Now, I have talked to them about religion before and I know that they are both fairly religious people, and they both know that I am not. When I first approached them, I told them about how there are still cultures today that do not use writing as a form of communication. I then talked about how religion and the stories of the Bible might be different than how we know them today because they are, after all, just stories. Stories that have gone without proof and yet have been followed by so many people. They were passed down by God to other people and eventually they made their way to the Apostles who put them all in one book. Nowadays, with the availability (and just plain ability) to write so easily, I just wonder if the stories would have been the same. If you haven't guessed, I don't really have much faith in these stories. They are completely interesting, and it's not that I am trying to be difficult or purposefully cynical, I just do not see how people can believe so strongly in something that has not been proven, only taught to them (most of the time) since childhood. Aside from most religions being completely hypocritical, I just do not feel that it is truly that much different than the stories that we learn about Greek mythology in middle school. If these stories stuck and were taught as truth, would we have people believing in multiple gods and goddesses?
As far as historiography goes, what else in the world would change if we had written accounts of everything that has happened? What would it change about what we currently know? Would the accounts of anything that happened in the past be more intricate and detailed than we know of? Because like with fairytales and folk tales that have been passed down, the more stories are told, the more the original details are lost and the more other details are made up--like gossip.
With the new technology of writing, I am sure that when all of these stories (the Bible, historical events, fairytales and folk tales alike) were somehow changed, as it is the act of writing that allows for words and thoughts to be permanently in your head even though Ong argues that in primary oral cultures, "narrative serves to bond thought more massively and permanently than other genres" (138). I guess I am just not used to this idea, so this is hard for me to believe, since there are so many versions told of different stories that have been passed down.
I think that I just value the idea of official documents too much.. and if we did not have official documents, recorded interviews, etc., would we be more trusting of the actual spoken word? Would we be able to make verbal contracts and abide by those? It is a bit sad that in this world, it takes a legal document drafted on watermarked paper to be official, but then again, I am more in favor of cultures that making writing a primary source of communication.
