Monday, November 11, 2019

Time Spent With Gaming

The increased prominence of technology in daily life has altered everything from the workplace to transportation, including the very nature and availability of entertainment.  As a result, the relatively young medium of video games has become especially common in recent years.  A question that many Christians sincerely ask themselves relates to whether or not there is some line past which a person plays too many video games (or watches too many movies, and so on).  While there is a line of sorts, it has nothing to do with spending a fixed number of hours scouring virtual worlds or investing all of one's free time in gaming.


There is no objective Biblical or logical line distinguishing a permissible amount of time spent playing video games from an illegitimate amount in the sense that playing for some arbitrary number of hours is not irresponsible.  Anyone who posits that spending two hours a day playing games is heinous, for instance, can never prove that their selected number of hours is correct.  If playing for some particular amount like three hours or five hours a day is not inherently negative, then, at what point does playing video games (or consuming some other form of entertainment) take up too much of one's time?

The line is drawn where playing beyond a certain amount would hinder relationship, workplace, and spiritual obligations.  This means that the line might be ever-shifting for some people, while the line might be set at a point so high for others that it would actually be difficult for them to approach it.  It is worth noting that many people never truly even approach the line at all.  Staying up into the morning to play video games and playing at any opportunity during the day do not signify addiction or moral failure unless a person neglects his or her outside obligations in the process.

Paranoia about the mere presence of video games as an art form has convinced fallacious critics of entertainment media that video games are a generally negative thing despite there being nothing irresponsible about playing them on their own.  Just as there are double standards about many other things in Western culture, there is an obvious double standard when it comes to general perceptions of leisure.  A person who reads books is often thought of as intelligent and balanced, even though there is nothing about reading that means one is intelligent.  Contrarily, a person who plays video games, no matter how intellectually and thematically stimulating the games might be, is often thought of as lazy, selfish, and unintelligent.

The inconsistency of social norms surrounding entertainment does nothing to make playing video games the destructive pastime some people seem to want it to be, of course.  There is simply nothing wrong with spending one's free time in whatever amoral pursuits one is inclined to enjoy; as long as one has upheld all other obligations and is not sinning, there is no objective number of hours one must limit an activity to.  It does not matter if the activity in question is socially discouraged or condemned in arbitrary ways.  There is no reason to hinder one's personal pleasure after one has fulfilled one's obligations, after all, and those who make fallacious objections can be safely ignored or mocked.

5 comments:

  1. (so sorry my questions usually have nothing to do with what you're talking about in a post, I hope that's fine. I agree with this post lol)

    Hey Cooper, what's the rational way to resolve the "Divine Hiddeness" issue? How can I as a christian rationalist be content and at peace in not being able to see God?

    My panic has subsided since last we talked btw, so I've definitely been getting better! This question I ask is just another intrusive thought that never intensely bothered me as much in the past as it does now, but then again it might just be anxiety. Still I think having the best answer will put my mind at ease

    The best I think I got so far gathering my thoughts is that the uncaused cause exists BY NECESSITY and I can't dispute the premises without quickly falling into incoherence. Since this uncaused cause (God) created the natural world, it follows that God himself can't be a material thing, because he preceded physical nature. Is there anything else that's good to keep in mind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're always welcome to ask about any subject on any post, so it's totally fine! Once again, I'm sorry for the late reply.

      I'm very glad to hear that you are doing better! As for divine hiddenness, like you said, God's immateriality is a very significant aspect of how he might seem "hidden." The existence of an uncaused cause can be demonstrated even without any reference to the external world, and this is part of why perceived divine hiddenness is ultimately irrelevant to proving God's existence--even if matter did not exist, either I have always existed or there was a causal chain of spiritual beings leading to an uncaused cause (if the uncaused cause did not create me directly). Unless God physically reveals himself as he does several times in the Bible, he cannot be perceived by the senses. However, this is not a negative thing precisely because the senses cannot prove anything more than 1) that matter of some sort exists (as I have explained when addressing how to prove you are not dreaming at a given time) and 2) that certain perceptions exist.

      If there was only mere sensory evidence for God's existence instead of logical proof that he exists, then God might not seem hidden, but it would be impossible to prove that he exists. Thankfully, the answer to divine hiddenness is simply the fact that the uncaused cause exists by logical necessity! While only very specific parts of Christianity are true by logical necessity (the existence of an uncaused cause who did not create logic or the space that holds matter, the existence of an external world, the distinction between consciousness and the body, the notion that conscience cannot provide knowledge of objective morality), God's existence is not the uncertain thing that the vast majority of people think it is just because he is not a tangible and visible being by default.

      Delete
    2. Haha ok! It's all good!

      Good reminder on that senses are already severely limited in the first place, and thus inherently uncertain. As you have said a vast many times for as long as I've followed this blog, Reason IS inherently certain! Just because I currently can't subjectively sense an object whether by seeing or hearing, doesn't mean the thing in question doesn't objectively exist, independent of my sensory perceptions.

      Like just because I've never physically seen Paris in person, doesn't mean it's not an actual place that exists. Even if I go my whole life never visiting there! Or if I've never shaken Joan of Arc's hand, should I reject her existence? The very nature of objectivity is that it's independent of anyone's knowledge or perception. Especially if we can't perceive it in the current moment.

      I do sometimes have a frustration about this because I really do have a yearning to fully experience and see God and Jesus. But I guess I just gotta live my life first and be patient haha. Maybe this is what the Bible means about faith and assurance in what we do not see! (faith as in trust/commitment because of the best evidence, of course ;) )

      Delete
    3. Once the necessary existence of the uncaused cause is recognized, we are able to appreciate the sensory evidences that reinforce Christianity while realizing that the limited nature of the senses does not mean that the existence of God is epistemologically up in the air. That has been a source of existential security for me! Even though Christianity may not ultimately turn out to be wholly true, there IS a deity, and there is still immense evidence for Christianity's veracity and no evidence to the contrary. It can be difficult to live without seeing God directly, but that condition is extraordinarily brief compared to eternal life!

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete