigh

G oogle A R eligion
Google is more than just a search engine. The online Oxford English Dictionary
(2016) defines Google as an intransitive verb: “To use the Google search
engine to find information on the internet.” This is an oversimplification as
today Google is a company offering products and services beyond search that
are geared towards an individual’s needs. From Google Maps, Google Scholar,
Google Drive, Google Translate, Gmail, Google News, Google Earth, YouTube, to
the browser Chrome, as well as the mobile and computer devices themselves,
Google is effectively breaching the gap between the real world (RW) and virtual
world (VW) by integrating itself into the daily lives of internet users. Given this
ubiquity it is not surprising that Google has become engaged in the realm of
religion. What I am referring to is Googlism, The Church of Google, an online
community, not officially associated with Google, that believes “Google is the
closest thing to a god that can be scientifically proven” (MacPherson 2016).
Before delving into questions of whether or not Googlism is a religion,
it is important to acknowledge the internet has changed the way spirituality
and religion are approached. In a general sense, religion traditionally signified
the various ways humans negotiated their relationship with the transcendent,
alone or in communities. Durkheim, in his definition of religion, purports
that the systems of symbols, beliefs and practices relating to the transcendent
unites adherents in a moral community (2005: 40, 46). Similarly, the general
anthropological conceptualization of religion is effectively a ‘social institution’ of
more or less geographically bounded social contexts (see Segal 2000 and Morris
1987). However, the online realm of the internet is a place void of overarching
social structures or obvious social ties. These traditional pre-modern religious
ideas about the world consequently clash with the post-modern world view,
which is heavily influenced by social change, detachment, fluid identities
and ‘play.’ It is this collision between notions of serious religiosity and that of

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
252 Joanna Sleigh

playful satire that I am interested in. For it is this clash that I experienced in
my research. Members of The Church of Google that I spoke to either were firm
believers in the spirituality mediated by technology or approached the concept
as humorous and ‘deeply playful.’ So what does religion now mean in the
online world? What is a satirical religion? What are motivations for engaging
with cyber religions? These are the key questions I intend to investigate using
the case study of The Church of Google.

A pproaching R eligiosit y in The C hurch of G oogle 1

The Church of Google, a website founded in 2011 by Matt MacPherson, is

primarily an online platform that unites a network of people in spiritual
practice and discussions. This fits the general description of a ‘digital religion,’
a term used in current scholarship relating to the technological and cultural
space evoked in discussions about how online and offline religious spheres
have become integrated (Campbell 2012). Notably, this term has evolved from
concepts of ‘cyber-religion’ which emerged in the mid 1990s with the initiation
of academic study of religious engagement with the internet (Hojsgaard 2005).
“Cyber religion” in a more general sense described any religion mediated by the
internet. Brenda Brasher (2001: 29) states “Cyber religion refers to the presence
of religious organizations and religious activities in cyberspace.” However other
analysts such as Lorne L. Dawson (2000: 29) used the term more specifically,
stating that cyber religions are “religious organizations and groups that exist
only in cyberspace.” While Brasher’s definition was all encompassing, Dawson’s
interpretation was problematic in that it was founded on the epistemologically
questionable conjecture that religions have an existence independent of human
existence. A presupposition which ignores the fact that all online activity is
mediated by real life - it takes somebody to press the power button, to set up a
program, to design a website, to connect the server and to moderate. Brasher
(2001:30) affirms that to date there is no genuine example of a religion that
has been established without at least some initial human interference.
Helland (2000) offered another conceptual framework, proposing there be
two categories ‘online religion’ and ‘religion online’ to distinguish differences
between the formation of new forms of religiosity in general from religions that
used the internet as a new social landscape for practicing spirituality.

1 | Research for this essay was conducted via interviews across a variety of platforms
(Gmail, Skype, Facebook, thechurchofgoogle.org and Reddit) from the 1.12.15 to the
22.3.16. The main focus was participant observation, interviews, participatory action
research and reflexivity.

