Is the internet paving the way paving the way for the decline of organized religion? Article by Valerie Tarico

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Is the Internet paving the way for the decline of organized religion? - Alternet.org

 

webmdave has posted Ms. Tarico's articles before, which actually led me to this website. Here's another great one from her! 

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Is the Internet paving the way for the decline of organized religion? - Alternet.org

 

webmdave has posted Ms. Tarico's articles before, which actually led me to this website. Here's another great one from her! 

 

I agree. Since a good opponent of religion is more and better knowledge,  the internet can provide it. Questions can be answered often with better and more verifiable information, with new verifiable knowledge.

[older]

55 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

I agree. Since a good opponent of religion is more and better knowledge,  the internet can provide it. Questions can be answered often with better and more verifiable information, with new verifiable knowledge.

 

 

 I'm not so quick to agree. While the current trend seems to be away from religion, that has happened in the past yet religion has returned, sometimes with considerable strength.

 

Today, while the internet is a great medium for the spread of knowledge, it also provides a means for stupid people to communicate to a mass audience. And we have certainly seen how that works. Before the net, there was something called "the gatekeeper theory." The means for mass communication was limited and there were relatively few people — the gatekeepers; the owners of the newspapers and radio and TV stations — who controlled access to those means. Journalists used to say we have freedom of the press, but that is only if you own one. Today all you need is access to a public library and you can use a computer there to post online to a mass audience with few if any checks on the content of what is posted.

 

It is true that the gatekeeper theory did not guarantee purity or accuracy of content. In the 1890s Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst competed to sensationalize the news, and some historians claim these papers were the cause of the US entering the Spanish-American war. But they also reported legitimate news, and the amount of sensationalized stories was limited to how much the publications could print within a set number of pages and a set circulation. Today there is no limit to either the amount of content or the reach of a given outlet, or to who has access to those resources.

 

One of the challenges today is to teach what could be called "media literacy," wherein people know how to evaluate a source and check the content. And even with the best of intentions, things can be distorted. If you've ever played the telephone game, you know how this works.

 

So while there is more and better knowledge, there is also more and worse bullshit and insanity out there, feeding the predisposed notions of ignorant people who seek only confirmation of their uninformed opinions.

[walterpthefirst]

I end to agree with Older on this one.

 

When it was new the Internet was hailed as the way humanity would be united by a common understanding of the facts, disseminated electronically to everyone.

 

But what's actually happened is that instead of clarifying the facts for everyone the internet has simply magnified humanity's disparate views about what the facts are.

 

That's because the internet is not an instrument of clarification, filtering out truth from falsity.

 

Instead its just a tool to convey any information (true or false) to anyone who can link to it.

 

Much as a telephone, a newspaper or a television are just tools which can be used responsibly or misused to promote an agenda or an ideology.

 

The internet does the same job as telephones, newspapers and television - just more quickly and to a wider audience.

 

I tend to think that Ms. Tarico's article is somewhat naïve.

 

 

 

Thanks,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Instead its just a tool to convey any information (true or false) to anyone who can link to it.

 

 

And whoever talks the loudest and longest, appeals to our emotions, and warns us about listening to others, is most likely trying to pull the wool over our eyes.  That seems to be a lesson people have a hard time learning.

 

I don't see the internet paving the way for either side of any issue.   It is paving the way for whoever has the ability to make the most appealing sales pitch to the public that is listening and reading.   The internet is paving the way for maximizing  profit for it's investors.  

 

This is getting into a side issue, but is related.  I believe the downplay of a broad (liberal) education for general knowledge and critical thinking is paving the way for fundamental religion.  For keeping the status quo of fear and division which is in the interest of many huge corporations, and is at the core of Abrahamic religions. 

[pantheory]

On 2/20/2024 at 6:08 PM, older said:

 

 

 I'm not so quick to agree. While the current trend seems to be away from religion, that has happened in the past yet religion has returned, sometimes with considerable strength.

 

Today, while the internet is a great medium for the spread of knowledge, it also provides a means for stupid people to communicate to a mass audience. And we have certainly seen how that works. Before the net, there was something called "the gatekeeper theory." The means for mass communication was limited and there were relatively few people — the gatekeepers; the owners of the newspapers and radio and TV stations — who controlled access to those means. Journalists used to say we have freedom of the press, but that is only if you own one. Today all you need is access to a public library and you can use a computer there to post online to a mass audience with few if any checks on the content of what is posted.

