PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It appears the development of religion was a natural process.
TINNY: As the process of envolution reaches the human level of consciousness it is of extremely high probability that religious beliefs will develop.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What would happen if religious beliefs didn't come into existence?
TINNY: Some other area of intellectual development would encompass the same body of knowledge. The same questions would be asked and the same answers would be found.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So it is inevitable that the essential truths which form the basis of religious beliefs would come to be known.
TINNY: As consciousness develops, awareness of physical existence is constantly expanding. Certain basic characteristics of material existence have long awaited consciousness capable of perceiving them. As they are perceived they come to be known. Consciousness cannot reach certain levels of development without coming to know these truths.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Could religious beliefs have developed other than the way they did?
TINNY: All religious belief systems that developed would somehow or other be related to the same basic truths of existence; but the ways this knowledge could be expressed as religious belief are virtually unlimited.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There is so much in common in the basic tenets of religions spread widely around the world. There is even great similarity in the traditional stories, symbolism, and ritual of the widespread religions. Is this only because the early practitioners of these religions saw the same basic truths of existence?
TINNY: The world's religions contain the same essential truths due to the common experience of all humanity with the universal characteristics of our physical environment. As similar consciousness perceives similar reality a common body of knowledge is established. But this is only partly the reason for the great similarities in the traditional stories, symbolism, and rituals of the world's various religions. The main reason is their shared origins.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean all the religions of the world had a common origin?
TINNY: Yes they did.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How long ago was this?
TINNY: Many thousands of years before recorded history.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Where did religions have their common origin?
TINNY: It doesn't really matter. All of this planet is our home.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The word mythology is often used in talking about religious history. Doesn't the word mythology mean a story that isn't really true?
TINNY: Mythology is not necessarily untrue.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Virtually every one of the world's religions has traditional stories that in these modern times seem almost certainly untrue.
TINNY: There are virtually none of those traditional stories that do not contain truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying they are all completely true?
TINNY: Those traditional stories are seen differently today than in the past. It is less easy for us now to judge them than it was when they were current. They served a purpose and that purpose was truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about the miracles that are reported to have occurred? Did they really take place?
TINNY: Some did, some didn't. All that truly took place were natural occurrences. There are no miraculous happenings outside natural law; but while God works through natural law, we have not always been capable of understanding the workings of natural law.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Most religions have sacred scriptures. Each that has sacred writings claim them to be perfectly true. They are said to be either God's direct word, God's revealed word, or God's inspired word. Can this be?
TINNY: No sacred scriptures exist that are perfectly true, if for no other reason than because we are presently unable to perfectly understand their revealed truth. None are perfected being's direct word, all are in their various ways the revealed word of God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How true are they?
TINNY: They are all essentially true, although most have been corrupted to varying degrees by human influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Have those responsible for the sacred scriptures been in direct contact with God?
TINNY: All have been in contact with perfected being, some more directly than others.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In humanity's religious history there have been a number of important figures. Some have been known as teachers, some as prophets, and some as Gods themselves.
TINNY: All were human beings, sometimes possessing spiritual consciousness and a relationship with God beyond that of their fellow beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Some of these religious figures are said to have origins other than normal human birth and parenthood. Some are said to have had powers beyond the human. And some are said to have not experienced normal human death. What is the truth of these religious figures?
TINNY: As I said, all were human beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What exactly do you mean when you say they were all human beings?
TINNY: They had physical form no different than all other human beings.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you accept their spiritual origins, powers, and deaths?
TINNY: I do not actually give particular consideration to their origins, powers, and deaths. I neither accept them nor deny them. I remain open to their truth as fact, but realise I cannot truly know these historical facts. If they truly happened it was so long ago that it is beyond the range of my objective perception. I could accept them solely on faith but I see no need to. I care for the knowledge of the true nature of reality brought by these religious figures, I am not influenced to accept or reject the great truths they offered humanity by their origins, powers, or deaths. They were all messengers of perfected being. They in themselves are no more important than any other being. It is their message that is sacred, not their personal existence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: These religious figures hold positions of great importance in the lives of many people. Are you saying that is wrong?
TINNY: Yes, I am saying that is wrong. To the degree the personal being takes precedence in people's minds and hearts over the sacred messages they brought, there becomes a blindness to truth. To focus on the personal being and not God's message inhibits all humanity from attaining our grand destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How should we feel about the great religious figures?
TINNY: The contribution of every person to the progression of humanity is to be welcomed and appreciated, those who contributed the most are to be most appreciated.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many of these important religious figures suffered greatly to offer their message of truth to humanity.
TINNY: Many people have suffered greatly and have achieved no good purpose. It is good that the suffering of these great religious figures could have benefit for humanity. I feel sure the high consciousness of these messengers of truth would have allowed them to willingly accept their suffering to fulfill their sacred destiny.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Were they good people?
TINNY: They were gloriously good people, although some expressed human weakness.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: They were seldom made welcome in their own time, were they?
TINNY: Many more were rejected than were accepted.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Neither were their messages fully accepted.
TINNY: Seldom were their messages fully understood.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It must have been very frustrating to those messengers of truth to be rejected and misunderstood.
TINNY: The life of a true prophet must have great inner reward because there is seldom much external success.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How about false prophets?
TINNY: In the short term false prophets have often had greater success than true prophets.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Why is that?
TINNY: The false prophet will not possess the unyielding idealism of the true prophet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The unalterable idealism of some true prophets has seemed most unrealistic.
TINNY: Only to those who do not seek truth. The path of perfect idealism has great risks, but offers the highest of rewards.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How can a true prophet be distinguished from a false prophet?
TINNY: There are a number of ways, but I will mention only one. It is perhaps the most important difference between the true and the false prophet. The false prophet will receive some personal gain through their message or their role as messenger. This personal gain will override idealism.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean material gain?
TINNY: The gain is not necessarily material wealth. It could be as obvious as power and fame or as subtle as personal satisfaction. A true prophet cannot be influenced by personal gain because nothing has meaning to the true prophet but to bring the message from God that will benefit humanity.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I think you said earlier that prophets should not be followed.
TINNY: That is a very important point. The message of the true prophet should always be followed; but, the prophets themselves should never be followed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Must the prophet live in perfect accord with their message?
TINNY: No prophet can be as perfect as their message. Ideas must always precede actions.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people would judge the prophet by their actions.
TINNY: That is true, but that is wrong thinking. To judge the prophet achieves nothing. Only the prophet's message may fairly be judged.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How do you think prophets feel about their role and responsibility?
TINNY: Many different ways, both glad and sad. It can not be easy to be a prophet.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you think any prophets have regretted their calling?
TINNY: All would accept their responsibility, but I would expect there have been few prophets who have never said; "why me?"
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any prophets in today's world?
TINNY: In the general sense of the word 'prophet', as inspired teachers and interpreters of God's Will, yes there are many; but not in the ancient way. The last of the true messengers of God has already been.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are the 'prophets' today both true and false prophets?
TINNY: Many true prophets and many false prophets.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can there ever be too many prophets?
TINNY: There can never be too many of the true prophets of the perfect knowledge of absolute existence. Ideally each member of human society would be a prophet of this shared truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What should be done about the false prophets?
TINNY: We should ignore their message and offer them our love.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It is correct to say that there is no one true religion, isn't it?
TINNY: No religion is perfectly true, because we are presently less than perfectly able to understand God's Will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are any religions more true than others?
TINNY: Yes. All things on the material plane fall on a continuum. There is a continuum of truth in religions from the least true to the most true.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which religion is most true?
TINNY: I've never really thought about it, but I would have to say I am not yet sure. Each religion should seek to perfect its knowledge of sacred truths. The possession of truth is not a competition. Each religion should encourage and support other religions. All religions have something to offer.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there any bad religions?
TINNY: No true religion can be bad, although some have false beliefs among the truths which can cause harm. To search for truth requires caution.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Aren't some religions led by false prophets?
TINNY: Yes, that's true. Some religions are led by false prophets.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Which ones?
TINNY: It's not for me to say.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Can a religion led by a false prophet still be good?
TINNY: The leader is not the religion. The religion stands beyond the prophet. In all religions there are some very good people and some who are less than good. All should be welcome. Religions led by false prophets will have many good followers. The false prophet will fade and the good will prevail.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will the world's present religions continue to exist well into the future?
