History, science and religion

We often view these three disciplines of study as separate endeavors, each bounded by their own methods, aims and theory’s. History being an enquiry into the past, religion being a call to faith, and a provider of a set of beliefs and underlying values, and science being an ongoing investigation into how our world, and that beyond it works. What is also evident is that these three areas are all inextricably linked in more than one way. A pair of questions that demonstrate this suggestion would be:

• How has our understanding of history and/or science affected our understanding of religion over time?
• Conversely, how has our sense of religious boundary affected our study of history and/or science?

In regards to the first question, we must not fail to identify one important fact. Attitudes to religious practice have changed significantly over time. What caused this…our developing understanding of history and science of course. As we realize that divine/supernatural causation (in a historical or scientific mindset) can be discounted as a legitimate means of explaining creation, then our attitude towards our faith changes. This development is demonstrated through the ages, and is evident in the changing methods of historians over time, from Herodotus to Thucydides to more modern historical enquirers, with an increasing emphasis being placed on scientific truth rather than religious truth. In this sense, context is the key. Ancient historians legitimately felt that supernatural causation was in fact a true method of creation, as their contextual society tells them this. As we progressed, and science became a more prominent endeavor, this continued, until the present day, where we discount religious truth in historical/scientific investigations, and vice versa.

As we know also, our sense of religious boundary has also affected our study of the histories and sciences. I’m sure people like Galileo, persecuted for developing (as we are aware now) perfectly justifiable scientific theories, but upsetting the ruling church could tell you. I guess it is fair enough that the church becomes uneasy that people are using new historical and scientific knowledge, which directly questions what the church teaches.

All in all, while they are all linked in some way or another, I think it comes down to one thing. Faith vs. Scrutiny. Religion is there to provide us with a method of approaching life in a way that maximizes our positivity towards each other and ourselves, and is there for faith, rather than scrutiny. On the other hand, the practices of history and science are very much areas of scrutiny, and continually trying to achieve a higher sense of historical/scientific truth, without the need for faith.

A rather opinionated discussion really... But if you think I’ve missed anything of note, feel free to leave a comment, and I will do my best to treat your opinion with what it deserves =P.

Violence in video games

Another widespread, contemporary social issue is the presence of violence in video games. In Australia for example, there is currently no “R” rating for video games; that is, when a game is deemed to be under the “R” classification, then it cannot be legally sold or distributed. This is a unique situation, which is at the current time bringing a lot of the argument I have raised into very prominent political debate. Should Australia have an “R” rating? Is the amount of violence currently seen in many games too much?

The main argument against allowing the “R” rating, and subsequently the amount of highly mature themes (being mainly violence, drug use, sex etc), is the high level of interactivity that video gaming grants to the user. Sure, movies and television programs incorporate a large deal of these themes as well, but gaming allows the gamer to actively engage in acts of extreme violence, and outlandish acts of generally unacceptable social behaviour. The extreme of this was reached when Infinity Ward released their latest installment in the Call of Duty franchise, the highly popular Modern Warfare 2. In one of the opening sequences, the plot guides the user into engaging in a direct act of terrorism, running rampage through an airport, killing anyone and anything in their way. Not a particularly pleasant message to be sending out to our young people really.

On the other hand, there are also a number of reasons FOR allowing “R” ratings and violence in the game industry. Firstly, Australia is the only place without this classification, and so we have been slightly left in the dark with regards to these games. Secondly, many fail to realize that the average age of the active gamer is now low-mid thirties, a far cry from the stereotyped gamer; a slightly chubby young teenager yelling at his X-box out of rage. Many of this grouping are therefore above the age of 18, and so should come to expect access to the same range of games available anywhere else in the world. Another potential point to raise is the required informed decision to be made by the parents should a young person wish to purchase one of these games in question. If the person is socially/mentally unstable, then surely it’s the parent’s responsibility to identify that, and realize that allowing them to engage in acts of digitalized violence is perhaps not the best idea.

Once again, this is no simple matter to resolve. People come from differing backgrounds, differing levels of religious engagement and differing social perspectives. It is therefore understandable that not everyone agrees on this issue. In offering my own opinion, I feel that if someone is over the required age to purchase such games, then it is their decision. If you don’t like it, then don’t buy it. If they are below this age, then it is up to the parents/guardians of the child to make an informed decision as to whether they wish this content to be granted use by their children. Any thoughts?