Because it was from the Guardian, I didn't like to mention it until after Easter Day was over. But now it is (have a good Octave, by the way)... And I should warn that, in case you couldn't tell below, there's no research whatever gone into this. It's my gut feel.
"What effect has the Internet had on Religion?" asks Aleks Krotoski.
Obviously, it's given a nice hang-out to the kind of atheists who would otherwise sit upstairs on their own in their parents' houses fuming that nobody understands them - as reference the comments below Krotoski's article if you need evidence (but why would you need evidence, dear, God-loving readers that you are? Faith will be enough for you - you don't even have to follow my link to know that the article exists. Oh, you did? OK.
But on a world-wide scale, at least for Christians and neo-pagans and fruitcakes, and for the kind of intelligent atheists who don't think writing the words "sky fairy" means they have won their argument - and even for those who do - it's given us a level playing field. On the Internet,. the most popular religious sight can be by an Archbishop, or an Archdruid (I can dream) or the Flying Spaghetti monster or anything. The first criterion is that it has to be interesting - which will tend to reduce FSM's chances, once you've got the joke the first time. But then the people reading have the chance to judge what the site is worth. And so sites such as eChurchblog or Cranmer or Gurdur will bring people to them because literary worth is matched with wide interests and dedication. Sure, a boring Archbishop (thinking of none in particular) or dull comedian (thinking of several) will attract followers on Twitter - but merely "following" does not mean following - interacting and caring and relating and discussing and challenging. The popularity of a good site bypasses hierarchies - even the hierarchies they support, if they're Fr Z. And so a billion informal networks form - each one the result of the wave function of a particular human being and the sites and people he/she follows. And instead of the top-down structure preferred by the people at the top of structures, you've got a spider's web of authority radiating out from the consumer (for in a sense that's what they are) to their numerous spirituality providers.
And then there's speed. A heresy can be discussed, anathematised and/or followed and/or expanded within a day. Fakery can be found out - or find a refuge, or gain credence - rapidly. Sensible and not-so-sensible ideas can be scrutinised at the speed of light. Rob Bell was vilified a month before his words could even be distributed, printed as they were on a dead tree. That's the difference. 500 years ago, the printing press meant the Pope could be challenged by a German monk over the course of a year or two. Today, at an hour's notice, he can be examined by an alleged Smolensk butcher, the reinvigorated ashes of an Archbishop of Canterbury, a mouse or any one of a hundred thousand small-town Prots from the good ol' US of A.
But as the speed of virtual interaction increases, so one of the challenges is to the face-to-face interaction. Why should I waste my time arguing with a bunch of deadbeat Beaker People in real life, when I can find people I agree with from New Zealand to New Brighton? Why should I drag myself down to church in the rain when I can join in with Virtual Abbey (albeit I get Matins a bit on the late side - round about lunchtime)? Why go out and find a bunch of flesh-and-blood Humanists to relate to, when I remember that they're all a bit spotty and pasty-faced, and their avatars are so much more attractive?
Because we're humans, that's why. Because we love to communicate, and we need to see each other. Because we're flesh and blood, not floating brains in buckets of electrolyte solution. At least I reckon most of us are.
So get out and meet some real people. That's what having bodies and senses is for. Real people that may cause you problems you can't just solve by blocking them. People who when they love one another properly don't just do it by adding an "x" to what they say. In a real community which exists in a real world, where their inter-relationship models a real Trinity and not @God on Twitter.
And when you've done all that stuff, can you nip back and link to this? Only my Wikio rating's appalling.
I think the internet is a great leveller along the lines this article suggests, i.e. forcing religious leaders and perhaps even ordinary religious people to engage (albeit not f2f) with people outside of their normal hierarchies and cliques (shock horror, even the occassional atheist! ;)
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic child abuse scandal would be an example of this levelling, i.e. it's much more difficult to "bury a story" when we have the internet, some of us won't "let it lie" as vic and bob used to say. This is a step in the right direction IMO, reducing divisiveness and elitism, let's face it, there is always a plurality of opinion out there so learning something about the other guy has to be a good thing.
IIRC the FSM was invented by a physics graduate from the USA in order to illustrate the stupidity of "intelligent design" which was being forced into the schools where he lived, i.e. it's a parody of the ambiguous "designer" that the ID'ers insert into their dogma; some may use it as a joke now but originally it had a noble purpose in defence of science & reason.
BTW being a middle aged atheist I kind of like the idea of being a spotty teenage atheist living in my parents house, I remember those days fondly, sure beats having to work for a living ;)
Isn't that always the way with religious figures, Steve. They start off with a noble purpose and end up in dead dogmatics.
ReplyDeletePersonally, if the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever comes round here, I'm going to be able to offer it a nice cup of tea from a conceptual tea-cup. The Russells live next door, after all, and I hear they have a complete set.