 

It is true that the gatekeeper theory did not guarantee purity or accuracy of content. In the 1890s Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst competed to sensationalize the news, and some historians claim these papers were the cause of the US entering the Spanish-American war. But they also reported legitimate news, and the amount of sensationalized stories was limited to how much the publications could print within a set number of pages and a set circulation. Today there is no limit to either the amount of content or the reach of a given outlet, or to who has access to those resources.

 

One of the challenges today is to teach what could be called "media literacy," wherein people know how to evaluate a source and check the content. And even with the best of intentions, things can be distorted. If you've ever played the telephone game, you know how this works.

 

So while there is more and better knowledge, there is also more and worse bullshit and insanity out there, feeding the predisposed notions of ignorant people who seek only confirmation of their uninformed opinions.

 

Yes, religion had a resurgence partly because of the stupidity in the Hippy era IMO. But the internet is an opponent that I believe will be lasting for at least hundreds of years in the US and in Europe, and likely elsewhere. That's a very knowledgeable opponent that I think cannot be put down everywhere. Proponents of religion can spread it but little knowledge and evidence can be involved.

 

I believe in the stupitity-evolution of mankind. Evidence shows that intelligent people tend to sire more intelligent offspring. This has been shown to be true for identical twins raised with completely different education and environments. Since the advent of wide-spread birth control drugs and condoms in the 1960's, the more intelligent people are having fewer children, Without government control or incentives, the least intelligent people are siring a much higher percentage of the children in each country, and the world as a whole, meaning the average intelligence of the human race is slowly going down, yes, a great playground for religion. But in the end, probably many decades from now, intelligence will overcome stupidity one way or another, and the internet will play a major role in this triumph IMO. Someday maybe all of today's religions will be thought of in the same way that we now think of Greek Mythology, as the simple beliefs of yore.  I look it as the eventual triumph of science over religion worldwide, a triumph of evidence over childish beliefs  such as Santa, the Easter Bunny, or any belief not based upon objective evidence. Again the old humorous adage:

 

Believe nothing of what you hear, be skeptical of everything you read, and believe only half of what you see.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

Weez,

 

Your word "liberal" hare could have many different meanings. I agree the education system in the US has much to be desired. It does not train children to be self sufficient as adults. I think a broad education of all the different academic subjects is great, but a great consideration should also be given to how this could apply to adult life, which is rarely done now in the US  Since I've traveled the world a great deal, in Germany for instance, kids are culled at an early age. The smart with the smart, and those wanting to be in the manual trades are educated differently. This is great in that there you have some of the best plumbers, electricians, carpenters, mathematicians, scientists, etc. etc. of the world.

 

But what if you did not do well in school or on tests for other reasons such as religion, parents, environment, Autism, etc. etc. The negative would be that if later someone wanted to enter a more intellectual profession it would be much more difficult there than it is in the US.

 

The internet is a fantastic tool for education, much easier and far faster. For primary education (up to high school), the separation of church and state is very important. It is somewhat stated and implied in the US constitution and prevails to a certain extent with a few exceptions in all of the world governments. But the constitution of the country of Turkey has very clear and precise language: that the public domain including schooling must not involve religion, no religious signs on your person (no Christian crosses, no cross of David, no signs of Islam, no proselytizing in public,  etc.) pendants under your clothing if you wish. If the separation of church and state is clear, then education can progress in a logical way without religion, which unfortunately can always be done elsewhere. But foreign kids that learn English on TV and with their friends here in US,  prefer to speak English at home rather than their parent's language. I believe that the same principle applies to internet related learning from secular education sources overriding religion.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Weez,

Your word "liberal" hare could have many different meanings. 

 

 

HA!  A liberal hare is one who runs hap hazardly in all directions.

 

Seriously, look up the dictionary definition.  Paraphrasing what they say, it is education for life.  Not just a particular subject or occupation, which is what the power brokers want.  People who are uneducated about life, but can help them make more money and stay in power.  Thus, defunding "liberal education", and educational TV and radio, but making job training available.

 

 

[TABA]

7 hours ago, Weezer said:

Not just a particular subject or occupation, which is what the power brokers want.  People who are uneducated about life, but can help them make more money and stay in power.  Thus, defunding "liberal education", and educational TV and radio, but making job training available.

Just because the power brokers want something doesn’t mean it’s necessarily a bad thing.  It should be questioned, certainly.   But educational TV and radio, the arts, scientific research all have to be paid for.  And many self-described liberals have little understanding of basic economics.  Firstly, that wealth is not a zero-sum concept.  Wealth has to be created, and that is not done by taking money from others, legally or otherwise.  Money is literally created by economic growth, not by simply printing more currency.  Wealth is created by people making products that other people are willing to pay for. Whether it is Bill Gates, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and many others, the great philanthropists funded the arts and education with money they made from selling stuff.  The great foundations that fund the top universities were almost entirely created by industrialists, whether we like those 19th century figures or not.  
 

