Unsettling Paradox?

I generally understand people’s volunteered (as opposed to forced) involvement with religion (whether it be routine or on an as-needed basis) to be sought out as a comfort. I am in Community Psychology and today we were talking about stress and the ways people cope with stress. There is extensive research and empirical evidence around the ways in which people turn to religion as a coping mechanism. I think that a “higher power” and something bigger than an individual helps the individual to cope with things that are uncontrollable and hard to understand.

I realize that there is a great difference between religion and the concept of faith that we were talking about yesterday, but I think they are linked if the cheapened version of faith gave way to religion and religious organization today. What I’m wondering (the point of all this rambling) is, if the purpose of religion/faith (at least for many) is to find comfort, is it possible that we utilize religion in a way that includes true faith (as according to Kierkegaard)? Could people find “having faith” in the paradox fulfilling in the way they find organized religion fulfilling? If Kierkegaard explains faith as accepting paradox, does this imply that being a person of “faith” (be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, anything) involves accepting paradox, though it may be unsettling? Then where is the comfort and safety of religion? Or maybe coming to find peace with the paradox is the path of finding faith and religion becomes obsolete? Maybe this is where the “cheapened” version comes into play. People are under the impression that faith/religion/spiritual life should be the “easy” and comforting counterpart to the rest of life that is hard to understand.