The Internet Significantly Contributes to the Rise of Secularism

The negative will show that the onset of the internet cannot be credited for significant advancement of secularism, and in fact the internet today has a greater impact on the advancement of religious doctrine and organizations. "The Internet Significantly Contributes to the Rise of Secularism" The negative offers the following analysis of the resolution and mechanism for judging the debate, along with a definition of the internet, collectively called the "Opp Analysis" The internet: A utility for sharing messages and information worldwide. Resolution of Fact: The resolution is a "truth claim," evaluated under preponderance of the evidence. The side that demonstrates the resolution is accurate or not, and provides the most significant examples should win the debate. This brings us to the Affirmative definition of "Significantly." I don't object to the definition, but the ontology in context of this debate. Significantly is not intended to mean any level of impact we can observe, but rather the greatest/most significant impact we can observe. On Case: Observation 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. 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. These celebrated secular thinkers advanced secular understanding of the world and society as they called attention to the inherent advantages of a more secular society and recognized the inherent harms of a society wedded to religion. Early in the 20th century Max Weber described an evolution of religion(s) observed over history as a function of increasingly complex societies; from superstition and magic to polytheism and monotheism and more recently, with the rise of naturalism and humanism in tandem with science and technology, to prolific secularism. Weber called this process, "the disenchantment of the world." An example early in our history highly relevant today is constitutional separation of church and state, but even by the time the western world reached the enlightenment era science and individual liberty were the champions of the day. The potential for industry and medicine, as well as the value of self-determination carried decisions from separation of church and state to the study of science. From Ben Franklin's lightning to his signature in 1776. Science, medicine and invention, were then and are now, pursuits better served by an understanding that does not rely on superstition, with historical regimens most often recognizing the 18th and 19th centuries as providing ontological and a methodological platforms for eschewing theistic and supernatural concepts from the exploration and explanation of the natural world. Educational institutions have increasingly, continuously and robustly embraced secularism and naturalism as the most reliable (methodological) and most egalitarian (ontological) framework for understanding and developing sciences and societies for more than 200 years. Many of the oldest universities in the US, such as Harvard, began as a religious college and became a secular, and did so long before the internet entered our classrooms or homes. The internet cannot be credited with significant increase in secularization when it started centuries earlier. Observation 2: Liberal values are increasingly popular in the western world, and at odds with many traditional conservative religious values. There's no doubt that secularism is increasing in the west. The affirmative offered studies to demonstrate that. And while the negative has shown the pattern goes back much further than the mid-nineties, today the trend in the west is amplified by ideologically irreconcilable differences. Conservative religion frequently prescribes attitudes and behavior sets across a spectrum of issues that are increasingly indigestible in the western world. Stock examples include, disapproval of homosexuality, intolerance of abortion in any form paired with an ironic disdain for social welfare programs like food stamps, recalcitrance to scientific realities like global warming or the importance of vaccines and in some cases a desire for religious values and belief to play a greater role in civic life, while seeking the the censorship of competing religions or ideas. The trend goes back to the late seventies and early eighties, well before the onset of the internet, in movements like the Christian Coalition and the rise of the televangelism, seeking prayer in public schools, legal restriction of abortions rights and marriage rights; to get the Christian masses to represent the conservative Christian position at the polls. The evangelical movement gave rise to the evangelical voter, through the careful courtship of conservative political forces like the GOP in the United States. Today this group has become a cornerstone of politics in the nation that controls the largest military in the world. Nevertheless secularism continues to rise overall and the negative perception of religion by westerners deserves a significant portion of the credit. Values like marriage equality, abortion rights and publicly funded social welfare are rejected by highly conservative religions like evangelical Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. Moreover, these sects are some of the most publicized and hostile in the rejection of those values. What they may call a defense of faith and tradition is perceive as intolerance, recalcitrance and a desire for theocracy. One of the most incendiary examples include the Westboro Baptist Church, typified by its slogan, "God hates f*gs." The most dangerous and extreme including religious terrorists like ISIS. Westerners more and more embrace science, diversity and tolerance for alternate worldviews and lifestyles. They resoundingly favor secular government and public education, and disapprove of recalcitrance toward science as well as doctrinally prescribed intolerance. Westerners are secularizing because they are rejecting religious messages that reject science and egalitarianism. This is all material to show the perceived paranoia, hypocrisy and vitriol of conservative religion are a greater driving force to the rise of secularization than secularist articles or videos on the internet. Rather, secularist messages on the internet are an indication of secularization that is already taking place. 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. The affirmative has the shoe completely on the wrong foot. It's because westerners increasingly see religion epitomized by the greed, vitriol and even violence of hateful charlatans. Rejection of religion, ostensibly, happens before searching out the "HitchSlap" video on YouTube. Observation 3: Rejoinder of Obs 1 and 2 The internet is a utility for conveying ideas. On balance it is equally available to the religious and the secular, with the published content catering to a preexisting market of viewers. It is the contents and implications of a statement or attitude that compels a belief or the rejection, not the medium it's published within. The current point in this centuries long pattern we see today reflects the projection Max Weber made nearly a century ago. As societies becomes more diverse and complex religion becomes increasingly archaic. Today it is magnified by the inherently contrary propositions of conservative religion and liberal western values, further driving secularization. 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. Observation 4: The internet as a utility has a bigger impact on the advancement of religion. Social media is a powerful recruiting tools for the so-called "Islamic State." Without today's social media this terrorist group would not be able to recruit or radicalize others abroad with such alarming degrees of success. It inspired Donald Trump to suggest, "shutting down parts of the internet" last December in a public debate. His silly statement highlights what we already knew about the propaganda and recruiting program of daesh. The internet is an invaluable tool in the hands of these terrorists. It allow a dangerous and violent religious message to reach anyone. It has been used to facilitate acts of terrorism. From the emails they send to travel tickets they purchase, the utility of the internet is a weapon when used by these terrorists. The Aff Case: As a utility, the internet is a far more powerful tool for violent zealots than for Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins to publish content for their fans, and is far more significant than the low impact of atheistic videos on YouTube. The Aff offered the example of the Ken Ham/Bill Nye debate with over 5 million views, which on balance is not significant. Even if each viewer had only watched one time, that is less than half of number of non-religious people the state of California. This content is for an audience that preexisted its publication. Likewise, "the Amazing Atheist" may have 800,00 subscribers and over a million views (not a quarter billion), but the world has 1.1 billion non-religious people. This does not reach a reasonable threshold for significance. The negative has shown the true catalysts for secularization, and both the the internet is not one of them, and the internet is a more powerful tool for advancing religion for agencies like daesh, and the impact is more significant. http://www.pewforum.org... http://www.pewforum.org...