Evangelical Ignorance and the Effect on the Public

[john5746]

The obvious difference being fact vs fiction. To be sure, violent games and movies should be controlled by the parents, IMO, but this is not the same as teaching kids to shoot real guns and hate real people. Religion is taught as fact, a very important fact. One that will lead to their destruction in this life and the afterlife, if they do not believe.

[ParanoiA]

While I appreciate your point about selective tolerance and nontolerance, I don't personally feel that sources of entertainment and sources of spirituality hold the same weight when it comes to impact on the child and impact on society.

 

Really? Funny how my belief in god, as a teenager, didn't trump my entertainment beliefs - it didn't stop me from having premarital sex, listening to Dio, drinking and taking drugs, swearing...and I'm quite sure society didn't appreciate it either.

 

My entertainment choices were far more influencial - even though I was fighting with spirituality inside.

 

The obvious difference being fact vs fiction. To be sure, violent games and movies should be controlled by the parents, IMO, but this is not the same as teaching kids to shoot real guns and hate real people. Religion is taught as fact, a very important fact. One that will lead to their destruction in this life and the afterlife, if they do not believe.

 

Religion is taught as faith - not fact. They believe it like fact, but it's not presented as fact because that would undermine "faith", particularly the kind of nobility they seem to assign faith. I'm generalizing somewhat, but I've never experienced religion presented as fact, with proof.

 

And violent video games are fiction, but they're far more influencial. They allow our rotten instincts to be exploited and glorified. They don't even attempt to wrap it in a bow and throw in some hope and salvation - just pure exercise of violent human behavior.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for regulating any of this stuff - I'm just saying that you're kidding yourself, no lying to yourself, by rationalizing Hell House as clearly abuse and violent video games as clearly not.

[iNow]

And violent video games are fiction, but they're far more influencial. They allow our rotten instincts to be exploited and glorified.

Being a science site, I'd challenge you to prove that violent video games are far more influential than religion. Or... at least state that this is your opinion and retract the absolute nature of that statement.

 

Also, video games often allow for the safe expression of natural tendencies. They can be an outlet that has little or no consequence (similar examples are porn). This is an oversimplification, as they also reinforce certain behaviors which are, in fact, negative, but I'm simply saying the issue is not so simple, nor so black and white as you suggest.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not for regulating any of this stuff - I'm just saying that you're kidding yourself, no lying to yourself, by rationalizing Hell House as clearly abuse and violent video games as clearly not.

This is an important point. Nobody here has argued that violent video games are not abusive. My own stance was simply that the scope of the impact of religion and faith on the child and society far outweighs the scope of the impact from video games (despite your own anecdotal experience). If you look back, the only one who stated anything at all to do with video games and their impact was Pangloss, and he was articulating a point specific to the issue of tolerance or nontolerance.

 

So, who exactly is lying to themselves in this thread? This seems a bit of a non-sequitur.

[Sayonara]

I'm generalizing somewhat, but I've never experienced religion presented as fact, with proof.

 

Has anyone ever?

[ParanoiA]

Being a science site, I'd challenge you to prove that violent video games are far more influential than religion. Or... at least state that this is your opinion and retract the absolute nature of that statement.

 

Oh well it's certainly opinion. I don't believe anyone has proof of such things do they? Or the influence of religion?

 

Also, video games often allow for the safe expression of natural tendencies. They can be an outlet that has little or no consequence (similar examples are porn). This is an oversimplification, as they also reinforce certain behaviors which are, in fact, negative, but I'm simply saying the issue is not so simple, nor so black and white as you suggest.

 

Violent video games is the reference, not video games in general. I'm simply stating that they harness our violent instinctive nature. They glorify it, you get points for it, it's the whole "point" of those kinds of games. I don't know what kind of gray you're looking for here. Were you offering up "gray" when you dumped on evangelicals for being abusive with Hell House practices?

Yes. It's abuse, but not just to the child. It's abusive to our culture and our ability to move forward as a society.[/b']

 

And while we're at it...I suppose you're going to back up the absolute nature of that statement right?

 

 

 

 

If you look back, the only one who stated anything at all to do with video games and their impact was Pangloss, and he was articulating a point specific to the issue of tolerance or nontolerance.

 

Right. What did you think I was referring to? Yes, I'm running with that point and trying to get you to admit your obvious bias and avoidance of that point. Instead, you responded with a weak plea about spirituality having a different impact than entertainment - which doesn't nullify the comparison, rather is the heart of the comparison. People accept video game violence because it's "entertainment" (just plop the kids in front of the TV and let X-box take over) whereas Hell House is "spirituality", and therefore should be crushed.

 

So, who exactly is lying to themselves in this thread? This seems a bit of a non-sequitur.

 

Those who won't admit their bias. And on the contrary, it does follow.

 

Has anyone ever?

 

No, and that's my point. They don't present it "as fact", as if they have proof, rather they present it as "a belief" that might as well be fact, according to them anyway.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm generalizing somewhat, but I've never experienced religion presented as fact, with proof.

 

Well, there is a little proving going on. Various denominations will accept the Bible's accuracy as given, but then try to prove some less important beliefs by using evidence from the Bible. As such, they could be practicing logic and critical thinking skills even while holding an "extra" belief. Kind of like a thought experiment where you assume a few things and then draw conclusions.

 

A few of them also try to find proof of or evidence for the Bible itself, ranging from verifying historical accouts to "Creation Science" to personal miracles/answer to prayer. They seem to be on the losing/having already lost side, but remember, if you are looking at something from a certain perspective, you will likely reach a different conclusion than from a different perspective.

 

Make of it what you will, but I don't believe mindless spoon-feeding is particularly rampant in Christian religions, than in any other types of teaching. After all, even the most careful teacher will have to say, "It just is" about something or other (such as what causes forces), and the lazy ones will do it frequently.

 

----

Let me add, mindless spoon-feeding is bad in whatever area it may occur.

[iNow]

Being a science site, I'd challenge you to prove that violent video games are far more influential than religion. Or... at least state that this is your opinion and retract the absolute nature of that statement.

 

Oh well it's certainly opinion. I don't believe anyone has proof of such things do they? Or the influence of religion?

You are correct in that it’s difficult to quantize the impact of violent video games, hence my comment. Concurrently, the effect of religion on society is difficult to quantize.

 

My statement was an opinion, but it is rooted in the FACT that far more children practice religion than play violent video games. Additionally, when a child practices religion, they are doing so together with their family members, friends, neighbors, and community leaders, all of which serve to reinforce both the participation in and effects of religious practice. Further, they practice at regular intervals (such as every Sunday) so the repetition and consistency of it has a lasting effect, and they continue to do so (as a general rule) for nearly their entire lives. With violent video games, the numbers of children who play these is far below the number of children that participate in religious activities. I concede that violent video games may be reinforced by peers, but not the rest of the family unit, nor the community, which religion clearly is. Additionally, engaging in violent video game play is not generally a lifestyle choice that lasts far beyond adolescence, but is instead an activity the children outgrow.

 

The reasons listed above are just a few to show why I feel both comfortable and justified in my position that the sources of entertainment and sources of spirituality do not hold the same weight when it comes to impact on the child and impact on society, but I could easily share more reasons if needed.

 

 

Also, video games often allow for the safe expression of natural tendencies. They can be an outlet that has little or no consequence (similar examples are porn). This is an oversimplification, as they also reinforce certain behaviors which are, in fact, negative, but I'm simply saying the issue is not so simple, nor so black and white as you suggest.

 

Violent video games is the reference, not video games in general. I'm simply stating that they harness our violent instinctive nature. They glorify it, you get points for it, it's the whole "point" of those kinds of games.

They are also for entertainment. They also, as I mentioned above, can serve as an outlet. They also do many other things. Your problem seems more with “our violent instinctive nature” than with the violent video games which we enjoy as a result of that nature. This is an important distinction.

 

 

I don't know what kind of gray you're looking for here.

I was not looking for gray area, I was pointing it out.

 

 

Were you offering up "gray" when you dumped on evangelicals for being abusive with Hell House practices?

 

Yes. It's abuse, but not just to the child. It's abusive to our culture and our ability to move forward as a society.

 

You’re right. After the word “Yes,” I should have put “IMO” to be more accurate. Perhaps I was too quick to push back on you the way I did for doing the same thing, however, I think I was reacting more to your abrasive tone. Either way, I was sharing my opinion above, and I stand by my stance regarding the detrimental effects of indoctrinating children through fear and threats of damnation, as well as how this type of behavior is a cancer on our society and needs to be put to an end.

 

 

If you look back, the only one who stated anything at all to do with video games and their impact was Pangloss, and he was articulating a point specific to the issue of tolerance or nontolerance.

 

Right. What did you think I was referring to? Yes, I'm running with that point and trying to get you to admit your obvious bias and avoidance of that point.

This is quite a statement. I have been very forthright with my opinion that I find the impact from religion to be far greater than the impact from violent video games. I also shared above some of my reasons why. To suggest I am avoiding this point is inaccurate. I also would not classify my comments as biased, but more appropriately as a measured response to differing situations, responses which are appropriate to the significance (or lack there) of each different set of circumstances.

 

Per your point on my comment from earlier in the thread regarding my disgust for tactics like those used by Hell House, I believe I have already covered and defended this adequately above. If you feel otherwise, please let me know.

 

To summarize, the scope of the video game issue is not great enough to cause me concern. The scope of religion’s impact on children and society is great enough to cause me concern, especially when used in the spun and shocking manner it is with Hell House.

 

 

Instead, you responded with a weak plea about spirituality having a different impact than entertainment - which doesn't nullify the comparison, rather is the heart of the comparison.

I also did not say it nullified the comparison. I said that it was being used to describe the differing tolerances people have, and also didn't seem relevant to this discussion. That's my opinion. I understand if you or others disagree.

 

 

People accept video game violence because it's "entertainment" (just plop the kids in front of the TV and let X-box take over) whereas Hell House is "spirituality", and therefore should be crushed.

Which people specifically have done this? I just don’t see it. I have supported my reasons for focusing more on religious issues than video game issues, and wish to point out that the only thing I suggested be crushed is the teaching of children by instilling the fear of eternal damnation and using the concept of hell for moral policing. This was described in the wiki article linked in the OP, and I am sternly opposed to this approach of scaring children into conversion and acceptance someone else’s preferred morals. It's also teaching children to hate and I see it far too often coming out of religious groups. Hell House is but one of several affirmative examples of this.

 

 

So, who exactly is lying to themselves in this thread? This seems a bit of a non-sequitur.

Those who won't admit their bias. And on the contrary, it does follow.

Okay, so who is it specifically that you claim are lying to themselves in this thread? Be specific. You’ve simply said, “those who won’t admit their bias,” and I don’t see anyone doing that here.

[ParanoiA]

The reasons listed above are just a few to show why I feel both comfortable and justified in my position that the sources of entertainment and sources of spirituality do not hold the same weight when it comes to impact on the child and impact on society, but I could easily share more reasons if needed.

 

Well said. You've supported your opinion with some excellent points.

 

They are also for entertainment. They also, as I mentioned above, can serve as an outlet. They also do many other things. Your problem seems more with “our violent instinctive nature” than with the violent video games which we enjoy as a result of that nature. This is an important distinction.

 

Just to be clear, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't think it's abuse. I also don't think Hell House is abuse. And is religion not an outlet for people? Doesn't it help people cope with loss and problems in their lives?

 

But consider what you just said. "our violent instinctive nature" is NOT being promoted in Hell House, although it IS in violent video games. For those who want to put an end to ignorant, violent civilization, it isn't very consistent.

 

Either way, I was sharing my opinion above, and I stand by my stance regarding the detrimental effects of indoctrinating children through fear and threats of damnation, as well as how this type of behavior is a cancer on our society and needs to be put to an end.

 

Stance noted. And half the country thinks you're doing the same thing with Global Warming. Using fear to indoctrinate children.

 

But are you really using fear or are you really just convinced you're right and trying to convince others? And, how is that any different than religion doing the same thing? After all, if you truly believe everyone is going to hell, then wouldn't you do what it takes to help them? Isn't that kinda the idea with GW? (saving yourself notwithstanding...)

 

To summarize, the scope of the video game issue is not great enough to cause me concern. The scope of religion’s impact on children and society is great enough to cause me concern, especially when used in the spun and shocking manner it is with Hell House.

 

While your points up above were excellent, they are not enough to justify your lack of concern - in my opinion. It is not consistent with your objections to the tactics used with Hell House. There's an imbalance of concern here that just doesn't jive with me. We're getting year round gratuitous first person violence in video games, and seasonal violent imagery in Hell House - yet you're not "concerned" about video games?

 

I don't see how you can be so vehemently outraged at one while not being concerned about the other. No matter how popular or family supported religion is.

 

I also did not say it nullified the comparison. I said that it was being used to describe the differing tolerances people have, and also didn't seem relevant to this discussion. That's my opinion. I understand if you or others disagree.

 

It seems quite relevent to measure your own bias. Pangloss saw an inconsistency in what was being said about this and what has been said about violent video games. It was excellent point and made for a great discussion. I'm not the one shouting abuse because they're doing something that seems freaky to me. To others, allowing your child to kill cops and rape hookers in a first person shooter game is abuse. And I think it's a fair response.

 

Okay, so who is it specifically that you claim are lying to themselves in this thread? Be specific. You’ve simply said, “those who won’t admit their bias,” and I don’t see anyone doing that here.

 

I think you're taking my comments a bit personal and I was trying to avoid getting any more personal, but....you seemed a little squirmy about Pangloss's video game analogy. And while you've made some interesting points on the matter - some irrefutable ones at that - I'm not seeing the reasoning there to justify your aversion to Hell House and lack of concern over violent video games.

[iNow]

This was a good exchange. Thank you.

 

I will say that violent video games are a concern for me. I overstated above. They are just not as big of a concern to me.

 

I also have a bit of a background with problems with religion, and tend to take grossly magnified stances on that topic, whereas with video games it's more cognitive than visceral, and I classify it as of lower importance.

 

Violent video games definitely have their problems, and can be classed as abuse in some instances. My own perspective specifc to this topic is that religion is doing a lot of harm, and it's apparent when looking at those who do things like Hell House, or the group who boycotted the Iraqi soldier's funeral recently saying it was because we accept homosexuality. It makes me sick, and it makes me angry, and I really feel strongly about it.

 

<deep breath>

 

Yes. Violent video games are problematic. Just not as much as religion, IMO.

[Reaper]

This was a good exchange. Thank you.

 

I will say that violent video games are a concern for me. I overstated above. They are just not as big of a concern to me.

 

I also have a bit of a background with problems with religion, and tend to take grossly magnified stances on that topic, whereas with video games it's more cognitive than visceral, and I classify it as of lower importance.

 

Violent video games definitely have their problems, and can be classed as abuse in some instances. My own perspective specifc to this topic is that religion is doing a lot of harm, and it's apparent when looking at those who do things like Hell House, or the group who boycotted the Iraqi soldier's funeral recently saying it was because we accept homosexuality. It makes me sick, and it makes me angry, and I really feel strongly about it.

 

<deep breath>

 

Yes. Violent video games are problematic. Just not as much as religion, IMO.

 

Speak for yourself. I'll have you know that there a number of people who have a problem with people who have a problem with violent video games :-p .

 

===================================

 

On a more serious note, I don't think that exposure to violent video games constitutes indoctrination. To indoctrinate someone means to force them to develop a particular mindset or attitude or set of beliefs and take them as absolute truth.

 

Video games, well, they impact behavior just like any other game or sport would. To say that violent video games indoctrinate kids into a particular culture is like saying playing Risk or Civilization indoctrinates kids into becoming warmongering megalomaniacs.

[CDarwin]

If I might interject:

 

It really is illegal to sell a violent video game to a kid [in some places according to some laws, but in the US according to universal industry policy]. Whether-or-not that's effective, the statute does exist. It isn't illegal to expose a child to a Hell House. Even if you want to claim that the two are equally harmful, the basic hypocrisy that I think was the inspiration of this thread remains in place. We as a society will sanction much more if it is presented in the guise of religion.

 

I also don't think you can compare the experience of a teenager or tween playing violent video games and the effect that has on your behavior with the experience of being a child brought up in a religion. Need evidence of that? Compare the number of children who adopt their parents' religious beliefs with the number of teenagers who grow up to be serial killers.

 

Just my 2.5 ¥.

[Saryctos]

If I might interject:

 

It really is illegal to sell a violent video game to a kid. Whether-or-not that's effective, the statute does exist.

 

I'm pretty sure that there are no laws regulating the sales of video games. It's just that practically all of the major retailers keep it as their policy.

 

For the most part I think we allow religious views to go un-touched for the simple reason that to challenge someone's moral viewspoints would be akin to trying to 'convert them'. Unless you're doing things in a civilized debate it can really rub people the wrong way, and over time I think people have just generally avoided religious discussions because it never ends well. This is kind of like how usually trying to talk politics on the internet never ends well without keeping order in the discussion.

[Reaper]

I'm pretty sure that there are no laws regulating the sales of video games. It's just that practically all of the major retailers keep it as their policy.

 

Well, the actual law just says that retailers have to see some I.D. before they can sell them. But, it's really only upheld by stores like, say, Wal-mart, and even then all they need is someone who is 17 or older with them to purchase it. And it only applies to games rated M (anything rated T or below can be bought by anybody).

 

But, on the grand scheme of things, its not really enforced, and there are plenty of major retailers including the one I usually shop at that sell them to anyone of any age.

 

================================================================

 

But anyways, back on topic. I would have to agree with Saryctos on the issue of religion. From what I've seen here on this site and in general, they never seem to end well simply because in the end I think that it simply goes down to pride or ego issues and people's reluctance to admit that they might be wrong, or that don't know anything. Also, I know that people generally don't like to hear bad things about themselves.

[Saryctos]

Well, the actual law just says that retailers have to see some I.D. before they can sell them. But, it's really only upheld by stores like, say, Wal-mart, and even then all they need is someone who is 17 or older with them to purchase it. And it only applies to games rated M (anything rated T or below can be bought by anybody).

 

But, on the grand scheme of things, its not really enforced, and there are plenty of major retailers including the one I usually shop at that sell them to anyone of any age.

The ratings system has nothing to do with any laws, as the ratings themselves are created by the ESRB which has no actual authority(In America. Apparently elsewhere there actually are laws. Sorry for not remembering we have plenty of brits and kiwis on this forum =P).

[Reaper]

The ratings system has nothing to do with any laws, as the ratings themselves are created by the ESRB which has no actual authority(In America. Apparently elsewhere there actually are laws. Sorry for not remembering we have plenty of brits and kiwis on this forum =P).

 

 

I'm well aware of that, but I do know that retailers are supposed to ask for I.D. though. Whether or not they do it is besides the point.

[iNow]

I'm pretty sure that there are no laws regulating the sales of video games.

You are correct. The decision is at the retailer level. Many states have tried, but each have been shot down by federal courts citing 1st amendment rights. Some states to have tried and failed are St. Louis County, Mo.; Washington; Illinois; Michigan; Minnesota; Louisiana; and California. New York passed one this summer, but I believe it is pending federal court review.

 

http://assembly.state.ny.us/Press/20070530b/

 

 

 

However, I know when I was that 16 year old kid making minimum wage, I couldn't care less about the store's policy on video games... unless maybe the kid was WAY too young to even be in the store without a parent...

 

 

 

Religion, however... they take you the moment you pop out of your mother. The younger, the better. Must start framing their psyche early to maintain control.

[Reaper]

You know, I really think that the only reason people single out video games to place blame on is simply because its considered one of the icons of the so-called "youth culture", even though they are more often played by so-called nerds or intellectuals.

 

I think the reason most people have some inclination toward violence in any media is simply because most of the time our everyday average lives are so boring. (Which lifestyle would YOU prefer, being a badass galactic hero like Master Chief, or your current one?)

[Mr Skeptic]

Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Proverbs 22:6

[CDarwin]

I edited my other post to encompass some objections on the point of legislation.