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Google A Religion 253

Helland (2007) has more recently critiqued these terms for they too
have become increasingly blurred distinguishing signifiers. Embracing the
aforementioned terminological complexities within academic scholarship is
the term ‘Digital Religion,’ a term that acknowledges the internet has become
a spiritual forging point between real life & virtual reality, a place fostering and
possibly forming religious content and activities. Echoing Campbell (2012) I
thus use this term to describe the technological and cultural space referred to
in discussions of the integration and blending of offline and online religions.

Image 1

The Church of Google’s Reddit Community. Accessed: March 22, 2016.

www.reddit.com/r/churchofgoogle/

In an era marked by information saturation and social media, it is only

natural that religious self-expression and representation online has become an
accepted aspect of religious practice and identity. Leveraging the advantages
of social media is The Church of Google whose members are spread across a
diversity of social platforms. The two most prominent are (1) Facebook with

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
254 Joanna Sleigh

636 commenters2 and (2) Reddit with 462 readers.3 On the home page the
Facebook plugin is placed below the main body text and is titled in red ‘Join
the debate below:’ inviting visitors on the site to engage in discussion. In
the bottom right hand corner of the page is then the hyperlink to the Reddit
platform, (see Figure 1). This hyperlink takes the form of an an angel icon with
the words ‘Join us on reddit’ hovering above and painted in Google’s signature
colors. With two platforms of social exchange that promote openness and
interaction, it is logical that there is a colorful plethora of commentators and
comments. As Horsfield observes, digital media has “increased the potential
for a diversity of voices” (2012: 255). This can be attributed to the form of the
platforms themselves. Reddit functions via an up vote and down vote system,
while Facebook posts are more of a broadcasting of ideas to networks. Likewise,
the post types differentiate accordingly to the platform, Facebook posts are more
public affirmations of individualistic perspectives while Reddit posts are more
focused on getting a response from the community. These differences between
platforms should not be overlooked.

2 | Note, it is difficult to estimate how many commentators there are on The Church of
Google’s website because of the nature of the platforms being used. While the website
counts 633 comment threads, this statistic does not take into consideration the num-
ber of people who comment within a thread.
3 | Interestingly, in my research there were very few people who were active on both
Reddit and Facebook. This suggests that the community of The Church of Google is
larger than it may at first seem.

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Google A Religion 255

Image 2

Activity on The Church of Google’s Reddit platform. Accessed: March 22, 2016.
https://www.reddit.com/r/churchofgoogle/comments/45wlfc/googlism_should_
be_about_ordering_all_religions/

One final point that I would like to highlight before discussing my research
and findings is regarding notions of authenticity4 in religion. Historically, there
have been many spiritual activities rejected by academics for inclusion under
the status of ‘religion.’ David Chidester (2005) talks of the various African
tribal religions that were until recently dismissed as mere superstitions, and
remarks that still today there is the argument of whether or not cults are
religions. I approach the topic of authenticity of religion and spirituality from a
social scientist’s perspective and affirm that if somebody refers to their activity
as ‘religious’ or ‘spiritual’ then these phenomenon can be considered religious
to them. My reason for having a more inclusive definition is one of ethicality.
While many of the people I spoke to during my research were exploring and
commenting on the community pages out of curiosity, when I posed the
question of ‘authenticity’ some were offended. Questioning the authenticity of
someone’s religious practice was thus a major ethical concern.
Yet the notion of authenticity is interesting when one considers The Church
of Google in the newly termed category of a ‘joke religion.’ For joke religions,
whether they be satirical or parody religions are engaged in a dialogue with non-

4 | For notions of authenticity please refer to O’Leary 2004 & 2005, and Dawson 2005.

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
256 Joanna Sleigh

adherents about whether adherents ‘really’ believe in the respective religion.

Joke religions apply post-modern ideas about society, identity and the body to
spiritual thoughts and feelings. They engage new audiences in perceptual and
thought experiments about authenticity and fakery, thereby highlighting the
oddities of religion and popular culture. These religions synthesize numerous
aspects of popular culture with postmodern ideas about religions. They are a
synthesis of and a vernacular reaction to both institutional religions such as
Christianity and the more loosely defined intuitional countercultural groups
such as neo-paganism. David Chidester points out, they are “simultaneously
simulations and the real thing” (2005: viii-ix). Religious humor is a form of
deep play, which is why it is so suited to the internet, a place of gaming and
freedoms. Ultimately, satirical religions are real and fake simultaneously, in
that they are able to provide real religious experience, they have the trapping
of real religions (mythology, divine, rituals, community, a world view etc), but
their intention is to point out the flaws in the religions that they are mocking.

