The Internet Significantly Contributes to the Rise of Secularism

Thank you DavidMancke!In this round, I will rebut my opponent’s arguments from round two. Afterwards, my opponent will rebut my arguments from round two. Since the fourth and final round is for conclusions only, my opponent shall only rebut my arguments from round two (and not this round) so both sides have equal time to make rebuttals. I will now respond to my opponent’s arguments in the order presented. 1. “The general trend of secularization in the western world has been on the rise for centuries before the internet existed or was even imagined.” My opponent writes “Karl Marx, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Jean-Paul Sartre all share a common denominator; they surmised that religion was on the decline and that science, education and individualism could be given the credit.” I completely agree that science and education, as well as increased value placed upon independence, are strong contributors of secularization. At the times that these intellectuals were alive, those were likely the most obvious causes on secularization. But we are in a new age, one that those men didn’t get to experience. I strongly believe that if they had the opportunity to observe the power of the internet they would classify it as a strong contributor to secularization. I believe my opponent is missing my point that of all the applications that have arisen from the world wide web, the internet is perhaps best at educating people and allowing them to experience new fields such as the sciences, more so than they ever could without the Internet. Consider the growing number of fully online universities which make getting an education so much easier, such as the University of Phoenix. This allows a greater number of people to get an education due to the convenience of learning from home. Other sites like YouTube offer an ever-growing amount of channels dedicated to education, such as Vsauce. The channel, which mainly publishes videos on science, has over 10 million subscribers and nearly 1 billion total views [1]. People’s ability to educate themselves is significantly greater now than it ever was without the internet. Before the coming of the internet, people had to rely on local resources such as libraries and universities to learn; people had to go to where the education was. Now, we can bring the education to us. We now have, quite literally, the ability to learn anything thanks to the internet. Con writes “The internet cannot be credited with significant increase in secularization when it started centuries earlier.” The fact that secularization begun without the internet is irrelevant. In no way does this necessarily mean that later advancements such as the internet cannot act as a catalyst for secularization. Thus, to claim that education and science cause secularization and the internet does not, despite the fact that the internet delivers these opportunities straight to people in unlimited amounts, is illogical. 2. “Liberal values are increasingly popular in the western world, and at odds with many traditional conservative religious values.” The Negative writes “The artifacts of secularism online are not a cause in and of themselves. This is simple supply and demand. The demand for secularist media drives publication.” I believe I have provided several ways in which the internet directly contributes to secularization, such as making access to education so much easier, but my opponent has failed to support this claim that secular articles and videos on the internet are simply byproducts of secularization rather than contributors. Perhaps my opponent misunderstood what I was saying. I did not say that YouTube videos that promote secularism directly cause people to drop their Bibles. I was saying that they contribute to the larger picture by getting people to think rationally. Con writes “Rejection of religion, ostensibly, happens before searching out the ‘HitchSlap’ video on YouTube.” Not all the time. If I have already rejected religion, I may seek out Hitchslap videos purely for entertainment (for those unaware, “Hitchslap” videos are videos of Christopher Hitchens, once a popular anti-theist known for his wits and clever responses while debating theists). But, if I am in a state of limbo and am unsure of what I believe, coming across videos like these will certainly make an influence on my final decision. 3. "Rejoinder of Obs 1 and 2" Con states “Secularization is increasing because society's values are and have been changing for a long time. Even the most recent changes began over a generation ago and are still going on now. Internet or no, it would still be happening.” Of course our society would still be undergoing social changes if the internet hadn’t been invented. But not nearly as fast. As my opponent writes, “The internet is a utility for conveying ideas.” The internet is the fastest method in the history of mankind of spreading ideas. Consider some of the recent social movement we have witnessed. Without the internet, they would have never gained the traction and speed that they reached. For example, think about the gay rights movement and how much the internet bolstered the ideology behind it. Remember that Facebook profile picture filter that put a rainbow over your picture? Within three days, 26 million people had changed their profile picture in support of gay rights, and the filter would go on to gain over 500 million likes and comments from Facebook users around the world [2]. There is no way that such a movement could have gained that much attention in such little time without the power of the internet. 4. "The internet as a utility has a bigger impact on the advancement of religion." My opponent is right when he states that extremist religious organizations use the internet to spread their dogma. But in order for this point to further his case, my opponent must demonstrate that the internet contributes more to the advancement of religion than to secularization, which he failed to do. Con states that even though the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye debate got 5 million views, this is insignificant. It seems to me that my opponent is implying that in order for a video to be significant it must have received billions of views. I beg to differ. 5 million views certainly means something. It shows that people care and are paying attention to these sorts of matters. If my opponent actually believes that in order for any video to carry any significance its view count must match the number of people associated with the video’s content, then that is simply unrealistic. Very few internet videos receive over a billion views, let alone hundreds of millions. Yet they still convey meaning and create social change. And just to clarify: The Amazing Atheist’s YouTube channel has indeed been viewed over a quarter of a billion times: 267,714,483 views as of this posting, to be exact [3]. I look forward to my opponent’s rebuttal to my main arguments! Sources 1. https://www.youtube.com... 2. http://money.cnn.com... 3. https://www.youtube.com...