Is the internet destroying religion?

[Dystopia]

I've always wondered how much impact could the internet have on religious beliefs and the number of believers. I came across an interesting yet simple video by "The Atheist Voice" on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWvCQVHpPk4

In my opinion the internet is partially destroying religion and promoting agnosticism, atheism and freethinking since it only takes five minutes of googling (for someone curious enough) to realize why you shouldn't believe in god.

However, the internet is not only useful to dismiss religious beliefs, it can also be used (and it is) to promote religion, religious beliefs and belief in god. A simple google can lead you to some creationist websites like this:

http://www.creationism.org/genesis.htm

http://www.genesis-creation-proof.com/

I know a lot of people who use the internet everyday and are still believers, so that brings back the original question:
Is the internet diminishing the number of believers, increasing it or maintaining it?

Personally, in spite of many people still believing in god and practising a specific religion, the internet has a greater influence on destroying religion than promoting it.

[Michael]

In terms of access to information, I don't think the internet has given us the great shift that occurred with the moveable type printing press. If people are interested in knowledge then books have been a good source for the last 500 years, and perhaps encouraged a deeper knowledge than the often 'short and shallow' type of knowledge communicated on the internet. I tip my hat to public libraries before the internet.

So, no. If anything the internet just seems to have shortened attention spans and dumbed-down the discussion, present company excluded of course :-) I don't see it as greatly changing people's views, or at least not more than books and libraries used to anyway.

Am I sounding old? :-)

[Jenny A]

If anything the internet seems to increase the belief in conspiracy theories and pseudo science; and harden political dogma. I think this is because the internet makes it ever easier to talk only to those with whom you already agree. I doubt it will hurt religion for that very reason. However, it may make atheists more comfortable, especially in very religious places as it makes it easier to talk to each other. That may result in more open atheism.

[Diablo]

If anything the internet seems to increase the belief in conspiracy theories and pseudo science; and harden political dogma. I think this is because the internet makes it ever easier to talk only to those with whom you already agree. I doubt it will hurt religion for that very reason. However, it may make atheists more comfortable, especially in very religious places as it makes it easier to talk to each other. That may result in more open atheism.

Fair comment.

[Dystopia]

In terms of access to information, I don't think the internet has given us the great shift that occurred with the moveable type printing press. If people are interested in knowledge then books have been a good source for the last 500 years, and perhaps encouraged a deeper knowledge than the often 'short and shallow' type of knowledge communicated on the internet. I tip my hat to public libraries before the internet.

So, no. If anything the internet just seems to have shortened attention spans and dumbed-down the discussion, present company excluded of course :-) I don't see it as greatly changing people's views, or at least not more than books and libraries used to anyway.

Am I sounding old? :-)

Fair enough, but don't forget the internet also serves the purpose of accessing online books instead of using the physical support, not to mention you can watch pretty much any documentary by a prestigious scientist to increase your knowledge, so no I don't agree that internet knowledge is entirely shallow. By visiting youtube it is very easy to access and interview with prominent anti-theists like Hitchens or Dawkins, and yes it goes both ways (you can access interview with creationists, deists, moderate believers, agnostics, everything is more widespread

And let's not confuse mere information with true knowledge, there is a difference, but the more information you get, the closer you are to increasing your knowledge.

I am not saying the internet is responsible for the increase of irreligiosity, but it certainly helps, even if it doesn't have a positive effect in making people de-convert, it at least helps those who have doubts leaning to the atheistic/agnostic side and it comforts those who have lost faith and are not sure their decision is bright. For example, this forum has given me lots of hope and comfort regarding my atheistic position and I feel better knowing that I am not alone (and there are people who take positions more extreme than mine), it has enhanced the value I placed on my personal decisions regarding belief in deities, and it has incentived me to promote it. If this happens to more atheists, these people will eventually convince others to de-convert, and so a cycle starts... I don't need to explain this any further.


Jenny A - You said something very wise, the internet is contributing to increase political dogma and sometimes even political ignorance, this is not even the topic of my thread but it was worth to mention. In fact, giving the American example, if you google 'Democrats/liberals + stupid' or 'Republicans/conservatives stupid' you'll find lots of images from the opposite party's members made with the purpose of ridiculing and mocking (many times fallaciously) their opponents by twisting their views. For instance, an image made by a republican saying 'Liberal logic - It's ok to kill babies, but not convicts on death row' - These type of populist critics are very dangerous because they can corrupt public opinion

[Minimalist]

Am I sounding old? :-)

No. Naive.


Libraries choose what books are stocked on the shelves. The internet is far more democratic. Once the seed of doubt is planted anyone is free to seek books which will expand the idea.

[Tonus]

I think the internet has a greater impact on the more repressive religious organizations and cultures, much as it has a greater impact on the more repressive political groups. Any group that tries to control information and access to information is going to have a problem with a medium that offers so much information from so many sources with relatively few restrictions.

[Michael]

Oh, don't get me started on YouTube, Blackout. Look at the video you posted. Where's the research and scholarship? Instead we get 'one thing I heard about was...'. It's a recipe for hearsay and rumour, and that's so far away from good scholarship.It's just someone sharing their uninformed opinion with others. I reckon the Internet, if this is a prime example, will lead to the first generation who are less well educated than the previous generation. All that is left is the veneer of education because people can use the medium which used to be the preserve of the educated. There's just so much utter uninformed dross. At least with books you had to have done a modicum of research to get a publisher to take you seriously. I do seriously worry about the next generation. I don't see them getting the depth of education of my generation, because at the moment people don't know how to get to the quality stuff among all this other utter guff that is posted.

Rant over

P.S. But for balance, yes there is fine stuff on YouTube as well. The TED videos are a great collection of thoughtful and thought - provoking video. I'm just being grumpy tonight.

[Polaris]

It's a double-edged sword.

[Jenny A]

Am I sounding old? :-)

No. Naive.


Libraries choose what books are stocked on the shelves. The internet is far more democratic. Once the seed of doubt is planted anyone is free to seek books which will expand the idea.

No really. The internet is general provides very little really deep knowledge. It's more like have a super fantastic encyclopedia, universal news subscription, and the worlds greatest collection of trivia--yes there are exceptions including things like Project Gutenberg. But it isn't a substitute for a good library yet, though it can do many things the library can't.