Or has it come to include and amplify the voices of more people who are not versed in a better set of objective facts? Or worse, has an agreement on what is moral and just- more intangible values- become the true victim? Do we delude ourselves there was a time when, disagreements abounding, there was a better consensus on 1) those moral values and 2) an evolving body of factual knowledge, which required at least a proper challenge via scientific method?
I am sure this also relies on what body of people we're discussing, too, and when. I would say the consensus 2) seems to have fallen into open dispute relatively more than 1), whose existence as a "are people inherently good or bad?" (Yes.) debate's continously documented.
I did grow up Evangelical, so I'm long since acquainted with facts chosen to serve religious doctrine (or The Truth, depending on how you feel there). That mode of thought, at least to me, either seems to have gone mainstream, or more people who previously had no opinion (often because they thought it was over their heads or not interesting). What passes for knowledgeable has changed in that we seem to be looking in the back of the book, if you will, for answers, then proclaiming conclusions without any rigorous exploration to 'show the work.' I've described a horrible way to turn in Math homework. Is that an analogy for what we now do as a society? Or am I selling the average person a bit short? Are we reaping the ugly underside of Convenience Culture, in pre-fabricated opinions we can then parrot passionately? I will say, religion- actual religion- was sort of fashioned that way for most believers. They were not expected to spend time on ecclesiastical studies at a scholarly or seminary level. What we were asked to do was read our Bibles, then take the Word of God at its word. You would grow stronger as a Christian if you read scripture and prayed. Most likely, you would come listen to the preacher deliver the inspired Word in sermons-and that was fine. Particularly if you attended whenever possible.
This pattern is also why I have in recent years recognized an idolotrous fervor for what passes as politically-inspired pieces of conversation. Now, some, many, still observe Evangelical culture as well. Some affiliates, and especially many outside that culture, wonder how its Jesus-inspired messages, as He is its central storyline figure, do not apparently clash with the rhetoric and aims of conservative policy. I do believe a fellow with whom I am barely acquainted reminded me, in a post to a mutual friend, that Evangelicism and Conservatism have at their core a distrust of human nature.
Now, returning to my initial question, which I'm not entirely sure I've supported with the tangent above, I ask if you think now, moreso than in decades before, people who never before professed interest in or credentials for being experts, or having given much thought really to the lines of cause and effect in policiy,
are adopting social media to drive and be driven by what is, when not examined, propaganda and misinformation.
I do think the average person did feel fairly confidently informed in their stances, however, simply because then, as now, the conclusions they've adopted seem reasonable.
But what I want to know is, are we divided more than ever by a subjective sense of reality that accepts an objective stream of testable hypotheses? Are we, wary of propaganda designed by nefarious parties that do not share our interests, becoming religious in our political fervor in a way that replaces religion, which, by its secular nature, embodies larger swaths of humanity who might dispute religious doctrine or mark the box, "I don't know," in favor of party lines? To the point of an evangelical level of devotion, and celebration of its figures and truths? Are we fallen to idolotry?
To my original point, Science, so long as you approached it with experiments you could reproduce, and results that moved the definition of factual consistencies, always held open the door, via method. to build upon its body of probable knowledge and acquire new discoveries.
Were we ever, more so than now, in accordance as to what's factual?
Did we ever agree more on things the way we agree the sky is blue?
Did we, not long ago in the past, have a better consensus of the facts from which we might proceed?
Is it worse now ---are we being conditioned to disagree more vehemently? Or does History contain our tumult's consistent cycles? Are we revsiting ideologies now we seem to have shed as inadequate to human survival?
Are we now, with each our definitions of 'blue' in our experience, unable to agree on problems beneath the blue sky?
Do we agree less on even calling the sky, blue?
Be chill, cease ill
No comments:
Post a Comment