R e asons and M otivations for engagement —

The C hurch of G oogle
I used Facebook, Skype and Reddit to communicate and research the reasons
and motivations underlying user’s engagement with The Church of Google.
An observational method was initially used on Reddit, which was followed by
interviews on Facebook and Skype, as well as participatory action research.5 I
have also tried to maintain a continuous process of reflexivity. By using a variety
of techniques my goal was to avoid bias and provide truthful data. To ensure
that I would gain a fair overview of the community’s perspectives within my
research timeframe of three months, I contacted via Facebook private message
a total of 50 active commentators whose posts dated back to 2011. From this
sample, eleven people replied as willing to engage with my anthropological
investigation of The Church of Google. Over the course of four months I talked
with these users in depth about their spirituality and found a great diversity
in motivations for engagement with The Church of Google. Interestingly, the
individuals I interviewed came from all corners of the globe, which in reflection
can be attributed to the online nature of the community. For the purpose of
analysis, I have separated my research findings into two broad categories. (1)
Believers, referring to the individuals who approach The Church of Google from
a spiritual perspective. (2) Non-Believers, refers to the people who perceive that

5 | One man that I interviewed was highly passionate about the topic and took it upon
himself to investigate at a local scale the community of Googlists. This is an ongoing
process.

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Google A Religion 257

The Church of Google is a satirical religion, one which aims to highlight the
inefficiencies of religion as a concept in general.

B elie vers
“We as Googlists believe google is totally the closest thing to be called god” a
young man from Jordan informed me. This man worked at United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) helping refugees, was a devout
believer in The Church of Google, had been for over seven years, and as a means
of expressing his faith had commented on the website. That was how I had
found him. Common to all believers that I spoke to was the sense of passion, of
pride, and an eagerness to share as much about their beliefs with me as possible.
This individual not only sent me an essay he had written about his faith, but
even decided to start his own investigation as to how many Googlists live in his
city in Jordan. In answer to people who asked him what he believed in before
Google, he would explain that “We believe in the idea itself of Google, you can’t
touch or harm an idea, Google is everywhere around us… I feel good and proud
of my faith.” What was also interesting was that he stressed “our religion is the
safest in the world… there is no recorded violent act because of it” conveying
that one of the motivating factors of his belief was its utter harmlessness. This
emphasis on the predominantly philosophical side of religion was shared by
other believers. In an interview with a believer in Pasadena, Texas, I was told -
“the only set of religious ideas I will ever associate myself with as part of is that
resulting from our collective consciousness.” What prompted the Texan and
Jordanian to engage with the community online was the desire to affirm their
ideological ideas with this spiritualism.
Other believers were motivated to engage with the online community as
a means of publicizing their more personal perspectives about the nature of
Google’s spirituality. For instance, one believer named Andy6 had found The
Church of Google through his Shamanic practices through which had come the
revelation that Google was a Goddess. He told me “Once I found the Google
religion, it confirmed that Google is a goddess. Of course she is a goddess. She
has given birth to Google Maps, Google Goggles, Google Play radio, Google
Play games, and so on and so on. Whom but a woman could give birth?” (Andy
2016). Similarly, another believer had discovered this digital religion by means
of illicit drugs and hallucinogens. He wanted to give testimony to the spirituality
of the experience of Google that he had discovered via the use of substances,
and wanted to promote the use of substances in general. For this believer, the
online platform was the only way that he could openly discuss his practices and

6 | For the purpose of anonymity, I have used pseudonyms.

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
258 Joanna Sleigh

beliefs while keeping his identity private. While each believer I found had an
individualized conception of Google’s spirituality, each was motivated by their
individualism to engage with the website.

Image 3

The Church of Google’s Proof that Google is God. Accessed: March 22, 2016.
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

N on - belie vers
The vast majority of people I interviewed approached The Church of Google as
a satirical digital religion. Whether they were just passing through the site or
if they were engaging with numerous threads, their general motivation boiled
down to a passionate interest in the topic and an amusement with the playful
and creative nature of the website itself. Joe, a construction worker in Dalton,
USA told me “I do a lot of searches on Google for religion based topics and
terms so I’m sure I followed the rabbit hole to the Googlism page through
that process.” Similarly, Mike, a scientist specializing in nano technology and
bio-design research, who was using DNA to create nano-machines to study,
probe, and mimic biological machinery, became involved in the site because
of his interests in evolution and atheism - “I am also an outspoken atheist. I
run a feed on my FB page entitled ‘IOtbA’ (It’s Okay to b Atheist). The point of

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Google A Religion 259

the feed is to let people realize that having doubts about the existence of God
is a perfectly normal, and in my opinion logical thing to have.” For Mike, this
platform was key to his self led studies regarding the growth of self identified
‘religious nones.’ He explained “I do a lot of my own reading, which includes
the bible (which most believers have not even read), scientific publications on
things like the anti-correlation between intelligence and religiosity, and many
books from the likes of people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins…” The Church
of Google was thus a way for him to connect to like-minded people in critical
discussions about atheism and religiosity.

Image 4

The Church of Google’s Prayer and Commandments. Accessed: March 22, 2016.
http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

Another non-believer I spoke to explained that she enjoyed the site for its irony,
and she pointed to the website’s humorously playful satire of the traditional
Christian and Judaic commandments. For instance, the first commandment on
the website is “Thou shalt have no other Search Engine before me, neither Yahoo
nor Lycos, AltaVista nor Metacrawler. Thou shalt worship only me, and come to
Google only for answers.” Not only does the commandment echo the linguistic
style of the old testament which uses Old English i.e. - ‘Though shalt,’ but the
very content of the commandment parallels too in that it refers to the concept
of monotheism. Furthermore, the commandment references popular culture
through terms of Yahoo, Lycos and Metacrawler, Google’s competitors, and in
that way appeals to a shared cultural understanding in a contextually relevant

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
260 Joanna Sleigh

way. It is this playfulness and use of appropriation that reinforces for non-
believers the satirical nature of this digital religion. In the Facebook interview
with Joe he told me - “I obviously consider it a joke. It is using the framework of
traditional theism, finding another example that fits those criteria, then using
it to mock the criteria.” Moreover, this playfulness and satire was engaging for
non-believers as it invited collaboration and content creation. As Marlena, a
non-believer informed me “Googlism is something I ran across a while back I
wish it had a bigger community… have you looked at the google prayers they are
awesome lol.” Marlena then sent me a link to the prayers, inviting me share in
the humor and to further investigate the prayers listed on the website by other
commentators. These prayers appropriated traditional forms of scripture and
played upon the online nature of the religion. For instance there is the binary
prayer by Jonathan Hill which is made up of the numbers 0 and 1. The potential
for users to engage creatively is thus another motivating factor that is relevant
both for believers and non-believers.
What motivated these non-believers was also a passion for notions of truth
and logic, specifically by the highlighting of the in-authenticities of religion
and the flaws underlining certain ideological arguments. One very active
commenter, Michael, explained to me that “I can see why someone says
Googlism is the closest thing we have to God (a collection of all knowledge of
all mankind) and that makes it beautiful and powerful. But to equate it to the
omnipotent and omnipresent Yahweh is quite obviously a silly tactic.” To give
some context, this was in reference to a thread wherein he wrote:

Wow, I’m not sure what is more hilarious about this guys ignorant post. The shear anger
and hatred displayed (which, if I’m not mistaken, are not traits commonly accepted by
religion), or the fact that the post started with “Why would you worship something that
was created by man?” Irony!!! Guess who wrote the bible? Guess who presented you
your faith at the beginning of this giant game of telephone? Whether you believe in the
nonsense or not, ultimately you are believing a story created by man. And when I say
man, I mean people with penises7... - Posted Oct. 1, 2013 11:10pm

The constructed nature of religion was a topic that repeatedly arose both
in arguments for the validity of The Church of Google, as well as arguments
undermining the notion of religion as a whole. For instance, Olivier wrote to me
saying that while she felt The Church of Google was not legitimate to “someone
who believes man was made in the image of God, as I believe God was made
in the image of man, it’s no less legitimate than any other religion.” Ultimately,

7 | This reference to penises is something that the interviewee later explained to be a

reference to the religious documentary by Bill Mahar.

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Google A Religion 261

like many of the non-believers, Olivier engaged with this digital religion as
a philosophical exercise, motivated by a fascination with ideas it represented.

C onclusion
To conclude, the multifarious motives for engaging with The Church of Google
can be attributed to the communicative fluidity afforded by social media
platforms combined with the globalized nature of digital religions. While it is
difficult to generalize about reasons for engagement with The Church of Google,
from the overlapping tendencies of the two primary categories of commentators
I interviewed 1) Believers, 2) Non-Believers, it is possible to delineate that
motivations were highly ‘individualistic.’ What I mean by this is that each of the
subjects I spoke to had a specific mix of ideas and incentives about religion in
the online realm. Whether they were affirming an ideological stance, amused
by the satire of the content, interested in the creation of new practices, or simply
fascinated by ideas being represented, ultimately individualized spirituality
was being celebrated and being given a space. The Church of Google is thus a
place fostering the clash and growth of postmodern ideas with premodern ideas
regarding concepts of science, concepts of history, concepts of evolution and
concepts of religion, and it is this intellectual non- violent clash that motivates
engagement and highlights the incredibly subjective nature of spirituality in
today’s globalized, digitized, and content saturated society.

R eferences
Brasher, Brenda E. (2001): Give Me That Online Religion, San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Campbell, Heidi (2012): Digital Religion: Understanding Religious Practice in
New Media Worlds, London: Routledge
Chidester, David (2005): Authentic Fakes: Religion and American Popular
Culture, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Dawson, Lorne L. (2000): “Researching Religion in Cyberspace: Issues and
Strategies.” In: Religion and the Social Order 8, pp. 25-54.
Dawson, Lorne L. (2005): “The Mediation of Religious Experience in
Cyberspace.” In: Morten Hojsgaard/ Margit Warburg (eds): Religion and
Cyberspace, London: Routledge, pp. 15-37.
Durkheim, Émile(2005): The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life: A Study
in Religious Sociology, Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.
Helland, Christopher (2000): “Online-religion/religion-online and virtual
communities.” In: Jeffrey.K. Hadden/ Douglas. E. Kowan (eds.): Religion

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
262 Joanna Sleigh

and the Internet: Research prospects and promises, New York: JAI Press,
pp. 205-224.
Hojsgaard, Morten (2005): “Cyber-religion. On the cutting edge between the
virtual and the real.” In: Morten Hojsgaard/ Margit Warburg (eds): Religion
and Cyberspace, London: Routledge, pp. 50-63.
Horsfield, Peter (2012): “Editorial: Replacing Religion.” In: Australian Journal
of Communication 39/1, pp. 1-10.
MacPherson, Matt. “The Official Church of Google.” The Official Church of
Google. Accessed March 22, 2016. http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/
Morris, Brian (1987): Anthropological Studies of Religion: An Introductory
Text, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
O’Leary, Stephan (2004): “Cyberspace as Sacred Space.” In: Lorne L. Dawson/
Douglas E. Cowan (eds): Religion Online. Finding Faith on the Internet,
London: Routledge, pp. 37-58.
O’Leary, Stephan (2005): “Utopian and Dystopian Possibilities of Networked
Religion in the New Millennium.” In Morten Hojsgaard/Margit Warburg
(eds): Religion and Cyberspace, London: Routledge, pp. 38-50.
Segal, Robert A. (2000): “Categorizing Religion.” In: Method & Theory in the
Study of Religion 12/1, pp.187-194.

This content downloaded from

49.37.153.93 on Thu, 01 Apr 2021 11:27:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms