Pope Says Technology Causes Confusion Between Reality and Fiction 779
Pope Benedict XVI has warned that people are in danger of being unable to discern reality from fiction because of new technologies, and not old books. "New technologies and the progress they bring can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to confusion between reality and virtual reality. The image can also become independent from reality, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards real life," he said.
Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
"New technologies and the progress they bring can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to confusion between reality and virtual reality. The image can also become independent from reality, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards real life."
That's funny. It's arguable that the same could be said about the Bible. How many thousands of pages have been written about the workings of the Divine, or of the afterlife, when no one has truly seen either?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Not to mention how many pages have been changed.
The fact that there are different "versions" of the Bible amuse me to no end. If it was truly god's word, wouldn't there be just one version?
I'm not referring to words or phrases lost in translation...I'm talking about things like King James versions, etc.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Well considering that one would have to be fluent in Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew to read the "just one version" I think that you have to accept newer translations over time as the English language evolves, and as historians discover new idiosyncrasies in the ancient languages. You can argue that this is not all that's changed, but it doesn't preclude new versions from coming out for good reason.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
I really don't want to read the new version:
"And God was like 'Moses, dude, you totally need to kill your son.' And Moses was all "WTF?" but then he goes "Meh, F it." So God's all "LOL, dude you were totally gonna do it. I pranked you good!'"
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
It's rather evident you didn't read the old version either, if you think it was Moses who was asked to sacrifice his son.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
... did the joke work, despite errors in details? Then, are the details important?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I really don't want to read the new version:
"And God was like 'Moses, dude, you totally need to kill your son.' And Moses was all "WTF?" but then he goes "Meh, F it." So God's all "LOL, dude you were totally gonna do it. I pranked you good!'"
That actually exists. [biblegateway.com] (Okay, not really, but it's sort of the same idea.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, you can always look at the lolcat bible [lolcatbible.com].
(1) Oh hai. In teh beginnin Ceiling Cat maded teh skiez An da Urfs, but he did not eated dem.
(2) Da Urfs no had shapez An haded dark face, An Ceiling Cat rode invisible bike over teh waterz.
(3) At start, no has lyte. An Ceiling Cat sayz, i can haz lite? An lite wuz.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously that is true of any ordinary book, but the point here is that it refutes the Bible as the supposed "One True Word of God".
-
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Well, those are translation problems. You have to read it in the original Klingon.
Re: (Score:2)
Before you go too far with your Pope bashing, he's probably just quoting scientists who discovered the same thing.
Various studies over the years have found the same parts of the brain "light up". The human neural net reacts to watching TV shows and movies as if they were real world events.
.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Does it react to bible as if it was real?
Of course the Bible Israel (Score:4, Funny)
Does it react to bible as if it was real?
Of course it does, because it Israel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't quite understand how anyone can stay a Christian after reading the Bible. It's badly written Jesus fan-fic, co-authored by Abraham Z. Brite and Moses Pacione. I'd call it slash-fic, except there isn't enough sex in it.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
I'd call it slash-fic, except there isn't enough sex in it.
You missed all the begatting.
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
God's chosen and righteous man, Lot, having drunken sex with his two daughters not hot enough for you?
Check out Ezekiel 23:20-21.
"There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.
It's not exactly a Mills & Boon romance, but I reckon it's enough to get a priest's wang wobbling.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean to insist that an entity whose power is truly limitless (something that our brains can't fully comprehend) wouldn't give a fuck what we do.
"God must be greater than the greatest of human weaknesses and, indeed, the greatest of human skill. God must even transcend our most remarkable-to emulate nature in its absolute splendor. How can any man or woman sin against such greatness of mind? How can one little carbon unit on Earth-in the backwaters of the Milky Way, the boondocks-betray God, ALMIGHTY? That
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It spills over into what people would do with a bible, though...if all creatures on this planet are god's children, why would we A. be the only ones given his word and B. the only ones given the ability to comprehend it? Standard "why is the universe so big if we're alone" and "if the universe isn't empty except for us, why don't we know of god's other children" type of questions apply as well.
The fact that there are different versions of the bible (again, external of "lost in translation" issues) understa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, well, there's a potential point of contention. Most Christian (and even Jewish) theologians would say that the universe wasn't created for man, but that the universe (and man) was created simply for God's glory. Simply stated: the universe isn't really about humanity at all, it's all about God.
Scientist Says Religion Causes Confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
Scientist (well me, in any case) Says Religion Causes Confusion Between Reality and Fiction
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the contrary, most modern "technologies and the progress" (whatever this might mean to him) have a strong technological (and logical) foundation, explanation, and their existence (virtual or real) can be verified, proven explained and reproduced. Given, that you care to get the details.
A lot of things in religions writings are not possible to prove, their existence is "anecdotal" at best. And if you care about the details and try to prove any of them, well, then there you go down the rabbit-hole.
Evolutio
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh...actually, if anything, the bible proves free will doesn't exist either. god's supposed omnipotence makes free will an impossibility.
If someone already knows what you are going to do, how is it a choice?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I Tivo a soccer match and replay it, then the players have no free will? Essentially that is the Christian concept of God. He exists in the past, present and future and knows how everything will turn out.
Granted, I have a problem with free will but choose to believe in it because I was predestined to....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to some people (namely the people that follow "the book"), god works through us. Assuming this to be true, I ask you: do puppets on strings have free will?
Re: (Score:3)
Please stay on your original comment, not swaying off to a new argument.You argued that if God knows the outcome that we don't have free will. I argued it is not. What is your counterargument?
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I didn't fill it out enough, sorry about that.
Again, assuming what religious christians say is true, god works through us. This would also mean he works through those soccer players. You only know what they did after they did it; god knew what they would do before they did not because he can "see or be" the future, but because he worked through them. This, effectively, makes all of us nothing but puppets on strings.
A puppeteer knows how they are going to make a puppet move before they do it. I'd argue that god does the same thing (based on christians' own words), thus negating the possibility of free will.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring the additional action then, I'd argue that knowledge alone of our actions before we do them would constitute an implication or illusion of free will, not actual free will.
Complete knowledge of our actions would mean nothing we do could change the outcome, because every adjustment we eventually make would have already been known of. This directly contradicts the definition [merriam-webster.com] of free will.
This brings the conversation to the illusion of free will vs actual free will, for whatever that's worth.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Axiom 1: Assume an all-knowing God. (All knowing implies knowledge of that which has not yet come to pass).
Axiom 2: Assume a God that is always right. (Follows somewhat from Axiom 1).
Axiom 3: Define "free-will" as the ability to make an independent choice.
Question 1: Can free-will exist?
Suppose an individual is presented with the choice between X and Y. If God is all knowing, then God will know that th
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a valid argument. I simply wanted to point out that "knowing the outcome" doesn't imply a lack of free-will.
Now to your statement... some argue that God gave up something to give us free will. This creates a logical inconsistency with omnipotence... or at least the ability to fully use that omnipotence... it is an interesting thought experiment that ultimately leads to whatever conclusions you wish to arrive at.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the point where, as my wife's grandfather would say, "faith comes in to the picture."
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
So if I Tivo a soccer match and replay it, then the players have no free will?
Definitely. No matter how many times you play it, they will always do the same thing. What's your argument here? If god controls and knows everything, then anything he changes, he knows the outcome of it, and even if he only sets the initial parameters (though the bible says he does much more than that), he is still knows the outcomes of any changes he makes. He set exactly the ratio of people that would go to heaven/hell, if you believe such things. He created billions of lives that were already condemned. To me that seems a little sick an unecessary.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have a problem with free will but choose to believe in it because I was predestined to
*You* may be some soulless automata predestined to believe in free will, but *I* choose not to believe in free will.
-
Re: (Score:2)
s/omnipotence/omniscience
And maybe God subscribes to the Star Trek "rule of cool" school of time travel.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone already knows what you are going to do, how is it a choice?
I guess science must believe that time travel is also impossible and illogical and thus does not and cannot exist. If someone can go into the future and see what you are going to do, how is it a choice?
There seem to be a fair amount of things that humans do not understand and do not know, but that doesn't mean they are impossible or don't exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you were probably thinking of his omniscience, being all powerful doesn't really take away the possibility of free will, where being all knowing might. James Talmage, in Jesus the Christ [gutenberg.org], I believe had a very good explanation of the omniscience of God:
Respecting the foreknowledge of God, let it not be said that divine omniscience is of itself a determining cause whereby events are inevitably brought to pass. A mortal father, who knows the weaknesses and frailties of his son, may by reason of that knowledge sorrowfully predict the calamities and sufferings awaiting his wayward boy. He may foresee in that son's future a forfeiture of blessings that could have been won, loss of position, self-respect, reputation and honor; even the dark shadows of a felon's cell and the night of a drunkard's grave may appear in the saddening visions of that fond father's soul; yet, convinced by experience of the impossibility of bringing about that son's reform, he foresees the dread developments of the future, and he finds but sorrow and anguish in his knowledge. Can it be said that the father's foreknowledge is a cause of the son's sinful life?
I once heard an explanation that makes sense. It's like seeing millions of paths, as time goes by some paths fade away and new ones unfold.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...actually, if anything, the bible proves free will doesn't exist either. god's supposed omnipotence makes free will an impossibility.
If someone already knows what you are going to do, how is it a choice?
I guess it comes down to the difference between having power and using it. If there is an omnipotent god I don't think said god's existence would preclude the possibility of free will, it would just add a new dimension to the question of whether we're really able to exercise it.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it doesn't. It is implied and inferred, but not outright stated. I think it gets pushed because it fits people's theology.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I believe God is omnipresent, because I have not been witness to any divine interventions, nor seen tangible evidence of such an event.
Hey, that's the same reason I believe god is omni-absent!
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Interesting)
A very key example of God actively interfering with the free will of a human, for those who believe the literal truth of the Bible: In Exodus 7-11, God repeatedly "hardens the heart" of Pharoah, so that Pharoah won't actually give in to Moses' demands until after God has wiped out all the firstborn sons.
So the Bible actually teaches that God grants you free will unless that will somehow interfere with a divine plan, in which case you're screwed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Why do you people always post AC?
2)...
As a matter of fact, science says free will doesn't exist.
Citation?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It could be said to come down to the question of if the universe is deterministic.
If you somehow saved a copy of the universe and played it a second time if it would turn out the same like a finite state machine or if it would turn out differently.
from the inside there's little difference, you have as much or as little "free will" (as fuzzy a term as that is) either way.
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Geddy Lee chooses free will, so it must be true.
As opposed to religion? (Score:4, Funny)
Pretty sure people have been unable to discern the stories told in the bible from reality for quite some time.
That's funny, because (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Religions are supposed to be rigid; they're not social structures, they're ethics frameworks that fall into divine belief systems. If you want something flexible, look into a system of philosophy.
John Paul II had the balls to come out and tell priests to stop being fuck-ups. He came out and said Jews weren't evil, gays should seek God's forgiveness but it's the church's job to offer guidance not judgment, etc. He stuck to the rules but kept trying to remind people that Catholicism was supposed to be a
If you see the pope ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... tell him he owes me a new irony meter.
Here is my reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Indifference towards real life? (Score:5, Insightful)
That sounds exactly like someone who is indifferent toward real life.
So get off your high horse and join the real world.
And startby turning over those of your priests who are paedos to the lawful authorities and stop protecting, supporting, defending and hiding the paedos.
Guess he never saw the Creation museum... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about confusion! Dinosaurs walking with people, Noah's Ark, a walk through Biblical History...I can't figure out WHO is telling the truth! http://creationmuseum.org/whats-here/exhibits/ [creationmuseum.org]
After growing up watching the Flintstones, Gilligan's Island, and playing my records backwards I know how you feel.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see anything on that site that endorses Dinosaurs walking with people, though it might be there. At any rate you are are guilty of straw man, false dilemma or ad hominem fallacies.
A) The pope does not endorse a literal view of creationism.
B) Even if the Bible does distort peoples perceptions of reality that does not mean that technology doesn't. Nor does it mean that the argument that technology distorts reality is any less credible because the person who makes it supports something else which doe
Re:Guess he never saw the Creation museum... (Score:5, Informative)
Just so you know, the Catholic church welcomes scientific explanations for the origin of mankind besides "Creation Science", including the theory of Evolution, so long as that science is used in a non-misleading way (for example, Evolution is fine so long as you recognize that there was a God that started it in the first place, but superstitious "mind science" like New Age theories are obviously false, assuming that you believe all of the other Catholic doctrines). You're thinking of fundamentalist, Protestant churches and denominations which take a rather extreme biblical literacy approach (which the Catholic Church hasn't had for well over a thousand years).
Re:Guess he never saw the Creation museum... (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight: the soul has no observable effect on the universe, yet it exists anyway? Could you clarify what leads you to believe this hypothesis? Or maybe I'm misinterpreting you somehow.
So what you're saying is, basically, "assume that I'm right"?
How about this: I don't accept your assumptions. I reject them, because they assume facts simply do not exist. You leave the quality "sacred" undefined; you'll have to give a definition if you want me to accept that life is sacred. The entity you term "God" is not in evidence, as there is exactly zero evidence for such a creature - and, lest I start sounding like a broken record, it is also undefined. The existence of meaning behind the existence of an action is not in evidence; you'll have to provide a plausible hypothesis for why such a thing would exist, which I think will be tricky given that there is no evidence for the existence of a God Who "meant" for sex to mean anything.
Basically, your argument boils down to "assuming I'm right, I'm right". Sorry, but for matters of public policy (which covers things like sexual education and the promotion of contraceptives and prophylactics) that just doesn't cut it.
The evidence that Ratzinger did in fact cover up the instances of child molestation is effectively incontrovertible [daylightatheism.org]. The evidence that the Catholic Church has a history of covering these things up is also incontrovertible; just look at the recent furor in Ireland, or look at the history of a potential Australian saint [abc.net.au] (hint: she was temporarily excommunicated because she went public with the fact that a priest was abusing children).
Sorry, but it looks like the rot in the Catholic Church goes back centuries - and that's not even accounting for the hypocrisy inherent in preaching tithes but living in a gilded castle.
No, that's not the way it works. When you are wrong on matters of fact, and your wrongness on matters of fact leads you to encourage bad public policy, you should be opposed. Your beliefs matter very much when they mean the people my children end up having sex with don't know wha
The pope is right, for once (Score:2)
I looked at that photo of him and felt complete indifference.
Crocodylus pontifex (Score:2)
This is just red meat for the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, when you're done ripping on the pope, stop and consider his point of view and what he has to say. Whether you agree or disagree, his point deserves some honest thought and debate.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Among large parts of the Slashdot crowd, the fact that he's not an atheist is enough to disqualify his viewpoint from any kind of respect.
Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
With respect to the specific issue of being able to tell fantasy from reality?
Absolutely.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, because far better men than him have made that argument, and it was no less laughable.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, when you're done ripping on the pope, stop and consider his point of view and what he has to say. Whether you agree or disagree, his point deserves some honest thought and debate.
His point is no more deserving of thought and debate than that of any other observer from outside of the industry. In fact, I would be willing to bet that Pope Benedict might have some sort of agenda...
while(ripping(Pope)){ // do nothing } (Score:2)
OK, when you're done ripping on the pope ...
Oops! Looks like someone coded an infinite conditional into their English post. I mean, will Slashdot ever run out of things to criticize him for?
Clearly his anti-technology agenda is just a cover for him trying to stop websites from spreading data on molesting priests and the parishes they have been hidden at. </sarcasm>
Personally I've given up on ripping apart the Catholic Pope. I am confirmed Catholic. I know The Holy Bible fairly well but whenever I want to discuss what the Pope says I
Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay. His major purpose in life is to try to get as many people to believe the stuff written in his book of choice, including the magic parts, is the literal truth. As part of that, he has to convince them that the stuff written in everyone ELSE's book of choice is lies, at best misguided, but more likely evil. His organization, which derives it's take on reality from a book, has a long history of violently opposing stuff written in other books, or interpretations of stuff written in their own book they don't agree with, then eventually deciding, well, maybe it's true after all (or at least not burning at the stake worthy). You might even say that the bible has confused the church about reality.
Now he'd like us to believe that books (well, the right kind of books anyway) tell the truth and don't confuse us about reality, but that this newfangled electronic stuff does.
Hm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd (Score:5, Informative)
The actual article seems like a troll as it only reports a couple of snipits. Here's [speroforum.com] a better one with the full quote I found via google. The Pope was actually talking about the way modern media reports the news.
