In the “Information Age” we live in, we are confronted daily with issues, ideas, and news stories faster than our ability to absorb them can keep up. In days gone by (and I mean like two decades ago) the necessity for us to confront and formulate multiple opinions on so many things daily or even hourly didn’t exist. There may have been a “water cooler” discussion over some worthy topic at work, an important newspaper article to think about, or a story on the evening news to digest, but typically only a few a day.

Now, even when checking your home feed on Facebook, you are inundated with a host of earth-shattering stories and ideological challenges. Life on social networking isn’t all just cat pictures and Farmville anymore. Not only that, but the expectation of a response is as instant as the posting of the issue. When I scroll down my own feed at the moment, I see deadly protests in Venezuela, an article about the foolishness of snake handling churches, an article about people being buried alive, a treatise on the potential moral evils of the Judeo/Christian God, and varied responses to the recent “coming out” of Michael Sam and Ellen Page. That doesn’t even cover half of the pithy issues and stories that have been shared in the last day.

I, of course, share stories and issues as well. We all desire to inform and/or challenge our peers via our social networks about things that are important to us. Such interaction is a big part of what social networking is all about. Ironically, you will probably form an opinion of this blog entry, which addresses having to formulate opinions on articles, social network posts, stories, and blogs. That said, I want to encourage us all about this current reality in society; a reality where issues and ideas are constantly barraging us.

Here are some of the positives that result from this:

1. We are being tacitly encouraged to become faster thinkers and rely more on reason, evidence, and logic to ascertain good information and deflect the bad. If we cannot adapt to this social mode, we will be easily fooled and be reactionary to unsubstantiated claims. I chuckle when an “Onion” satire article inflames the sensibilities of a person who isn’t privy to such parody and “Poe” stories. I see this trend as a type of intellectual, “Natural Selection,” revealing the “fittest” for this new Internet driven world.

2. The Internet allows for us to be exposed to positive ideas, technologies, and relevant issues that we wouldn’t otherwise know about.

3. It is very hard for a person to be kept ignorant by those around them who would desire to limit their information access.

Here are some of the potential negatives:

1. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE can post anything they want and “trolls” are aplenty. Memes, photoshop, and slick looking, cheap or free websites can give the appearance of validity to an idea and the ability for people to share nonsense. Some of these are even dangerous. For example, when a person who needs effective medical treatment abandons such for the “essential oils” or “homeopathic remedies” they see in a meme or foolish article, they can actually die.

2. We can spend otherwise enjoyable time researching and formulating opinions on all the things we are exposed to. Ultimately though, it is on us to prioritize our time and shape our own online experience. If our exposure is stressing us out, we should curb internet time and/or rethink our “likes” and “friends list.” (I use the pronouns “I,” “us,” and “we” heavily as I consider these pros and cons because as we engage in online interaction, we are all in this new social world together)

All that brings me to an important consideration… Who says we need to have an instant opinion on everything? Who says we have to know everything? I think there is nothing wrong and everything right with asserting, “I’m just not sure. I’ll have to think about it and get back to you later.” Humbly saying, “I don’t know,” is also a glory in today’s world. In this modern Age of Ideas, intellectual humility and intellectual honesty is sometimes hard to come by. Of course, there are many things that you may have already considered and developed a position on. Share those positions straightaway of course, yet be willing to revise them if new data necessitates it.

Give yourself permission to take appropriate time to formulate an opinion or make a reasonable judgement regarding issues and ideas you think are worth considering. If you don’t have enough information at present, suspend judgement until you do. Then, you can do your due diligence to acquire sufficient data and/or perform needed philosophical consideration at an effective pace or at your leisure. You can also require those making certain assertions to provide their own evidence. It is not your responsibility to prove their ill-supported case for them or provide proof against a claim made sans evidence and reason. To quote Christopher Hitchens,

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

In temporarily suspending judgement, you’ll also be teaching those around you that you require time to consider issues of importance and lean on rationality over emotional, knee-jerk reactions. Be an example of effective intellectual methodology among your peers. Fostering a less emotionally reactionary society wouldn’t be a bad thing. Such an intellectual climate is even more desirable as society becomes increasingly dependent (if that is possible) on Internet social networking.

So, what are your thoughts? (Take all the time you need) 🙂

*The meme at the top of this blog is my creation, but feel free to use it as you wish.

I am in gleeful expectation of the full House vote on the HJR-3 Amendment, also known as the, “Gay Marriage Ban,” this coming week. Of recent days, I have been increasingly unsettled by the proposition that my fellow Indiana citizens (the gay ones) may be able to legally marry in the future.

This has been very troubling to me. I have been happily married to my wife, Angela, for 15 years now. Our anniversary is approaching in May. Though our marriage has been highly stable and we have five kids, I am afraid that if the gays were allowed to have legal unions, my wife and I may never see our 16^th anniversary. There is something about the notion of icky gays marrying legally that I think would crumble my own traditional marriage. As a couple, my wife and I have made it through good times and bad, the deaths of loved ones, and seeing each other make it through close brushes with death. But, the weight of living in a culture where homos could have their sinful partnerships justified by legal marriage would be more than our marriage could bear. If that was the case in Indiana, I think my divorce would just be inevitable…

That said, I ask all lawmakers in Indiana that cast a ballot on HJR-3 next week to vote a loud, firm, and resonant, “YES!” Then, let’s get this thing through the State Senate and on the public ballot next November so all Indiana citizens can have their say! And their say should be, “YES! We vote against gay marriage! Because it’s already illegal here, but an amendment to the State Constitution would make it REALLY illegal!”

Yet, once we have that item checked off the list, we have so much farther to go for “traditional values” in Indiana. I’ve been reading my Bible a lot recently and there are some other serious matters that must be addressed. We need a few more key laws and amendments added that can help us navigate our way back to a more “traditional” and wholesome culture, guided by the Bible. Below is my personal wish list for traditional laws that I would like added to our Indiana code in the near future:

Once we’ve blocked the gays from marrying, we need an amendment that solidifies the legality of REAL traditional Biblical marriage…polygamy. If one wife is good, then two or three should be better. If you are super-rich, like King Solomon, you can have hundreds, plus hundreds of prostitutes. Whatever floats your boat. Unless you are a lesbian. Then you can’t have any. (Ps. Make prostitution legal too. Without it, we wouldn’t have the Tribe of Judah that Jesus eventually came from)
With all the pressure to make Indiana a more “business friendly” state, we need to reinstitute slavery. The Bible is very pro-slavery and even tells slave masters the right way to beat their slaves, so we can just copy/paste the Bible text into our state code to keep it simple. Obviously, we wouldn’t want to transgress the rights of our fellow Hoosiers and let’s not make this a “black-white” thing like the last time. Rather, we’ll do as our more moral and ancient forefathers did in the Scripture. We can just send people over to a bordering state (I suggest Illinois) and forcibly bring unfortunates back to Indiana to be our slaves. It’s good for corporations. And what’s good for corporations, is good for Indiana.
Since we have a lot of over-crowding of our jails and juveniles, we should make more crimes capital offenses. If parents could just stone their rebellious and/or fornicating kids, problem solved. Also, go heavy on people who deny Yahweh (and we’ll toss in Jesus). Make belonging to a “false religion” a crime punishable by death again. But, let’s forget about the Sabbath thing. Closing shop one day a week can be bad for business. And, if you could be killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, how could you play golf on your day off? Also, go easy on greed, adultery, and lying. We can’t put a portion of our own lawmakers behind bars now can we?

(Please note: the above article is satire. Don’t hate me. Unless you actually like the article…then you can hate me)

Please make your voice heard by your representative before next week. I did. Follow the link below.

http://www.freedomindiana.org/hjr3/

Luke Austin Daugherty

Poetry, Essays, & Articles

Satire

After HJR-3 is Passed in Indiana, THEN we can Really Work on Getting “Traditional”!

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

Share this:

Share this: