Evangelical Ignorance and the Effect on the Public

[mooeypoo]

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)

 

 

Won't those two just give us anecdotal evidence (which.. uhm.. are fallacious and unneeded for a logical debate) ?

 

I think this matter can be discussed using logical methods, you don't have to use people who are religious or people who play video games. You just have to evaluate the data.

 

I wish someone could actually research these things properly. I am not sure how, maybe psychological evaluations before and after of kids going into shows like that (or sermons that preach using scare-tactics)

 

Anyone has any ideas how could this type of research be done? I am not only talking about Christianity, either.. a lot of other religions has it, so the research needs to be done about the *METHODS* used, not necessarily about the specific religion..

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

You're probably just not a video game player.

 

What mooeypoo said, but I know you were just being humorous.

 

Actually I'm an avid video gamer going back ~25 years, and I lecture on game design and development. I'm currently planning a research project that examines information technology implementations in virtual worlds (e.g. MMOGs with advanced economic systems).

 

I often get into debates with my fellow faculty and friends who work in the game business about issues like censorship. For some reason we've never really had a bang-up video games debate on SFN, though we've touched on the subject a few times.

 

I don't think most people realize how close we are to seeing widespread censorship of video games. Much of the mainstream left (including Hillary Clinton) has identified video games as an area of commonality with the so-called "red states", and it's only the immediacy of issues like Iraq and the economy that have kept a censorship bill off the Resolute desk thus far.

[iNow]

See, now me, I'd rather we all had universal health care instead of bans on video games, but I suppose I've never been described as a man who put his priorities on things that were important to the maximum number of people.

 

 

So, did my argument about the impact of religion versus the impact of violent video games have ANY impact on you? My attempt at humor was more because I was so surprised at your post:

 

 

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.

[Pangloss]

Sure, health care is another area of commonality.

 

I don't understand your question. Your posts always have an impact on me. Why would I read them otherwise?

[iNow]

I read a lot of things that don't have an impact on me in the sense I referred to above. I suppose my comment was more of a request to you for clarification of your perspective and understanding. Let me clarify.

 

Why do you feel that violent video games have a greater dangerous impact on society than religion?

 

Your quote above implies pretty clearly that this is your stance.

[Pangloss]

I don't think either is a great danger. I think the danger to individuals lies in how these things are abused at the individual level. The danger to society lies in how they are interpretted and abused by demagogues and ideologues.

 

I do think that even the most attentive parents cannot monitor their children 24/7, and if we're going to have limits then we should abide by them and not constantly undermine parents who try to take leverage these tools (e.g. ESRB for games or MPAA for movies). For example, you often hear video game proponents make the argument that children SHOULD be exposed to violence and sex and that it's stupid for parents to hide these things from children. But that infantile argument ignores the fact that children come in many different ages. What idiot would FORCE a six or seven year old child to look at sex and violence and bad language (by putting it on the open airwaves), ahead of potential parental introduction and guidance, on their timeline, just because THEY think there's nothing wrong with it?

 

I'm always very leery of "effect on the public" arguments (e.g. the subject of this thread). All too often what they really mean is "making people think like I do".

[Physia]

The most ridiculous thing is to witness an Evangelical and a Jew debating over Jesus.

[iNow]

I think the danger to individuals lies in how these things are abused at the individual level. The danger to society lies in how they are interpretted and abused by demagogues and ideologues.

 

Overall, I think this is correct. However, the point (IMO) was about scope, not method.

 

While hard to measure, and asking questions about something being bad for society is often about "making other people think like I do," does (in your mind) the scope of the danger from violent video games outweigh/outpace/supercede the scope of the danger from evangelical ignorance?

[mooeypoo]

Overall, I think this is correct. However, the point (IMO) was about scope, not method.

 

While hard to measure, and asking questions about something being bad for society is often about "making other people think like I do," does (in your mind) the scope of the danger from violent video games outweigh/outpace/supercede the scope of the danger from evangelical ignorance?

 

I really hope I'm not going to be savagely attacked on this one, but I had to share a thought with you guys.

 

We are talking about demagogues using 'all means necessary' to bring people to think as they do: specifically SCARE tactics with children. This is close to brainwashing, and if you've seen the movie "Jesus Camp", there are many more manifestations for it.

 

I am going to make a link with something MUCH MUCH more sinister, and the intention is not to equate anyone to it, it's just to raise a moral and conscious thought about this. It is possible, btw, that I make this link because of my subjective past, but anyways:

 

The methods using a demagogue scare-tactics along with brainwashing and "we are the best because we know the truth" brainwashing and extremist "anti-all-who-don't-share-my-opinion" tactics slightly reminds me of the Nazis. This is an extreme example, and yet - we need to remember that this Evangelical generation (specifically if you've seen "Jesus Camp" and read some reports and essays by Evangelical Children, you can see that) is raised on the notion that there's going to be an ideal war, where the unbelievers are destroying the chance for the believers. And 'better yet' - a "war" where unbelievers need to be led (even forcefully, if you consider brainwashing, scaretactics-for-children, etc, forcefully, as I do) to the "truth". They want a nation that follows their set of dogmas regardless of what others want. This gneeration is now young, but it will grow up to be the leaders of the future of this movement.

 

I think this is something we should seriously consider. I think that education scares the living hell out of me in this country, and in other parts of the world.

 

I just wish I had an idea what to do.

 

~moo

 

p.s: Im sharing a thought here, so.. uhm.. don't kill me over the extremism of it.. I admit it's extreme, and I don't mean to equate anyone to Hitler.

Yet.

[ParanoiA]

Mooeypoo - the main problem I have with your position is that the demagoguery seems to only be relevant to you if it's built on a belief that you don't agree with. Global Warming is guilty of the same things - only without thousands of years of history to judge it with yet.

 

GW also spells out a doomsday scenario. And even worse, with GW you have to convert everyone else in order to save yourself. With religion, your salvation is not dependent on everyone else.

 

GW proponents are all over the map, from extremists to simple minded believers. And just like you, I can simply focus on the extremists and create an argument of abuse and scare tactics. But the truth is, humans can take it, and should take it. We're not that fragile.

 

And fear is an excellent motivator. Why is that bad? Shouldn't you be afraid of falling when you're standing on the edge of a 3,000 foot cliff? How about if you're going to be resident in a lake of fire for infinity?

[mooeypoo]

Mooeypoo - the main problem I have with your position is that the demagoguery seems to only be relevant to you if it's built on a belief that you don't agree with. Global Warming is guilty of the same things - only without thousands of years of history to judge it with yet.

I agree completely, which is why I keep researching Logical Fallacies and trying to better my ability to recognize them -- REGARDLESS of the "sides". I agree with that absolutely and 100%. Demagoguery is *never* good, "my side" or not. It's a matter of understanding how to avoid it in speech and how to recognize it.

 

 

GW also spells out a doomsday scenario. And even worse, with GW you have to convert everyone else in order to save yourself. With religion, your salvation is not dependent on everyone else.

That's not entirely true. First, religion does depend on everyone else (the 'amount of how much it depends on others is depending on the religion) - Evangelicals, for example, believe that they have an OBLIGATION to save *you and me* whether we want it or not, hence their usage of brainwashing children.

 

Global Warming -- as much as it is often used alongside demagoguery (i must say -- not always, let's keep it under the right proportion) -- is not talking about harming anyone. I don't support the way certain demagogues portray the 'solutions' for Global Warming at all, but I do find differences between that and religion. For one, it's based on scientific inquery; we just need to make sure we are skeptical of the PEOPLE speaking about it (as we should be in ANY subject..) and make sure they are using facts and not fallacies to convince us of their 'right' way.

 

 

GW proponents are all over the map, from extremists to simple minded believers. And just like you, I can simply focus on the extremists and create an argument of abuse and scare tactics. But the truth is, humans can take it, and should take it. We're not that fragile.

This entire debate focuses ONLY on evangelical extremists. We are not talking about the moderates (though there is much to talk about them too, but that's for another debate) so of course we're sticking to extremes. If you want to talk ONLY extremes, then you are perfectly right - the GW and Evangelical *extremists* are using very similar methods, and they are *both* dangerous to use.

 

It's not so much dangerous in terms of 'safety', but rather dangerous in terms of methodology -- brainwashing is NEVER good, and demagoguery is never good either, in my opinion, at least, no matter how "right" the subject matter is.

 

This is one case where the end NEVER justify the means. We need to work on education so we don't have demagogues controlling people's mindsets in *all* works of life, whether we find them 'true' or not.

 

 

And fear is an excellent motivator. Why is that bad? Shouldn't you be afraid of falling when you're standing on the edge of a 3,000 foot cliff? How about if you're going to be resident in a lake of fire for infinity?

 

Fear is one thing. Scaring the shit out of little children by threatening their FAMILY is going to burn forever in hell is another. There's a reason why certain movies and scenes are banned for certain ages - the child's mind is not grown enough to separate reality from fantasy, and that's more than just being 'afraid' of falling, it's developing hysteria or phobia.

 

For that matter -- I want my children to be afraid of deadly snakes, so that they will be safe not go hugging every deadly hissing thing they see, but I would *NEVER* create a phobia against it; I would never treat my child as if he is so friggin stupid that he cannot make his own choices -- even in THESE things. I will use education, I will explain. And even if certain things are - at certain ages - to be put as "yes and no" subjects (like 'don't cross the road it's dangerous!') it is because of their age and an immediate danger to their safety, not because of my need to create an everlasting phobia against cars to a point where they will not leave hteir houses, or forbid their loved ones from driving altogether.

 

It's not so much the message I complain against - it's the MEANS to get that message to the public (and children specifically).

 

I think regardless of the subject it is *wrong*. Global warming, evangelism, road safety or deadly snakes -- there's a right way and wrong way.

 

But then again... morality is subjective, isn't it?

 

~moo

[Pangloss]

While hard to measure, and asking questions about something being bad for society is often about "making other people think like I do," does (in your mind) the scope of the danger from violent video games outweigh/outpace/supercede the scope of the danger from evangelical ignorance?

 

That's not quite the same thing as asking me if religion is more dangerous. Part of why I think video games are more of a threat because they're more prevalent and pervasive than screaming born-again zealots. But that having been said, and with the qualifications I raised above, the answer to your question is yes.

 

I don't want somebody to lamely squeek back at me about how I could possibly believe that Grand Theft Auto in the hands of an adult is more dangerous than a preacher screaming at an inpressionable pre-teen. That's not what I think. But I do think that video games are a greater danger to our children than religious zealotry.

[iNow]

Part of why I think video games are more of a threat because they're more prevalent and pervasive than screaming born-again zealots.

I wonder if there is data to counter this claim. At least "numbers of people" and "prevalence" is measurable and quantifiable (unlike impact on society).

 

Across the entire planet, I cannot even begin to conceive of the possibility that video games might be more prevelant than zealots. Maybe that's just me though...

 

I don't want somebody to lamely squeek back at me about how I could possibly believe that Grand Theft Auto in the hands of an adult is more dangerous than a preacher screaming at an inpressionable pre-teen. That's not what I think. But I do think that video games are a greater danger to our children than religious zealotry.

Fair enough. I'm genuinely intriqued at this. I know you'll be attacked for such a view, but maybe you'll elucidate further the "why" behind this stance? If not, no worries there either, and cheers.

[ParanoiA]

Across the entire planet, I cannot even begin to conceive of the possibility that video games might be more prevelant than zealots. Maybe that's just me though...

 

Certainly nailed this point, considering the entire planet. So, let's make it more interesting and introduce some geo-prejudice and repeat the observational exercise on america alone. It's interesting that you are correct globally and pangloss sums up america nicely. Are we not trading our source of fanaticism from gods to games?

[CDarwin]

Certainly nailed this point, considering the entire planet. So, let's make it more interesting and introduce some geo-prejudice and repeat the observational exercise on america alone. It's interesting that you are correct globally and pangloss sums up america nicely. Are we not trading our source of fanaticism from gods to games?

 

God is dead... And we have killed Him.

[iNow]

God is dead... And we have killed Him.

 

As was our right to do, since we birthed him as well.

 

 

So, when speaking of religions impact, shall we limit it to the US?

If so, first, why?

Second, how does this change the comparison in any significant way? Would it be like 100K to one instead of 100M to one?

[ParanoiA]

As was our right to do, since we birthed him as well.

 

 

So, when speaking of religions impact, shall we limit it to the US?

If so, first, why?

Second, how does this change the comparison in any significant way?

 

Why? Because it's interesting...and is more apparent after you answer it. Also, it's my favorite question to everything and will always eventually leave you stumped

 

It changes because while large portions of the world may not have the electronic culture that we do, they do have access to religion and usually a lot more of it, much of it out of necessity. Yet, in america, we're laced with gadgets. Video games are ridiculously more common among americans. Religion is also done a different way, for different reasons. I think the analysis is completely different.

[ecoli]

Religion is also done a different way, for different reasons. I think the analysis is completely different.

 

televangelism is very evident of that... didn't the televangelism lead to the creation of the megahugesuperchurches?

[john5746]

I am going to make a link with something MUCH MUCH more sinister, and the intention is not to equate anyone to it, it's just to raise a moral and conscious thought about this. It is possible, btw, that I make this link because of my subjective past, but anyways:

 

The methods using a demagogue scare-tactics along with brainwashing and "we are the best because we know the truth" brainwashing and extremist "anti-all-who-don't-share-my-opinion" tactics slightly reminds me of the Nazis. This is an extreme example, and yet - we need to remember that this Evangelical generation (specifically if you've seen "Jesus Camp" and read some reports and essays by Evangelical Children, you can see that) is raised on the notion that there's going to be an ideal war, where the unbelievers are destroying the chance for the believers. And 'better yet' - a "war" where unbelievers need to be led (even forcefully, if you consider brainwashing, scaretactics-for-children, etc, forcefully, as I do) to the "truth". They want a nation that follows their set of dogmas regardless of what others want. This gneeration is now young, but it will grow up to be the leaders of the future of this movement.

 

I think this is something we should seriously consider. I think that education scares the living hell out of me in this country, and in other parts of the world.

 

I just wish I had an idea what to do.

 

~moo

 

p.s: Im sharing a thought here, so.. uhm.. don't kill me over the extremism of it.. I admit it's extreme, and I don't mean to equate anyone to Hitler.

Yet.

 

Currently, christianity in America is pretty liberal on the average and the majority of them frown on this almost as much as we do, IMO, but I don't think your fears are completely unfounded. There are always potential Hitlers just waiting for some real power - Pat Robertson for example. If there is an economic collapse in America or a very strong threat from Islam, it is very easy to see that fundamentalist thinking might prevail. Of course, this can happen with atheism, racism, etc. as well.

 

IMO, if a threat comes from the next generation, it will be about money. They will blame their lower standard of living on some group - possibly hispanics. The one thing that might save this situation is religion, unless it becomes protestant vs catholic!

 

Anyway, I digress. I think the best we can do is frown upon it and let those around us know that intolerance or tolerance of intolerance is not acceptable. The above situation is bad, but having government intervene would be worse.

[iNow]

Why? Because it's interesting...and is more apparent after you answer it. Also, it's my favorite question to everything and will always eventually leave you stumped

You touched a nerve with that one. So true, and so frustrating, yet so fun. Try Bud Dry.

 

 

It changes because while large portions of the world may not have the electronic culture that we do, they do have access to religion and usually a lot more of it, much of it out of necessity. Yet, in america, we're laced with gadgets. Video games are ridiculously more common among americans.

 

Am I correct when interpreting your comment to mean that more people in the US have gadgets (notice the huge increase in scope from the previous "violent video games") than practice religion?

 

Further, despite the fact that video games are more common in the US than elsewhere, are you suggesting that video game usage in the US is more prevalent than religious practice in the US?

[ecoli]

I'm not sure that what paranoiA meant, iNow...

 

I think he meant that America is very religious compared to most developed nations. Our religious structure is more reminiscent of poorer nations, in terms of numbers of devout fundamentalists. Well, what do we have that other developed nations don't?

Reliance on technology could be one of those things.

 

In europe, they have naked women in orange juice commercials... we have televangelism.

[iNow]

I think he meant that America is very religious compared to most developed nations. Our religious structure is more reminiscent of poorer nations, in terms of numbers of devout fundamentalists.

This supports my point about the negative impact of religion being greater than the negative impact of video games, even in the US.

[Pangloss]

Across the entire planet, I cannot even begin to conceive of the possibility that video games might be more prevelant than zealots. Maybe that's just me though...

 

Oh no, if you're talking about the entire planet, it's not just you. I meant the United States, and I can't speak for whether other countries undermine the authority of parents though I imagine many of them do not make the mistakes that we make in this area.

 

(It's amusing that after four years here I frequently still assume we're all talking about the United States. Why can't everyone just bend to MY geocentric bias?!)

 

 

Fair enough. I'm genuinely intriqued at this. I know you'll be attacked for such a view, but maybe you'll elucidate further the "why" behind this stance? If not, no worries there either, and cheers.

 

I can sum it up in three words: Children are templates.

[iNow]

(It's amusing that after four years here I frequently still assume we're all talking about the United States. Why can't everyone just bend to MY geocentric bias?!)

Well, you're doing better than most who are just egocentric.

 

 

I can sum it up in three words: Children are templates.

Again, I agree, but I'm still not sure how this speaks to your position of violent video games having a greater impact than religion.

 

 

 

 

"Our children are our only hope for the future, but we are their only hope for their present and their future."

[mooeypoo]

You know what.. I would take the sentence "Children are templates" (which I agree with completely) and actually claim that this means religion is more dangerous than video games.

 

Here's why:

 

Video games are not encompassing the child's ENTIRE environment and life 100% of the time, and if parents are responsible, then video games have the 'notion' or 'effect' of being 'unreal'. The violence is games can affect children, but the notion of the games being unreal (like.. 'scary stories' -- they're scary, but they're a myth..) still exists, specifically if the parents are responsible and share this view with the child. The game is not "REAL LIFE", it's a game.

 

I do agree that these things affect children and we should probably check how much and in what ways to prevent psychological lasting effects, but still. Games are effective when tehy're played.

 

Religion is 100% of the child's environment (we're talking evangelicals, so extremists) and in all facets of life -- it's not just that time he's playing, it's EVERYTHING -- his books, his games, his talks with his parents, his talks with his teachers, his homework, his home, everything.

 

I find that a lot more dangerous to a child than a game, as violent as a game may be.

 

(btw, I need to look it up but I do believe there has been scientific researches on this one and they're either inconclusive or stating the effect of the game is not *that* effective in terms of violence. Let me loook them up though)

 

~moo