The second thing that many “liberals” don’t understand is that government does not create any wealth.  Not a red cent.  Every dollar that government spends is taken, forcibly or otherwise, from people who made money.  Government can only redistribute money, not make it.  True, government policies can either encourage or discourage wealth creation, but somebody else has to make the money first.   
 

I work at a plant that employs around 500 people in a relatively rural area.  These are very well paying jobs, which allow people like me to support educational television and radio, among others.  To make our products, we need engineers, scientists, electricians, pipe fitters, as well as smart and educated operators.  And the sad fact is that it is getting harder and harder to find all of the above, because fewer young people are entering these fields.  The power brokers may want more wealth-producers, but without wealth-producers you get the stagnant, superstitious, heretic-burning, disease-ridden societies in which humans existed before the Industrial Revolution.  Yes, we need goverment.  We need reasonable regulation.   We need the arts, the humanities, to make and keep us civilized.  But without wealth being created by people with useful skills, none of that can be paid for.  So beware of simplistic narratives! 

 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I should have known better than to use the word "liberal" education.  I should have said a broad education that promotes humanity.  The term liberal has taken own a whole different meaning in the last few years.  Politicians have misused the word and made it into something demonic.  The dictionary definitions of liberal are:  

1.  Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from ones own;  Open to new ideas.

2.  Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

         These are the definitions that the term liberal education was originally meant to mean.

Do you disagree with either of those definitions?

 

The company you work for, and many other companies are NOT the power brokers I am referring to.  Most companies are providing a very valuable service and treating employees well.   I am a physical conservative and agree with almost everything you said.  But there are some very greedy, extremely wealthy and heartless people at the very top of it all.  They pull the strings of government officials.  It is an extremely complicated system.  They know how to suck the money to the top.   But we are getting off subject, except that christian nationalism is part of the problem, which is close to getting out of control.   Why don't we take this to PM if you want to discuss it further.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

See my post about GOD AND COUNTRY in Rants and Replies.  It is related to this discussion.

 

[TABA]

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

The dictionary definitions of liberal are:  

1.  Willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from ones own;  Open to new ideas.

2.  Relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

         These are the definitions that the term liberal education was originally meant to mean.

Do you disagree with either of those definitions?

 

I absolutely embrace those principles!

One hundred percent.

 

5 hours ago, Weezer said:

But we are getting off subject, except that christian nationalism is part of the problem, which is close to getting out of control.   Why don't we take this to PM if you want to discuss it further

Good idea. 

 

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

On 2/20/2024 at 6:08 PM, older said:

. Before the net, there was something called "the gatekeeper theory." The means for mass communication was limited and there were relatively few people — the gatekeepers; the owners of the newspapers and radio and TV stations — who controlled access to those means. Journalists used to say we have freedom of the press, but that is only if you own one. Today all you need is access to a public library and you can use a computer there to post online to a mass audience with few if any checks on the content of what is posted.

Right, but............

Before that was the Catholic church as a gatekeeper for information. The Guttenburg press was the internet of its time, spreading the information of the bible far and wide to those who learned to read, bringing us now to the age of the internet, for all the Good, Bad and Ugly it has the potential for, better or worse, like all knowledge (Good and Evil perhaps?). 

I would rather all information was out there than a confined Information Highway, with all due respect. 

On 2/20/2024 at 6:08 PM, older said:

Today there is no limit to either the amount of content or the reach of a given outlet, or to who has access to those resources.

 

BUT...........

There's so much crap out there that it gets drowned out for lack of anything useful to learn. 

And sort of like book burning, that content isn't going to go away. For better or worse. 

Imagine what AI will do, and in a hurry. 

On 2/20/2024 at 6:08 PM, older said:

One of the challenges today is to teach what could be called "media literacy," wherein people know how to evaluate a source and check the content. And even with the best of intentions, things can be distorted. If you've ever played the telephone game, you know how this works.

 

I agree with you here the most. What we teach our children of critical thinking is...well.......CRITICAL. Especially if you don't have the easy answers for you that xtianity provides. Teaching kids how to figure out right and wrong doesn't have to come from a confusing set of rules from a (dubious) 2000 year old book. It's innate in most cases and just needs to be nurtured. 

 

Thank you all for your thoughtful comments! 

Moxie