Two weeks ago, I wrote about the new entertainment technology and its potential effects. My basic argument (borrowed wholesale from Marshall McLuhan): New forms of technology will influence people, often in ways they don’t realize.
Last week, the Washington Times ran a McLuhanesque article about entertainment technology and its possible influence on religious practices. According to the article, Generation Y'ers (those born between 1980 and 2000) have vigorously embraced new technology that allows for unprecedented consumer choice. Ipod, for instance, gives users the option to listen to hundreds or thousands of hand-selected songs wherever the person wants, and TiVo let's people watch the shows they want, when they want.
Some have begun to speculate that all this choice will lead people away from religious orthodoxy and to eclecticism: “'It may mean the rise of orthodoxy a la carte, where, as with IPods and music, young Americans take a mix and match approach to religion,' said Bill Galston, a domestic policy adviser in the Clinton administration.”
I like Galston's effort at speculating about the effects of technology on religious practices. It's the type of thing we ought to be doing when it comes to technology, but I think he misses the mark.
Christine Rosen has published a widely-discussed article about the new entertainment technology entitled, “The Age of Egocasting.” Rosen says the risk of all this on-demand choice will be just the opposite of eclecticism: The new technologies encourage “the numbing repetition of fetish. And they contribute to what might be called 'egocasting,' the thoroughly personalized and extremely narrow pursuit of one’s personal taste.”
I tend to agree with Rosen. If people are able to read and listen to the stuff that immediately interests them, they will do so, often to the neglect of other stuff, and there’s a good chance that their views will anneal around their narrow interests and beliefs.
For people who set out with orthodox beliefs, the result will be more orthodoxy. Consider how many more “die-hard” Catholics exist today than back in the 1980s. There are now apologetics magazines, Catholic radio, EWTN, web sites like Catholic Exchange, and Catholic blogs. The result of people being allowed to choose doesn’t mean they become more eclectic in their beliefs. Rather, they become more orthodox and devoted to their core beliefs.
And that's where the risk is.
Don't worry. I'm not saying a person can be “too orthodox.” But a person can be so one-sided in his development and thinking that he is unable to engage people outside his sphere of belief.
I have always encouraged everyone (including myself) to read what others are saying. Friction sharpens the mind. It's when you read a cogent piece against the Catholic faith that you need to think it through and figure out why it's wrong. The result of the effort is a better mind, and one that believes even more deeply and is even more capable of witnessing to the faith.
As Catholics, this type of exercise ought to be welcomed. We have the best deposit of truth among any body of beliefs, philosophies, and worldviews — now or historically. With this deposit, we can always address an un-Catholic position and know there's a refutation.
Such confidence ought to be refreshing and emboldening. It's like working on a jigsaw puzzle. If it gets hard and you think pieces might be missing, you're more inclined to give up. With Catholicism and its 2,000 years of teaching tradition, you can be certain that no pieces are missing and the puzzle can be completed.
It's also worth remembering that some of Catholicism's greatest converts came to the faith as a result of what they read by non-Catholics. Perhaps the most notable example is G.K. Chesterton, who became orthodox in his beliefs because the prevailing “orthodoxies” of his day struck him as absurd. There just had to be better answers than the stuff being preached, he figured, and when he set out to find it, he found orthodox belief and, eventually, the Catholic Church.
I don't necessarily encourage Catholics, especially young ones or lukewarm ones, to engage enemies of the faith immediately. Minds like Chesterton's are rare, and there's a substantial risk that a person could leave the Faith if he's not learned in its teachings and philosophy. Before welcoming intellectual battle with non-Catholics, a person better have a secure footing in Catholic teaching and should re-attach that footing frequently, which is why sites like Catholic Exchange are such a blessing.
But at least occasionally we should use the new technology to wade into non-Catholic waters and see what others are saying.
© Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange
Eric Scheske is an attorney, the Editor of The Wednesday Eudemon, a Contributing Editor of Godspy, and the former editor of Gilbert Magazine.