Today, for example, the world of appearances has an increasing weight with the development of new technologies; but if on the one hand this has doubtless positive aspects, on the other, the image can also become detached from reality , it can give life to a virtual world, with diverse consequences, the first of which is the risk of indifference to the truth. In fact, new technologies, together with the progress that they bring, can result in what is true and what is false becoming interchangeable, it can lead to confusing the real with the virtual. In addition, reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment and not as an occasion for reflection. The search for ways to authentically promote man then disappears into the background, because the event is presented primarily to arouse emotions. These issues are alarm bells: an invitation to consider the danger that the virtual distances us from reality and does not stimulate the pursuit of what is true, the truth.
Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd (Score:4, Insightful)
reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment and not as an occasion for reflection.
because the event is presented primarily to arouse emotions
Yeah like Foxnews, Daily Mail and even Slashdot.
And the way many treat US politics like prowrestling, only dirtier (and with nuclear options).
Thus I think it not so much technology that's the problem. It's the lack of integrity and sincerity. No respect for the truth.
The mass media etc are just cynically trolling their "consumers" for hits/circulation.
Like this Slashdot article perhaps? :)
Re:This is just red meat for the /. crowd (Score:5, Insightful)
=)
I only worry about what 4chan's response to such comments might involve...
Religion causes confusion between (Score:2)
...reality and fiction.
My first thought: (Score:2, Funny)
The church is struggling for relevance (Score:3, Interesting)
The church is struggling for relevance in the modern world. This does not help.
Sounds to me like the Catholic Church wants to go back to the old days of an illiterate flock lead in a latin mass.
Because then people had a more "realistic" connection to things that were important like tithing or the consequences of no doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
If we don't rationalise - then what are we ?
Clarke's (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At some point technology will be so advanced that couldn't be distinguished from magic..
For many people we reached that point years ago. It's not so much a sudden thing, but something that happens gradually as technology improves or education fails to keep up.
And he knows were NOT virtual how? (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, the whole monotheism thing strongly suggests we ourselves are in a layer of simulation. So how real is virtual reality under those circumstances?
Not a new concern (Score:4, Insightful)
In any age, there were those who blurred reality for oppressive means. Whether rewriting history to depict Native Americans submitting to colonists in a painting, to airbrushing out Stalin's opponents in photographs. Technology is a tool, and as moral beings we have the ability to do good or evil with it with it, including distorting reality.
I agree...but which technology? (Score:2)
I nominate writing. Proof:
Re: (Score:2)
Television would also work.
They must have DNA evidence of his sex abuse (Score:2)
What a waste of an article (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from everybody spotting the obvious irony here, I went to read the original article to see if I could get all contrarian and spot some useful insight. I find that whenever I hear a story of the form "Person X said something monumentally stupid", there's practically always something in either the subsequent or preceding sentence that provides context and makes it debatable or thought-provoking or even obvious. That doesn't necessarily apply to people who make a living saying monumentally stupid things, often for political gain, but people who actually think for a living (and I do include the Pope in that category) often think more subtly than single-sentence extracts from newspaper articles makes them out to be.
Except in this case, that's all there is. The article is 5 sentences long. It gives no context and only the barest hint of who the audience is. It doesn't link to the full text. As far as I can tell it's not the Montreal Gazette's fault; they ran the entire article as it came to the off the Agence France-Press wire service. I had a reasonably high impression of AFP; perhaps I need to reconsider that.
Maybe there will be a more useful article coming in the future, one that provides something more than an opportunity for something other than simply going "tsk tsk" at the Pope. But RTFA in this case isn't going to make you any smarter.
(Look, I'm not here to defend the Pope. Yes, I'm aware of all the terrible things the Church and he personally have done, and I think it needs to be prosecuted. But I want my opinions to come from actual crimes, not suspiciously short quotes.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you; that's MUCH better. It's something you can disagree with.
In context, it's clear that he's using "virtual" in a way different from the way Slashdotters do. The next sentence is much more compelling: "In addition, reporting of an event, happy or sad, can be consumed as entertainment and not as an occasion for reflection." That is sadly true: technology has broadened the world, and in some ways, people ignore situations near to hand in favor of 24-hour entertainment. Taking news on a news channe
Pot kettle black (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:4, Informative)
Piling on the bandwagon (Score:2)
Seriously? This coming from a man whose subordinates spread the lie that condoms don't prevent the spread of aids? From a guy whose predecessors believed they could change matters of fact [wikipedia.org] by turning on their special powers? From an institution that is completely invested in the idea that consciousness is somehow divorced from the body (e.g, the
The real risk is not technology... (Score:3, Insightful)
... the real risk is simply human beings don't know how to think and most aren't intelligent enough to think. Most people would rather live illusions and lies. This is why religion is so pervasive, we are a species that loves our lies, technology or not. It takes real courage to pursue truth with eternal vigilance because it means your morality and feelings get over turned and you have to let real knowledge change you.
Most people do not want to do that.
Have you ever known a second life addict? (Score:2)
I agree with him to a point. Psychologically healthy person won't have a problem with this, but some people who are already compromised may completely loose touch with reality.
Everyone I've known playing MMO's had a pretty firm handle on reality, largely because they don't think orcs elves or dragons are real.
Then I've known some second life people who have the line blurred. I can't forget once when someone was trying to convince me of something, then they said, oh, nevermind that was in SL.
And, don't fo
Virtual reality could help priests.... (Score:2)
the pope, (Score:2)
Here, fixed that for you (Score:3, Funny)
Pope Benedict XVI has warned that people are in danger of being unable to discern reality from fiction because of questioning blind faith. "Reconsideration of dogmas and the refusal to believe proposals without proof can make it impossible to distinguish truth from illusion and can lead to damnation instead of salvation. The questioning individual can also become independent from the Bible, it can give birth to a virtual world, with various consequences -- above all the risk of indifference towards the Church," he said.
I'm not surprised (Score:5, Insightful)
Understandable reaction. (Score:2)
From his perspective, this is actually quite an understandable reaction. Technology exposes people to a larger variety of fictions that other people believe - which makes picking out the "right" story of reality less clearly a matter of where you were born as with previous generations.
When the ultimate truths of the universe are less a matter of derived logic and reason, and more revealed wisdom, then the entire key to "properly receiving" that truth is framing. Framing that is only reliable when informat
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine that ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine that, the slashdot crowd would rather take shots at religion than assess what the man is actually saying.
No where is he saying that technology is bad. No where is he saying that technology will be the doom of us all. No where is he saying repent ye sinners! He's saying be careful with your gadgets and how you let them augment your life. I believe Asimov had similar warnings.
he's right (Score:3, Interesting)
look at the rise of right wing blogs, and the people who would trust it more than they trust mass media
a media channel loses its credibility, its audience, and its advertisers when it lies. so it has to fact check. additionally, it must remain neutral and moderate, and not espouse an agenda, or it turns people off, which means less advertising revenue. moderation and neutrality is of paramount importance to mass media
when bush was in office the far left complained about the right wing mass media supporting the phony march of war on iraq, etc. well, there is no right wing mass media, and there is no left wing mass media, there is only mass media. the real problem is that the far right thinks it is liberal, and the far left think it is conservative, only because their own perspective is so far right (or left). move far right enough, and you can't tell the difference any more between moderate and lefty. move far left enough, and you can't tell the difference any more between moderate and right-wing
so now, with the internet, we see the rise of far right wing people and far left wing people walled off in their own media universe. their own little walled garden of self-reinforcing lies. obama is a "secret muslim". obama is not an american citizen. this is obviously insanity. but walled off on their own, in their own ideological echo chamber of lies, people begin to believe these obvious smears and lies rather than reality
so the pope is 100% correct: the internet has allowed reality and illusion to become inseparable for people. it takes energy to change your beliefs to align with reality. so why change your beliefs? just change your reality instead, by choosing your partisan blogs over mass media
there are a class of people now who distrust mass media, yet, exasperatingly, trust partisan blogs which lie all the time in support of an agenda, and openly do not care about the truth or fact checking or credibility, as long as they advance a cause
this is genuinely dangerous and scary. the internet is enabling the fractionating of society into walled fiefdoms of ideologues, and no real truth, or at least even common mythology. people pick and choose what they want to believe, regardless of reality. at least mass media made for a true commons of the people. now we only have open warfare amongst entrenched ideological gangs. and the internet makes that possible
Re: (Score:2)
For Pope's sake don't BOIL it!