 

Let me make my position explicitly (whatever it's worth): Just because this is religious and possibly violent doesn't mean it's child abuse and should be illegalized. But if it is really causing these children psychological trauma, more so than shooting pixel zombies in an arcade, which I could imagine could be the case, then it is. I think that perhaps some legal entity should do a real investigation to see.

 

There is absolutely a line that the religious can cross when their behavior ceases to be excusable even by the most libertarian sensibilities. We call those cults. The potential damage that these can do to a person is several orders of magnitude greater than the worst violent video game.

[ParanoiA]

This was a good exchange. Thank you.

 

Reasonable people can always disagree productively, I say.

 

My own perspective specifc to this topic is that religion is doing a lot of harm, and it's apparent when looking at those who do things like Hell House, or the group who boycotted the Iraqi soldier's funeral recently saying it was because we accept homosexuality. It makes me sick, and it makes me angry, and I really feel strongly about it.

 

I do too. I have military in my family and I take it personally. But it's not religion - it's people using religion. Get rid of religion and they use something else. I think it's more about unsubstantiated belief. That includes many other things beside religion.

 

I can appreciate how something can be possible or plausible, but without evidence how do you get from possibility to belief? I'll never get that. And as long as humans continue to do that, my wife will continue to watch Ghost Hunters until I puke.

[Reaper]

Or continue watching Nostradamus documentaries about his "prophesies"

[iNow]

But it's not religion - it's people using religion. Get rid of religion and they use something else. I think it's more about unsubstantiated belief. That includes many other things beside religion.

You are absolutely correct, and I cannot argue this point. It's the people, not the religion. It's just that religion for millenia (and still today) is a central grouping, an ideological home base, a polarizing entity, a guide or lighthouse for these people, being used to control great masses and (FAR too often) to spread bigotry camoflauged against the back drop of a scripture based dogma.

 

What is happening when groups like Hell House engage in such theatrics, in my mind at least, is akin to telling your young daughter that she's a fat ass and should start saving her lunch money so she can afford liposuction in a few years. Or telling your son that his tiny penis will prevent him from ever being loved and that he'd better prepare to live life lonely.

 

These comments ARE traumas, they DO have lasting impact, and they CAUSE other social ails and issues because of their deep and salient effects.

 

When those (in the name of religion) continue saying such things about homosexuals, or other races, or people who study other religions, or all manner of other things that are classified as sinful or against some religious code... that God will no longer love them if they engage in some arbitrary behavior or action... that is ALSO the source of great psychological trauma and neuroses.

 

Albert Bandura at (I think) Stanford back in the 60s and 70s studied this concept of Social Learning Theory, and how a HUGE portion of what we know and do, and how we behave, is learned by modeling the behavior of others.

 

If those who are in the lives of these effected people (children and adults) are all evangelizing their own morality... discussing what is and what is not a sin... how this and that will send them to hell... how they are going to be foresaken if they do not abide by these teachings... basically, using fear and threat to shape the behavior of these people (children and adults), then these people don't know anything else, and that BECOMES their truth.

 

They become damaged goods, and often beyond repair. Also, it's more than threats of damnation, it's social reinforcement. We have an evolved desire to "fit in," and we will do, say, and believe a great number of things to become "part of the group." Just look at gang initiations for examples.

 

 

Yes, it's the people not the religion, but I suggest that's a bit like the saying that guns don't kill people, people do. It's true, but incorrectly implies that the gun played no role in the killing.

[Pangloss]

I thought that was an interesting exchange as well; kudos to both sides and several posters. I respect where you're coming from, iNow, although I'm not sure I can believe that religion is a more common danger than video games.

[iNow]

I respect where you're coming from, iNow, although I'm not sure I can believe that religion is a more common danger than video games.

You're probably just not a video game player.

[Mr Skeptic]

I respect where you're coming from, iNow, although I'm not sure I can believe that religion is a more common danger than video games.

You're probably just not a video game player.

 

You're probably just not religious

 

Obviously, we need the opinion of a religious video game player (and for good measure, that of an ex-religious, ex-video game player)