TINNY: Some of them will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It has been proposed that organised religion has come to the end of its time, and that if religions were to continue at all they would consist of each individual's personal relationship with God.
TINNY: There has been a great deal of discontent with the established religions. Many religions have been slow to realise new conditions in human society and have been unable to meet the needs brought about by the social changes which have occurred. Attraction to and rejection of the religions of the day are natural fluctuations. It is surely true that in today's society many people are able to establish very meaningful relationships with God without the intercession of a church and a priesthood. This is to be expected as the consciousness of humanity reaches new heights. The world's religions and their associated priesthoods are acknowledging these changes in humanity and are adjusting to their new role.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the new role of churches and the priesthood?
TINNY: The role of churches will always be to assist individuals in their relationship with perfected being. In the past the priesthood has often acted for the individual, in the future the priesthood will aid individuals to act for themselves. Theologians in the church will seek out new knowledge of the truth of our existence, priests will ensure this new knowledge is widely disseminated. Ritual and symbolism will remain, but the ceremonial activities will take on new meaning. The activities of the church will renew their emphasis on nurturance of the individual and the family according to the Will of God. And the world's churches will assert themselves by positive influence, not power, as initiators of important social change directed to the progression of humanity in accord with the natural order.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What has been the role of ritual and symbolism in the past?
TINNY: Ritual has been important in holding humanity unswervingly to a single path against the tendency to drift aimlessly. Symbolism has been important in passing on sacred knowledge.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What role will ritual and symbolism have in the future?
TINNY: Both will continue to exist in religious ceremony to remind worshippers of their beautiful heritage. Ritual and symbolism will allow direct appreciation of the ancient path by which humanity's basic goodness has struggled to overcome evil and follow the Will of God.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should churches and the priesthood have the right to impose God's Will by force and to punish transgressions of sacred law?
TINNY: There is no place for the use of force or punishment in humanity's relationship with perfected being. Churches and the priesthood should be examples of goodness and love. Positive influence should be the most powerful method used to further the acceptance of natural law and human action with the will of perfected being.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Should there be any restrictions on who may perform the duties of priesthood?
TINNY: Only the sincere desire to serve God's Will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be acceptable for women to hold the priesthood?
TINNY: Of course, but only when it becomes generally accepted by society. As I said earlier, the physical bodies of men and women house identical spiritual beings. There can be no restrictions of a material nature as to who may perform the duties of priesthood.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is God male or female?
TINNY: Opposites only exist on the material plane. Beyond the material plane all is one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do you mean God is both male and female?
TINNY: God is the perfect and absolute manifestation of all positive characteristics.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In the past the leaders of nations and governments were heavily influenced by religion. Today most governments are not greatly influenced by religion. Some governments have legislated against the influence of religion and some have gone so far as to attempt to outlaw the practice of religion. What place should religion have in government?
TINNY: In the past religion has exercised great power to influence government. This is never right. Governments should be influenced by God's Will, but not by specific religions. There should be no difference in the goals of government and the goals of religion. Both should seek to aid the individuals of human society achieve their maximum developmental progression in accord with the Will of God. Church and state should have a close and harmonious relationship.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: You said that religion should not control government. Is it right for government to control religion?
TINNY: That is equally wrong. The effect either has on the other should be through positive influence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Do governments at present have similar goals to those of religion?
TINNY: Most of the world's governments today are working powerfully in opposition to the true goals of religion; they are in opposition to God's Will.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this mainly true of those governments which oppose the practice of religion?
TINNY: There is little practical difference between those governments that officially oppose religion and those which proclaim the importance of religion. Both to some degree stand in the path of humanity's progression.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Governments seem to do little good.
TINNY: That's right, governments often do great harm and little good. Even the good done by governments could be better done without government.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would it be possible for religion to take the place of government?
TINNY: Not without causing the same harm as the government. There is just no place for government whether secular or religious in humanity's future, but there is always a place for God in any government.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does religion have a place in education?
TINNY: Most definitely. I would go so far as to say religion and education should be inseparable.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: In some places religious teachings and values are not allowed to be taught in the schools.
TINNY: This is one of the many wrongs perpetuated by governments.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people support keeping religion out of the schools.
TINNY: There has been much very successful propaganda against religion in recent times.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you don't think it is truly the will of the people that keeps religious influences out of the schools.
TINNY: No, it is not the true will of the people.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Many people would argue that they have not been unfairly influenced, that their considered opinion is that religious training has no place in the education system.
TINNY: Modern beliefs have very subtly and pervasively blinded much of humanity to many basic truths.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the main reason that religion has fallen into disfavour? Why is religion often opposed by governments and disallowed in schools?
TINNY: There is one reason which stands beyond all others. Religious beliefs invariably stand in the way of the quest for worldly pleasures and desires.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That hardly sounds a worthy reason to deny religious truths, so intimately a part of humanity's destiny.
TINNY: It is a most unworthy reason but unfortunately a most powerful one.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is the quest for worldly desires completely incompatible with the goals of religion?
TINNY: Totally. There is no place for the quest for worldly desires in humanity's future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Religious values will have difficulty overcoming the influence of worldly pleasures and desires.
TINNY: Remember there is no difference in true religious values and natural law. The physical universe is designed so that natural law should prevail. It is in accord with the natural order that worldly desires will be forsaken.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: At present much of human society is wildly searching for more and better worldly pleasures.
TINNY: We have gone far astray from the right path. If we stray much further it will be the end of the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So the quest for worldly desires must be forsaken in order for the human race to survive.
TINNY: Such is the natural course of progression for conscious beings approaching perfection in every aspect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: There are many things humanity must forsake to achieve its destiny.
TINNY: Godlike existence does not come cheaply.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Of course; it couldn't.
TINNY: There are many influences which keep humanity from rightful knowledge of these beautiful truths.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Tell me about some of them.
TINNY: One very important negative influence has been the entertainment industry.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What exactly do you mean by entertainment industry?
TINNY: That's a very broad term. I'm talking about all sorts of commercial amusement. Mainly movies and television, but including music, theatre, and even literature.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there something bad about all those things?
TINNY: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with any of them. It's what they contain and their effect on human society that is harmful.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So you're not saying there is something basically wrong with entertainment. Does entertainment have a place in the progression of the human race?
TINNY: Entertainment could have a very valuable place in humanity's future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Will there be a place for the specific types of entertainment you mentioned, movies, television, theatre, music, and literature?
TINNY: Every one of them has a place.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: How have they been a bad influence so far?
TINNY: When I say the influence has been negative I don't mean there have been no positive effects. I'm saying that the overall impact on humanity has been harmful. This harm has come both directly and indirectly.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What do you mean by indirect harm?
TINNY: An example of the indirect harm by the entertainment industry is commercialisation. The use of entertainment to make vast fortunes.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does the harm of commercialisation only come from the vast fortunes which are amassed?
TINNY: No, the harm of commercialisation is not only due to the vast fortunes made by the few, but also comes from the focus on entertainment as a means to make money. Entertainment should be an art form where any financial aspects are secondary. As things are at present artistic merit is often not even considered as financial gain has become the driving force behind entertainment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I suppose there is other indirect harm from the entertainment industry?
TINNY: There is. The indirect harm is of many kinds, as is the direct harm.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you tell me about the direct harm caused by the entertainment industry?
TINNY: In the last few generations the entertainment industry has changed the world, not for the better but for the worse. Movies, television, theatre, music, and literature have drastically altered the world view held by the human race. This changed world view has resulted in a huge increase in crime and violence. It has resulted in widespread drug abuse. It has resulted in the disintegration of family unity. And it has resulted in the degeneration of moral values particularly in personal and sexual behaviour. In essence the entertainment industry has very effectively promoted evil over good in human society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: The entertainment industry isn't the only negative influence in human society is it?
TINNY: The entertainment industry as a whole has been one of the most powerful evil influences in modern society.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That's quite an accusation. Few would believe the various forms of entertainment they have enjoyed so much could have been such a harmful influence on humanity.
TINNY: The fact remains, it has.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Please explain how.
TINNY: The influence of the entertainment industry is so complex it's difficult to consider it as a whole.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Then give me examples of different parts of the problem.
TINNY: I'll try to be both general and specific. At any time in the progression of human society there is a currently held world view that has a major influence on the thoughts, words, and deeds of the members of society. The acceptable limits do not change greatly unless the world view changes. Certain standards of legal and moral behaviour had developed over thousands of years of human history. These standards had been an essential part of humanity's world view and had been in accord with the perception of reality slowly developed through science, philosophy and theology. Until a few generations ago there had periodically been natural fluctuations in how strictly these standards were adhered to. These variations did not represent a major change in the standards themselves but represented differences in how closely the standards were followed. New knowledge that entered humanity's comprehensive world view did not result in sudden changes throughout the world, but instead resulted in local changes that spread slowly and had time to be considered in depth and judged by their practical effects on the quality of human existence. Theological influences have traditionally been quite conservative and have moved slowly. New findings in science and beliefs in philosophy were not widely spread other than in professional and academic circles. New thinking in science, philosophy, and theology were often interpreted to the mass of humanity through entertainment and the arts. Theatre and song have for many centuries had a powerful influence on everyday social behaviour. Literature took its rightful place during the past several centuries as another entertaining art form of great influence. The arts, just as science and philosophy, have had many progressive thinkers who led unconventional lives. Regardless, none of these entertaining art forms tended, with occasional exceptions, to pass too far beyond the limits of generally held standards, morality, and values. All of this remained true until one or two generations ago.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened then to change things?
TINNY: This was about the time that television became the most common form of entertainment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you blaming television for the harm done to society by the entertainment industry?
TINNY: No, television has the potential to be a very important tool in the future development of the human race.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Television has never reached its great potential has it?
TINNY: It hasn't come close. Television became the most effective tool to further the spread of evil through human society that has ever existed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What makes television so much more harmful than the other forms of entertainment you mentioned?
TINNY: It is the intrusive nature of television that makes it so dangerous. Most other forms of entertainment must be sought after, but television is always present. Television is like a drug and people with little else in their lives become addicted. Much of modern society has given away active living and replaced personal involvement with the passive viewing of a fantasy world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is it wrong to be entertained by fantasy?
TINNY: As with many things there is nothing intrinsically wrong with fantasy, but fantasy can be made very wrong. How much fantasy and what type of fantasy are important considerations. Also television, because of its unique characteristics, has managed to blur the dividing line between reality and fantasy. Since it is so important to our developmental progression to understand the true nature of our reality anything that destroys our ability to know reality is a most destructive force.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: So television blinds viewers to reality.
TINNY: Not only does television blind people to reality but it creates a false reality that alters people's perception of true reality. It not only blinds us to truth but it leads us away from truth.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Give me some examples of how television programs alter people's perception of reality.
TINNY: Take for instance the issue of violence. The right path, as determined by the natural order, is to transcend our violent past and pursue a future of peace and love. Humanity has been moving in this direction throughout history, although admittedly more slowly and erratically than would be desirable. Personal violence while never disappearing was being maintained at a relatively low level. Many people seldom or never had an opportunity to see violence taking place. Things looked good for the future.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What happened? There have been dramatic increases in all kinds of violence in recent years.
TINNY: It has never been a nice thing about the human race, but violence has long been considered entertaining. Thousands of years ago, and even more recently, individual contests to the death have been watched by great crowds. People were put to death in various ways to provide entertainment.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: That sounds insane.
TINNY: It was a sickness of the mind from which the human race has not yet fully recovered. Remnants of this illness remain today. As human society became more civilised the desire to see such barbaric behaviour lessened and more positive aspects of life developed a greater attractiveness. In recent times, aside from a few sports such as boxing, violence as entertainment was no longer real but portrayed symbolically as make-believe.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is boxing an acceptable form of violence?
TINNY: There are no acceptable forms of violence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: I guess it would make no difference to say that millions of people like boxing.
TINNY: Unfortunately millions of people like many things that stand in the way of human destiny being fulfilled. We have no choice if the human race is to survive but to forsake all forms of violence.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Both real and make-believe?
TINNY: All forms of violence must be left behind. There should be no violence in thought, word, or deed.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Go on explaining the part modern entertainment, and in particular television, has had in bringing about the massive increase in violence that is presently plaguing humanity.
TINNY: Human beings have the potential to manifest many different feelings and behaviours. Within this range exists the potential for great violence. Whether or not this potential for violence is manifested depends on the circumstances in each individual's life. Television, along with other forms of entertainment, has become an influential factor in the circumstances of many millions of individuals in today's world.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you describe which influential factors in television programming promote the increase in violence sweeping the world?
TINNY: One of these negative influences comes from the incredibly large number of murders and various types of lesser violence to which any long term viewer is exposed. Before children reach adulthood many have seen thousands and thousands of murders on television. If the television murders, and the lesser forms of violence, were considered together a child who was an avid viewer might see a hundred thousand or more acts of violence depicted by the time they become an adult.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: But everyone knows the murders and violence on television aren't real.
TINNY: It must be questioned whether or not young children can always understand this violence is not real. But regardless, that is not even the main problem.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What is the main problem?
TINNY: One of the main problems with viewing such an incredible number of murders and the great amount of violence is that a general acceptance of murder and other personal violence occurs.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are you saying that people by watching all this violence come to believe murder and violence is all right?
TINNY: The effect is more subtle than that. People don't come to look on murder and violence as good; but they do come to believe that many murders and much violence is normal in our society. It is the acceptance that this amount of violence as commonplace that is so dangerous. We are no longer shocked by this amount of personal violence. It becomes almost an expectation in society that an equivalent amount of violence will occur in reality as is fictitiously portrayed in television programming.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does seeing all this violence make people commit acts of violence?
TINNY: It may be true to say that occasionally watching violence on television directly causes people commit violent acts, but there is no doubt that watching television increases the probability that more violent acts will occur.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Would you explain further how this occurs.
TINNY: Seeing so much violence portrayed in television programming has a satiating effect. This means that viewers can become bored and weary of violence, essentially immune to the true horrors of violence. Murder and other personal violence can lose their powerful deterrent effect. They become common place occurrences, being seen a number of times each day. It becomes hard to maintain the real, human emotional response to violence. Viewers can become accepting and uncaring of human suffering. Also the emotional responses of the actors in these programs often show a very inappropriately casual attitude to those who are killed, maimed, or harmed. Since, thankfully, most people don't have the real opportunity to see these various violent actions and the true emotional responses they bring about, then expectations in these violent situations are derived from the fictional portrayals.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: It sounds like viewing so much violence can have deep seated emotional and psychological effects.
TINNY: Indeed it can. Human beings are great imitators. There is an effect in learning called modeling. This word refers to the fact that what we see occurring and being socially acceptable or rewarded we are likely to do ourselves. If we see people living in peaceful and loving relationships with each other we are likely to act in a similar manner. If we see people living in violent and aggressive relationships with each other, and this is the social norm, then we are very likely to act in a similar manner.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is this true of both adults and children?
TINNY: Both adults and children are influenced by the modeling effect; but, children are much more susceptible.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Does this modeling only result in behaviour being imitated?
TINNY: This type of learning equally affects thoughts, words, and deeds. Much of that which each of us has learned, including many aspects of our personality, our likes and dislikes, our beliefs and attitudes have been at least partially learned by this modeling effect.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Is there anything that makes this modeling effect more powerful?
TINNY: One of the things that increases the effect of learning is how we feel about the person who serves as the model. The more positive we feel about this person the more powerful will be their influence. If a television personality, well liked and respected by the viewers, were to commit an act of violence or show an unsympathetic attitude to death and violence then this would have a powerful influence on the viewers. In a situation like this the actors would be called role models. Unfortunately both television and movies have many bad role models.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Are there good role models also?
TINNY: Sure there are; but even a few bad role models can be extremely harmful, and there are more than a few bad ones.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: Not everyone does the terrible violent things seen on television and in movies.
TINNY: No they don't, but many millions of people see all these murders and other violence. If only a tiny percentage imitate these terrible acts that is far too many. Besides it's not only those who actually imitate the acts, but there are all the others who are affected in other negative ways.
PHILOSOPHER-SCIENTIST: What percentage of viewers of all this violence would you say are harmed in some way?
TINNY: Every person who views this violent entertainment is harmed to some degree.
