The Impact of the Internet on Learning, Truth and Communication

I wanted to remind readers of this blog of the many resources on the CASE website. Many of the articles, MP3s and even videos are available free. While you need to be a CASE Associate to access everything you might want to check the site out. Below is an extract from an article I wrote for Case # 15 (2008) theme 'Communicate, Cyberspace and Community' which is part of the free resources.

It is indisputable that the Internet has changed the way most people obtain information and communicate with one another. But there are many questions about where it might take us. In particular, I have been contemplating how the Internet impacts on the knowledge we gain from it and the way we view the nature of truth. Does it privilege particular views of the world and specific epistemologies? Does it serve the needs of particular interpretive communities more than others?

I don’t raise these questions as one who fears technology, nor do I raise them with any sense that I know the answers with any certainty. I raise these questions as a constant user of the Internet who wants to understand how it is changing our world. I have been using email for more than 20 years as a daily part of my life; I carry a BlackBerry and can browse the Internet while walking in the street; I write three blogs and read many others; I use the Internet as a constant and valuable resource. I know the wonderful benefits of the Internet and the many positive things it offers. But I also have a concern about the impact it has on my life and on the lives of others.

In one sense, the Internet poses no more problems for Christianity than the cinema, television, radio or even the printed word in all its forms. The Internet is just a tool, like the book and the DVD. The Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky argued that tools are the means by which we understand the world. We have access to material tools that help us to accomplish tasks (e.g. a screwdriver, pencil, computer) as well as psychological tools that enable us to understand our world (e.g. words, letters and numerals). Mathematics and language as symbolic systems are broad examples of psychological tools. Hence, the Internet like other tools is simply a means to understand the world. 

Like other tools the Internet (by which I mean the electronic network that allows us to exchange data in varied forms including social networks, communication tools, web-based resources, sound and video archives etc) is used as an extension of cultural groups (e.g. the family, school, church etc) and its use as a psychological and material tool is learnt in these groups. Much of this occurs with no formal instruction. The tools we use reflect the social and cultural groups in which we live and they are applied as we interact with others. Vygotsky argued that tools mediate our thoughts and actions. With Vygotsky’s concept of the ‘tool’ as background it is worth reflecting on the Internet as an example of a tool. Is the use of the Internet as our primary tool for communication and learning different from the use of books, telephones, letters, and face-to-face communication? The answer I think is yes! But does it matter? Well, it might. There are three key differences between the Internet and other tools for learning and communication that I consider in the article:

a) It is used as part of different, more complex and more changeable interpretive communities,

b) It uses many more modalities for communication in much more interactive ways and with little face-to-face human contact.

c) It provides a much richer tapestry of semiotic opportunities and as such offers a less dominant place to the written word.

I conclude my article with these words:

As we confront our postmodern and sceptical world we need to understand that the Internet can be friend and foe, slave or master. We need to use it as a window on our world and engage with cyber communities for the sake of the gospel. Not in silos of common and accepted beliefs, ideology, culture and a uniform worldview, hoping for the lost to stumble in. Rather, we need to seek out communities of common interest based on common human needs and concerns. We need to approach cyber communities like physical communities: we can be in them without necessarily sharing the same worldview. While there is still a place for Christian communities of interest on the Internet, we need to get beyond an ‘echo chamber’ experience. The Internet has many self-referential communities of interest that are simply silos of like-minded people who hardly make contact with others who hold different worldviews.

You can download the article HERE, view other resources HERE, or simply visit the CASE website HERE.  

You can read all my posts on the Internet and communication HERE (most recent to oldest).

Revealing the Truth or Hiding it From Children: Learning from Humpty Dumpty

The BBC created quite a stir two weeks ago when one of its children’s programs altered the words to the children’s rhyme ‘Humpty Dumpty’, in order to give it a more cheerful ending. In the revised edition, instead of all the kings horses and all the kings men not being able to 'put Humpty together again', all the King's horses and men 'made Humpty happy again'. The revision of fairy tales and nursery rhymes isn’t new. In recent years some have been modified to remove racism, sexism and in some cases culturally insensitive material. As well, some have been touched up in order to make them easier to understand for today’s children. But is this always a good idea?

It’s easier to build arguments for removing racism and culturally insensitive material, but the type of revision that Humpty Dumpty has suffered is less justifiable. Why do I say this? I think there are a number of reasons but I’ll comment on just two.

1. Narrative helps to explain and offer a rehearsal
for life

Children’s stories introduce ideas and concepts in narrative form as a type of rehearsal for life. Narrative whether told, heard, seen or written can provide a way to learn about, reflect on and explain life. In fact life always ends in death and there can be suffering, sickness, persecution, fear and sadness along the way. Stories may just as easily give a false impression of life if they distort the nature of human experience, or offer it in a limited way. Life doesn’t always have a happy ending. In fact for all of us it can involve pain and suffering and ultimately will end in death.

How children grow in their understanding of the realities of life varies and causes many parents anguish and sometimes pain. Every parent who has had a tearful child come home complaining about being bullied for the first time; having been teased because of their appearance, body shape etc, will know what I mean. Life requires us to cope and grow with our successes, failures, pain, ridicule, joy and sorrow. But how and when do we deal with such issues? Because children begin life in innocence with no awareness of the hard and sometimes dark side of life, parents are right to be cautious about what concepts they introduce to their children as well as how and when. Greg Thiele’s post on appropriate movies for children (here) dealt with this issue. Children need to grow emotionally and not be forced to deal with issues beyond their stage of emotional development.

Parents are the key to the child’s emotional growth and wellbeing and have the important task of knowing what to say and when to say it to their children. It’s terrifying for any parent to let a child go off to preschool or preschool where we can’t personally respond to every situation. Often the way we respond to our children when they get home is in terms of story or anecdote. The child tells their story about what happens, and the parent often responds in narrative form, “I had something happen to me….”, “It’s a bit like that time that your sister….”, or “Daddy had that happen to him….”.

Beyond real life anecdotes and stories children are introduced to many more serious aspects of the human condition through story. On my other blog ‘Literacy, Families & learning’ I have written about the role that literature plays many times (here). For example, in a post on ‘Conquering Fears’ I explored the role that children’s literature can play in helping children deal with unknown fears and known fears like death, danger and the threats of other children. I also explored the role of literature in understanding ‘Death’ and ‘Being Different’.

Christian parents will of course always want to bring back their discussions with their children to the central narrative of creation that explains all other things. And while the best place for parents to start is in reading the Bible to and with their children, all narrative can provide echoes of the central and foundational human narrative. As I wrote in a previous post on ‘Christian Writing for Children’ (here), the gospel of Christ is the central narrative to which virtually all other narratives have some relationship – certainly in the Western cultural tradition and literature. The central focus of the Bible is Salvation History; with its central narrative tracing both the history of Judaism and Christianity and God’s redemptive plan for his people. In the beginning God created…and it was good. But sin entered the world, man rebelled against him and so God placed a curse upon his creation that one day would end in judgement. But God always had a plan for such rebellion; a plan of redemption motivated by love. An amazing gift of grace; his own son sent to die and three days later to be raised from the dead to defeat sin and death. A plan that provided a way for creation to be restored and for humanity to be brought back into a relationship with him.

The biblical narrative of God’s redemptive plan and work is the central narrative that gives shape to all other narratives. In every story there is a sense in which there is an echo of the biblical narrative. J.R.R. Tolkien once said (to his friend C.S. Lewis) that “The Christian story is the greatest story of them all. Because it’s the real story. The historical event that fulfils the tales and shows us what they mean." Lewis and Tolkien both saw the gospel narrative as the central or foundational human narrative.

2. Back to ‘Humpty Dumpty’: Disconnecting stories from ultimate truth

So does it matter that they’ve messed up ‘Humpty Dumpty’? I think so, but probably for different reasons than Ricky Gervais who is also fired up about the matter (see below). There are two good reasons. First, in messing about with a simple rhyme or fairy tale we strip away the depth of meaning and possibilities that were originally intended by the writer. Most fairy tales, in fact most children’s stories have many layers of intended meaning. In fact, many well known nursery rhymes and playground chants have deep political meanings. I’m preparing a separate post on this for my other blog, but let me illustrate with poor old ‘Humpty’.

We're not certain what the original intent of Humpty Dumpty. Some suggest Humpty Dumpty was a colloquial term used in fifteenth century England to describe an overweight person. Others suggest that the ‘Humpty Dumpty’ of the nursery rhyme was a large cannon used in the English Civil War (1642 - 1649) as part of the siege of Colchester (1648) by the Parliamentarians (Roundheads). It is believed that the cannon was placed on the city wall near St Mary’s Church (opposite - Colchester Arts Centre today). It has been suggested in one account that a shot from the cannon of the Roundheads succeeded in damaging the wall beneath ‘Humpty Dumpty’ that caused it to fall to the ground. The Royalists tried to restore it but 'all the King's men' couldn’t raise the canon back onto another section of the wall due to its weight. The town of Colchester eventually fell after a siege of eleven weeks. Many now doubt this reading of Humpty. Some suggest that it alludes to English King Richard III and the Oxford Dictionary refers to 'Humpty Dumpty' as a brandy drink boiled with ale. I like the siege of Colchester version but it is difficult to know the truth of the rhyme.

So at one level, changing the ending simply relegates this rhyme to a playground chant with a happy ending. But at a more fundamental level, the change to the rhyme strips away a connection or echo of the divine narrative. Changing the ending as they did is to suggest a lie to our children (if repeated). Instead, children must learn (eventually) that life can take twists and turns that we don’t expect, and that for all of us it will end up in death. But they also need to learn over time that while there is pain and loss in life, there is also joy and hope, and that ultimately we will be ‘put back together again’ just like the cannon (or the egg!) in and through Christ. Our only hope is in him, and we need not despair or be fearful of death.

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees? 25But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience. (Romans 8:18-25)

3. Just for fun – Rick Gervais on Humpty

I don't want to trivialise a serious post, but I enjoyed the 'analysis' of Humpty Dumpty by Ricky Gervais. Gervais is one of my favourite comedians (star of the British TV series ‘The Office’) has a rant about what they did to Humpty. Apologies for some of his language.

Related Posts

Report in 'The Independent' on the BBC changes to 'Humpty Dumpty' (here)

Sydney Morning Hearld report on the story (here)

The need for truth, not seduction, in a pluralistic world

The challenge of pluralism

It seems that for every generation there will be cultural challenges. In the 1960s (my teenage years) the younger generation was focused on a quest for 'freedom'. This showed itself in the questioning of the authority of institutions like the church and the state, the desire for sexual freedom and for women, in particular, feminist challenges to traditional roles and relationships between men and women at work and in the home. In this present age some of the greatest challenges are a consequence of the rise of cultural and religious pluralism and the challenge of postmodernism to truth claims. This has had consequences for Christians and the church and their place in societies like Australia that were once thought to be 'Christian'. Professor David Wells has some helpful comments on this topic in Justin Taylor and John Piper's book "The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World" (Crossways, 2007), a book that I've been reading this week. Wells suggests that the impact of pluralism has been that religions have tended to lose their edge and distinction. He argues, "religions tend to blur in the postmodern mind and become undifferentiated from each other." While some could counter this generalisation by pointing to some sections of major religions that have become more radical and others that have become more fundamentalist (I don't use the term pejoratively) or conservative; but the tendency to water down distinctives ('blending in') is a strong pressure.

New and old spiritualities

In the face of the challenge of pluralism, many have left religions due to the perception that traditional religious beliefs are too narrow and inhibiting; new atheism has been one of the responses. Other people have left mainstream churches and have sought spiritual fulfilment in other places. Wells rightly points to the fact that while established religions have suffered in western countries, that new spiritualities have emerged and some old ones like paganism and Gnosticism have re-emerged. For many, a new spirituality has been sought through peace of mind and inner transformation. A new level of consciousness is being pursued, which in its shallowest form is about self-awareness, self-esteem and self-actualisation. It seems that when there is a search for the sacred, it can be frequently sought for what can be gained personally from this new type of spiritual devotion. The search is not for the God of Christian religion but for the god within; a god found in the self. This is a faith suggests Wells that:

"...begins in the soil of human autonomy and it gives to the self the authority to decide what to believe, from what sources to draw knowledge and inspiration, and how to test the viability of what is believed."

