Your point that organized religions perpetuate violence is a tired and worn-out cliché and there are problems with it even at the semantic level.

First, why single out “organized” religion? Are you saying that only institutions organized around a faith principle cause violence but religions that are “disorganized” or which have no recognized body of doctrine are peaceable? Or do you really mean only the major world religions are at fault and the minor ones get a pass? Or do you ultimately mean to single-out Christians, Muslims, and Jews?

Second, why stop at “organized” religion, whatever that is? After all, what is a religion but a system of unproven beliefs that explain one’s sense of reality? For, truthfully, atheism is as much a religion as any theism or institutionalized religion is. Even atheistic scientists have a religion of sorts, for even they organize their worldview around a basic set of presumptions that cannot be pr oven by experimentation, and they direct their lives accordingly.

You say that we should “ask what it is about our cultures that result in these kinds of violent expressions.” But I submit that this isn’t the best place to start because cultures arise out of the aggregate of individuals. Inasmuch as individuals give rise to culture, it is also individuals who perpetuate violence — whether at the one-on-one level or between nations.

And, frankly, Christianity has addressed this issue. Here’s what one Christian wrote about the matter quite some time ago, long before America was ever founded:

“Where do you think all these appalling wars and quarrels come from? Do you think they just happen? Think again. They come about because you want your own way, and fight for it deep inside yourselves. You lust for what you don’t have and are willing to kill to get it. You want what isn’t yours and will risk violence to get your hands on it.

For more on that, check out James 4 (this passage was quoted from The Message), and see a post I wrote on this passage here: “Involuntary Self-Denial and Relationship Breakdown.”

Regards,

“…actions taken by a gamer causing intentional harm to a ‘humanoid’ opponent.”

Steven F asked:

So, in your mind, even a game such as Medal of Honor, where you are a soldier fighting during some of the major battles of World War II, would be a negative “force”? Would not reading a book about the Battle of the Bulge, written from the perspective of one of the soldiers, be equally “negative”?

I don’t know about the former, because now we’re well into my realm of ignorance–not that this should stop any good blogger (). I’m just not familiar with Medal of Honor and I don’t know if the violent scenarios in the game and their effects outweigh the value of the game as a historical teaching tool.

However, I suspect there is a qualitative difference between an immersive game environment versus reading.

For example, the Bible contains stories and narratives that portray violence in the context of the larger story of our fallenness and God’s dealings with man. The stories exist to serve a moral purpose–to correct, to teach, and so on. But stories as narratives must be interpreted, whereas an immersive experience does not require interpretation. In fact, I suspect the more immersive an experience is, the more it defies interpretation. The most immersive experience possible–real life–absolutely defies interpretation, often till years have passed. (Reference that hoary cliche, hindsight is 20/20.) Movies are similarly immersive, but not so much so as an interactive game is. After all, a movie is a relatively static thing. For the most part, movies don’t change their endings, middles, or beginnings with each viewing (unless you’re on medication, I suppose!). There is at least an objective narrative being told, even if the storyteller refuses to supply his own point of view (as the Wachowski brothers refuse to do with their films).

Consider, again, the Bible. You have a story (2 Samuel 11) where we are told David has sexual relations with Bathsheba after first lusting from afar. And we are told these sexual relations lead to her impregnation and, ultimately, David causing the death of Uriah, her husband.

We are told the story objectively, and succintly, without intimate details. And we must either supply the interpretation or, in the case of the prophet who later forces David to the point of admission, we are given a moral framework with which the view the narrative.

But suppose a game developer came along and provided you with with a set of virtual devices that would allow you to enter the “persona” of King David so that you could witness the lovely Bathsheba’s rooftop nudity firsthand, and so that you could personally direct David’s course of seduction and sexual conquest, and so that you could experience every detail of that sexual congress.

At that point, we’ve abandoned the point of the Biblical narrative and we’ve discarded the values it aims to teach and instead, substituted a wholly different set of values and teaching goals.

The virtual “King David” game would certainly have much to teach. But it wouldn’t necessarily be good things.

So, in my little thought experiment, at least, I do still think there is an essential difference between what is taught via violence in entertainment versus what can be taught pedagogically through literature, through oral history, or even through visual storytelling.

That said, recent research is telling us that video training tools are incredibly effective at teaching propositional truths when participants can participate in virtual-reality scenarios. My question, here, is whether the value of what is taught in violent games outweighs the training-in-violence itself the games provide.

(I am not a pacifist however. If you’re training to be a soldier, you may well need these video games to hone your reflexes.)

Steven adds:

Many games today are written more as interactive movies than traditional “games” (most console-based FRP games on the market today). Some, in fact, are more a movie with small sections where you guide a main character through a certain episode. The fact that there is some violence involved in the story, due to evil’s attempting to conquer, does not detract from the overall story’s moral tone.

That may well be true, and there may be many of these games that, addictive qualities aside (you World of Warcraft gamers know what I’m talking about), they may be fine. But I also suspect there’s a bit of the principle of the “weaker brother” at play here, too. The games may, indeed, be morally unobjectionable for you–perhaps even morally positive. But that may not be the case for someone with a more aggressive or violent disposition.

Regarding your closing comments… Whether we should spend time in leisure pursuits, instead of spending all of our time studying the Word, or preaching, or whichever — that’s an entirely different subject than a discussion of violence in games. Personally, I believe Christ didn’t spend his entire time doing nothing but ministry — it’s obvious people wanted him at their parties, after all. :-)

Sorry, Steven, that’s taking my closing comments quite a bit farther than I intended. You have inferred more than I implied.

After all, how else, how could I be sitting here in my padded chair posting relatively frivolous blog entries about leisurely pursuits?

Regards,

(And thanks for the thoughtful comments.)

Rich.
BlogRodent

In the context of video games, by using the term “violent,” I am primarily thinking of actions taken by a gamer causing intentional harm to a “humanoid” opponent.

So, in your mind, even a game such as Medal of Honor, where you are a soldier fighting during some of the major battles of World War II, would be a negative “force”? Would not reading a book about the Battle of the Bulge, written from the perspective of one of the soldiers, be equally “negative”?

I’m not asking to be rhetorical. In my own life, knowledge of the horrors of battle have shaped my life for good, and not evil. Listening to the horrors of war from my father, who was one of the first ones to arrive on some of the Pacific isles after major battles, made me understand the cost of my freedoms. Reading of the sacrifices made by folks like Sgt. York, or Audie Murphy, helped solidify my understanding of freedom, by understanding the human cost.

Many games today are written more as interactive movies than traditional “games” (most console-based FRP games on the market today). Some, in fact, are more a movie with small sections where you guide a main character through a certain episode. The fact that there is some violence involved in the story, due to evil’s attempting to conquer, does not detract from the overall story’s moral tone.

I think we need to evaluate a game as a whole, rather than viewing singular events within the game. If the overall idea behind the game is violence for violence’s sake, then it deserves condemnation. If, however, the overall story is that of good over evil, where any violence is simply part of the story, then I see no problem with it.

After all, even in literature, you have massive amounts of violence in works such as Lord of the Rings, or C.S. Lewis’ Perilandra trilogy (especially in the third volume). Should we castigate these works as well, given that their “video” is one’s imagination rather than a cathode-ray tube?

(Note, though, that even if a game has a good story line, if the overall goal is to kill, I see major problems. One example of this would be God of War, where one gains skills/levels based on how much blood you can shed.)

Regarding your closing comments… Whether we should spend time in leisure pursuits, instead of spending all of our time studying the Word, or preaching, or whichever — that’s an entirely different subject than a discussion of violence in games. Personally, I believe Christ didn’t spend his entire time doing nothing but ministry — it’s obvious people wanted him at their parties, after all. :-)

I’ve been rolling around the Stableford quote some more, and it seems to me that we’re looking at the difference between heathen/worldly and Christian, saved vs. unsaved. A heathen takes ownership of his thought life and gives the standard “As long as I ain’t hurtin’ nobody …” response, while a Christian should yield all (including his thought life) to the Lord.

The tricky part concerns sin. If you don’t recognize God, can you sin or are you just “doing wrong”? I’m no great philosopher (or theologian for that matter), so I won’t get deep into it. When you bring the imago dei into your argument for aversion to killing, how would people who deny God explain their aversion to killing?

I still have a foot in the selfish camp regarding folks who don’t like murder for reasons of self-preservation, and then you have some who are selfish enough to take somebody’s life simply because they want to. I’ll go out on a limb and state that the opposite of love is selfishness. How people get beyond their selfishness to love is unexplainable (especially for teenagers!).

Finally, enough can’t be said about guarding our thought life, particularly as society embraces the Internet. We have gone from the oral tradition, to books, to movies, to television, and now the ‘net. At each stage more of our capacity for imagination has been co-opted. A few clicks of the mouse can get you ANYTHING and more than you can possibly imagine on your monitor. God help us all.