What we have is a conflict of worldviews; people with different frameworks for understanding their world, rejecting things once taken for granted as givens. And of course, Christians see this at its foundation, as rebellion against God and the rejection of Christ. How do we respond? In such a pluralistic world Wells suggests that the Christian church should respond not by adaptation but by confrontation. Not aggressive clashes of behaviour and words but a willingness and boldness to understand people who are rejecting the Christian faith and "to speak the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15).

Speaking the truth in love and with humility

As I suggested in my post on 'Humble Apologetics' Don Carson has some wisdom for us here. In the 'The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism' (1996) Carson, while pointing out the obvious errors of postmodernism, concedes that there is at least one thing that we can learn from it. He suggests that postmodernism is a counter to arrogant dogmatism for which there is little justification. Dogmatism is the strong expression of an opinion or assertion without evidence. It is not to be confused with expressing our well argued and thought through views with strength, boldness, certainty and conviction.

But giving a reason for our faith with respect and the avoidance of dogmatism does not mean simply avoiding hard topics and critical points of difference that reflect our different views of the world. This would be to give in to what Wells is getting at as a key danger for Christians in our present pluralistic age. This is a danger faced every day by individuals, groups and churches.

The Christian will need to rely on God’s word as their ultimate test of what is right and true. We need to be people who ‘guard [their way]’ according to God’s word, ‘storing [it] up' in our hearts, ‘meditating on’ and ‘delighting in’ his statutes (Psalm 119:9-16). In sharing the parable of the sower (Mark 4:1-20), Jesus stresses the power of God's word to chenge lives. People clamber after a better life, new purpose, freedom from many things, new ways to be fulfilled and so on. But ultimately, fulfilment will only truly be found in seeking the God who made us for a purpose. It is the power of God, that is expressed in God's Word and revealed by God's Spirit, that will truly transform lives and set us free (Gal 5:1).

The Christian needs to hold on confidently to God’s word as the way to know the truth that is life changing for whoever hears and accepts it. As Jesus taught his disciples: ‘If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free’ (John 8:31-32).

As I engage with people of all faiths and none in the university environment there is tremendous pressure to avoid topics that will bring me into conflict with others. I have a constant fear of being seen to be arrogant and out of touch, while at the same time having a desire to build relationships with people of other faiths and wordviews and ultimately share the gospel of Christ with them. This is a good pressure if it leads to a heart responsive to God and burdened for those who do not know him. But if it leads me to avoid tough conversations, to water down differences, to accept falsehood without comment, then this is bad! The modern church faces the same pressure, but its response argues Wells, frequently drifts to tactics and methodology for engaging with or "reaching" the culture. He suggests that the church must be aware of differing worldviews and see truth-based strategy as more vital than tactics; for if our focus is about tactics then it becomes:

"...about seduction and not about truth, about success and not about confrontation. However, without strategy, the tactics inevitably fail; without truth, all of the arts of seduction that the churches are practising sooner or later are seen for what they are - an empty charade; and because the emerging worldview is not being engaged, the church has little it can really say. Biblical truth contradicts this cultural spirituality, and that contradiction is hard to bear. Biblical truth displaces it, refuses to allow its operating assumptions, declares to it its bankruptcy. Is the evangelical church faithful enough to explode the worldview of this new spiritual search? Is it brave enough to contradict what has wide cultural approval?"

I continue to ponder this strong comment of Wells'; am I up to this challenge? Are you? Is your local church?

Related resources

You can download 'The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World' free HERE

'Truth and the Internet' Case magazine, #15, 2008 (here)

All CASE posts with the label 'truth' (here)

Truth & the Internet 2

In the latest edition of Case magazine I explore the topic ‘Truth and the Internet’. Does the Internet change the way we learn and acquire knowledge? Does it pose a threat to truth? What are the implications for how we engage with and use the Internet for God’s purposes?

Above: Could they have had any idea of what was to come? U.S. Army Photo, number 163-12-62

In a previous post on this blog (here) I commented on the challenge of discerning the difference between truth and falsehood and the special problem that children have on the Internet (e.g. the challenge of a tree dwelling octopus!). And in an earlier post (here) I discussed the impact of new communication technology and the benefits and opportunities of the Internet for communication, learning and evangelism.

I’m a keen user of the Internet and appreciate that it is a useful tool that has great benefits for learning and communication. But I also know that it also poses threats to God’s truth and to the very definitions of truth and knowledge that shape our worldviews. In my Case article, I suggested that there are a few things that are critical if Christians are to make the Internet our servant, not our master:

• We need to rely on God’s word and give it first priority as the source of knowledge and truth about our God and his eternal plan for his people.
• We need to understand the interpretive communities (virtual and real) that we negotiate each day. We need to enter and participate in virtual communities with the same respect, purposes, enthusiasm and preparation with which we enter any physical community.
• We need to test the validity, accuracy and truth of anything we find on the Internet.
  

a) Avoiding being shaped by the Internet

There is a danger that in embracing the Internet we may be shaped by it. The postmodern thinker lives in a world of openness, doubt and uncertainty. The Internet as a platform for information exchange is a tool that sits comfortably with relativistic and postmodern thought. Meta-narratives like the Christian gospel can so easily be dismissed as just one telling of humanity’s story, just one possible truth amongst many, or perhaps even just one story amongst many stories.

It seems obvious that a key priority to avoid being shaped into the world’s mould is for the Christian to continually place a priority on God’s word. We should use the Internet both to strengthen our faith and to share it, but we need to do so with a healthy understanding of the varied epistemologies that we will encounter. Don Carson (in The Gagging of God) rightly suggests, that in a world dominated by radical hermeneutics and deconstruction, it will take diligence to fight against the tendency to accept that all interpretations of texts are equally valid.

The Christian needs to rely on God’s word as the ultimate test of what is right and true. Christians are people who “guard [their way]” according to God’s word, “storing up” God’s word in their hearts, “meditating on” and “delighting in” his statutes (Psalm 119:9-16).

b) Take care in, and show respect for, the Cyber communities we enter

Just as we must take care with the networks of people we join in the physical world, we must take care with the cyber communities we enter. The insight that interpretive communities and status hierarchies shape the understandings and beliefs of the individual is not a new one. Jesus himself asked the religious elite of his day, “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God?” (John 5:44).

We need to understand the interpretive communities we visit, and engage in them with full understanding of the foundations on which they share their experiences and insights. Just as Christians share common beliefs based on their reading of God’s word and their understanding of it developed in interpretive communities (e.g. families, churches, Bible study groups etc), so too non-Christian networks and groups share common understandings gained as part of interpretive communities. The atheist, the Rotarian and the sceptic all share common views of the world within their communities. What is different is that Christians claim a shared understanding of the Living God and our confidence in this comes from the truth we see in God’s word. The Bible claims that God is the foundation and author of all truth and that this is focused on the person of Jesus who claimed, “I Am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life” (John 14:1). This truth stands above and shapes all other ‘truth’.

c) Test the validity, accuracy and truth of anything you find on the Internet

While the Internet can be useful for communicating truth, readers need to be able to assess information to judge if it is true. I continue to be amazed just as much by the inaccuracy of Internet, as I am by its comprehensiveness. Even an Oxford Press published book by a leading international scholar is to be questioned. How much more carefully should we read with discernment the words of an unknown person, representing an unknown organization, with unknown qualifications? As Howard Rheingold has pointed out, "the responsibility for determining the accuracy of texts shifted from the publisher to the reader when the functions of libraries shifted to search engines". This is not inherently bad; in fact, I see much that is good about this shift. Both children and adults need to ask themselves more questions of the content they encounter:

Who wrote this piece? What is the author's claim to expertise and knowledge in this area? From where does the writer derive his or her sources and how well regarded are such sources? What is the purpose of the writing? What are the underlying assumptions, ideology, values and worldview of the writer? How do the claims of this text match the claims of others?

Summing up

The Internet offers new possibilities and also threats. John Stackhouse points out in his excellent book “Humble Apologetics” - “If we are going to defend and commend our faith, we must do it in a new mode: with a different voice and in a different posture. Our apologetics must be humble.” This is a great challenge to me personally; both as a reader or lurker in numerous virtual communities of which I am part, or as I seek to invite others into one of my own virtual communities, such as the readership of this blog.

Above: Just one more connection! US Army photograph

Truth and the internet

In a recent post on "Writing, communication, technology and relationships" I commented on the limitations of the Internet (as well as its strengths) and cited the problem of not knowing whether content on websites is sound or indeed truthful. I suggested that the accuracy of any communication is largely untested and unreviewed, that individuals are able to misrepresent themselves more easily to unsuspecting audiences and that anyone can self-publish giving a misplaced sense of their own expertise and knowledge.

My argument has been given support by the "Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus". When researchers asked 25 seventh-grade students (judged to be high-performing as online readers), to check out a website with details about the rare octopus, they all thought the tree octopus was real.

As the local School Superintendent in Middletown (New York) commented, "Knowing truth from fiction on the Internet is a huge problem. Students might be good researchers, but they tend not to scrutinize the information."

I've had my concerns further reinforced in recent days by belatedly realizing that it's difficult to control the content of web-based resources like Wikipedia. When someone recently changed the description of New College to include some not so generous (and inaccurate) comments about our residents, I was led to contemplate how this happens, what you can do about it, and how you stop it from happening again? The answers were: a) anyone can change anything on Wikipedia; b) there isn't much I can do about it but there are processes used to restore content when it has been grossly misrepresented and I can always change it back; c) and, that there isn't much protection against such attacks. Now all the true believers in the Internet will say that this is its great strength. It is so open to all and hence difficult to control, allowing people to search out truth rather than having to be limited to newspapers, television and even books which are more easily controlled by powerful people, organizations or governments. There is some truth in this viewpoint and evidence that the written word can be used to coerce and manipulate. But there are also great dangers in not understanding the limitations of the internet. For there is such a thing as truth and also fiction. Wikipedia at best is founded on the belief that there are various versions of the truth (see Wiki's entry for the Bible), and at worst is influenced by the extreme relativist view that there is no such thing as truth, just individual and group constructions of meaning. Relativism has many forms but broadly teaches that we can only know things in terms of our historical and/or cultural experience and context. In its most extreme form the claim is made that there is no such thing as truth. For a non-Christian discussion of Relativism explore this link.

While the internet can be useful for communicating truth, readers need to be able to assess information to judge if it is true. As Howard Rheingold points out in a recent newspaper column, "the responsibility for determining the accuracy of texts shifted from the publisher to the reader when the functions of libraries shifted to search engines". Children and adults need to ask themselves more questions of the content they encounter. Who wrote this piece? What is the author's claim to expertise and knowledge in this area? From where does the writer derive his or her sources and how well regarded are such sources? What is the purpose of the writing? What are the underlying assumptions, ideology, values and world view of the writer? How do the claims of this text match the claims of others?

There has never been a time (in my view) when we needed to give greater consideration to the authority of the texts we read and the things we see, for even images can no longer be trusted with the visual effects technology available. That's why Christians place so much importance on the reading of God's word and place so much trust in its accuracy. Its reliability has been tested over centuries. In spite of endless attempts to discredit it and cast doubts on its accuracy, it has been shown to be reliable. While the Bible has many internal references that speak of it as the word of God (2 Tim 3:16, 17; 2 Peter 1: 20, 21; 1 Cor 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2:13) and God's truth (2 Timothy 2:15b), some might also want to explore historical evidence that also supports the authenticity of this book. There are many sources including web based freeware on sites like Christianity.net (e.g. a basic introduction has been written by Michael Cleghorn) and Paul Barnett's very readable look at the historical evidence for the New Testament - Is the New Testament History?.

The Apostle Peter wrote in his 1st century letter recorded for us in the New Testament of the Bible (quoting from an even older text in the Old Testament, Isaiah 40:6-8), that while many generations of men and women have been born and in turn have died over the centuries, God's word to us has endured and can be trusted:

For, "All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord stands forever" (1 Peter 1:24-25a).

As we use the Internet increasingly as a resource for many varied purposes, all users (adults and children) need to learn to test that which is communicated. For the Christian, the ultimate test will be whether the wisdom of the web is supported by the Word of God that we know can be trusted.