Essay on game violence...

[Nightmare]

Want to know what y'all think.

***************************

Teaching Violence?

Columbine. Suicide. Even September 11th. Computer games are being blamed by doctors, experts, and psychiatrists for causing, or at least helping create, these terrible events. They couldn’t be more wrong. They claim that game designers are ignoring the facts, when they themselves are also ignoring other facts. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, one of the world’s foremost experts in human violence and aggression, claimed that Quake (a violent game in which the player would go around with a gun and kill monsters) is good training for murder, by teaching “room clearing” (standing in a doorway and quickly picking off targets) and aiming for the head. He said that Quake taught the player to avoid the mistake of firing repeatedly at a target until the target fell dead, to only use a single shot. To anyone that has actually played Quake, it is obvious that he has never touched the game. Nothing in Quake can be killed with a single shot. The game makes no distinction between the head, limbs, or torso. And if you stand still (for the “room clearing” technique) to pick off targets, you’re dead, because you must keep moving to avoid enemy fire. In short, Quake does not teach the lessons that the experts claimed.

Let’s use the recent September 11th World Trade Center attacks as an example. Right after, critics and the media started pointing fingers, most noticeably at flight simulators on the computer (perhaps the most non-violent sort of game; they help people learn to fly) for teaching the terrorists to fly. Shortly thereafter, a retail store in London pulled flight simulators off the shelves. But even if these games help you learn to fly, there is a BIG difference between them and the real thing. Even so, wouldn’t it be better to advertise them, because maybe they could help a passenger to land a plane if, say, they found themselves at the mercy of hijackers?

The biggest argument against violent games is that they desensitize us to violence, making us more likely to see it as normal. This is a very complex issue. Every sort of fighting is used in games, but all this mayhem is not actual violence. Violence means harm, pain, and suffering; there are no such elements in games. The “victims” in games are by no means realistic, and everyone can see that: child, teen, and adult. They are not alive and are like toys. Also, sensitivity is not learned, and cannot be added or removed from an individual. Even so, it would take more then exposing oneself to violent material to desensitize us. Human history is proof of this; from a certain point of view, the works of Homer and Shakespeare could be just as bad as computer games nowadays. If these did not desensitize us to violence, then why would games?

Even people who don’t play games are violent. In fact, from my personal experience, I have found that people that play computer games to be more polite and less aggressive then those who claim that computer games are for “pansies”. These aggressive people do more drugs and break more laws then the ones that play games. Perhaps this says that violent games cure or subdue the violent urges of the human spirit. Games make you less of a threat to society.

Fifteen years ago, Dungeons & Dragons, a pen and paper fantasy roleplaying game, was extremely popular. But every time someone killed themselves and they had a copy of D&D, everyone “knew” it was because of these “vile” roleplaying games. Even religion latched on to it; D&D had magic and spells, so it “must” be demonic, evil, and part of the occult. Much like Harry Potter nowadays.

This problem isn’t only for computer games and games like D&D. This has been around for the last century; everything new has been accused of causing violence or corruption, like the emergence of the internet, television, comic books, rock ‘n roll, even pinball machines in the 30’s. Is this all true? No. Greg Costikyan, who wrote an article on this subject (Games don’t kill people – do they?) for Salon.com, sums my point up quite nicely: “The idea that television or computer games make people violent has been debunked again and again. (For onething, if it were true, Japan would, judging by its popular culture, surely be filled with violent pederasts instead of the civilized world’s most peaceful and orderly population.)” (Costikyan, Games 4)

Games, violent and non-violent, have been accused of teaching sins and violence. Yet with all the evidence, I can plainly see that they are for fun, nothing more. Don’t trust me? Go buy a copy of Half-Life. Trust me, you’ll have a blast.

****************

So? Comments?

[HighLordDave]

When something bad happens, people need someone or something to blame. It is a fear reflex and the target is often something people don't understand or is out of the mainstream.

Using AD&D as an example: People know it involves demons and devils, and that magic is an integral component. That makes it very easy to believe that the game is somehow associated with the occult. What those same people fail to understand is that AD&D has a very defined moral compass which often pits good against evil, and in all of the AD&D literature, good ultimately triumphs.

Still, the notion of blame not only gives the self-righteous a new target to vilify, but it relieves the victims and their immediate associates of responsibility. Remember a few years ago when some parents sued the band Judas Priest because their kid committed suicide? They claimed that one of the songs told their son that he should shoot himself. How stupid is this?

First of all, if Judas Priest is telling their followers to kill themselves, who is going to buy their records? Second, if Judas Priest was embedding subliminal messages in their music, why was this kid the only death attributed to the band's music? A jury rightly decided that the plaintiff's claim was without merit and dismissed the case.

So why did this young man commit suicide? Surely it didn't have anything to do with the fact that when he died he was drinking, smoking pot and had a horrible home life . . .

This kid's family sued Judas Priest because they needed someone to blame, and couldn't accept the fact that they had alienated their son and were irresponsible parents.

Similarly, it is very easy to blame video games for the rash of school violence. Kids play them. There's lots of shooting and BFG's lying around just waiting to be picked up and used. When someone dies, they do so in a massive mist of blood. It looks surreal and cool.

Our culture wants to blame video games when it should be blaming itself. Firearms are easily accessible in the United States, and the right to possess those firearms is guarded more zealously than any of our other freedoms. Killing is glorified, not just in the entertainment industry, but in society in general. Our country was founded as the result of an armed insurrection.

People don't learn intolerance, hate and bloodlust from video games or TV. They learn it from each other. They learn it in gangs. They learn it from their parents. When a couple of kids walk into their high school and begin shooting everyone who ever picked on them, it's not the fault of Quake; the blame is on us: their neighbours, their classmates, their parents, and their society for failing them.

[C Elegans]

Nice essay, Gaxx Now, I'm certainly no expert on violence, but I studied it during my psychologist education, and AFAIK, there is little evidence to back up the claim that movies or computer games makes people more prone to violence.

Firstly, it's a misconception that the western society has become more violent since the introducion of movie and computers. On the contrary, my textbooks points out that western society (at least Europe) was much more violent before WWII, and that violence started to decrease after that. Public torture and executions was viewed as Sunday family entertainment for hundrereds of years, and violence as a conflict solver was (according to my books) much more accepted in society prior to WWII.

Secondly, no movie or computer game in the world can make an individual kill another individual without an incentive from the individual him/herself. A healthy person, also a small child, has no problem differing between reality and fiction, numerous studies of children show that.

One problem I can see though is the concept of desensitation when the violence is presented as entertainment an in a fictional world. An interesting study was made in Sweden some years ago: School youths aged 15 got to see 2 photos (from the police archive) of violence victims. One picture was a badly swollen face, another was a scarred and bruised torso. The teenagers were to rate how much violence and what kind of violence had caused these injuries on the victims. All of the teenagers were far off in their guessing, thinking that the swollen face has been caused by kicks, several baseball-bat hits etc whereas in reality the injury was caused by one single hit with the fist. Same dysproportion for the torso picture.

[fable]

In modern Western society, the responsibility for raising children is turned over as quickly as possible by parents to peer groups, schools, religious institutions, television and computers; especially peer groups, and television. The numbers are revealing: in Europe, the families of some nations (like the UK) spend up to two hours individually per day watching television. That number is doubled in the US.

Then Johnny gets caught by his folks doing drugs, or shoplifting, or hanging out with the wrong crowd. He has a gun. Where did all this start?

The obvious answer is the one never accepted: when parental responsibility is ignored, commercial interests and peer groups step in and fill the vacuum. So instead of acknowledging the need for close, familial ties, and the fact that as parents they've failed, Johnny's folks look for external sources to blame. No, can't blame television--after all, the adults watch it, themselves, and analyzing Johnny's exposure to television might mean drawing some uncomfortable conclusions regarding their own tv addiction. But games aren't played by the parents; so games, and Johnny's friends, are the culprits. And since Johnny's friends play the same AD&D stuff Johnny does, and Quake, and all the rest, games are clearly at fault.

Yes, I'm exaggerating when I make the above a model, but it does happen with disturbing frequency. If parents want to make their kids more sensitive to the expression of violence, perhaps they should look at the sports game they watch, the way they scream when the other team wins in the Little League, the time they spend with their kids, and the answers they believe to the questions they have at their current time in life.

[VoodooDali]

Originally posted by C Elegans


Firstly, it's a misconception that the western society has become more violent since the introducion of movie and computers. On the contrary, my textbooks points out that western society (at least Europe) was much more violent before WWII, and that violence started to decrease after that. Public torture and executions was viewed as Sunday family entertainment for hundrereds of years, and violence as a conflict solver was (according to my books) much more accepted in society prior to WWII.

Funny thing, CE, I was just talking about that today. A while back, I decided to re-read Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment. I distinctly remember standing on the "A" train and reading the section about a drunk rich guy and his group of drunk rich friends (19th c. Russian Fratboys?) beating a horse to death for the fun of it. It was described so well, it made me sick. I just couldn't keep reading the book. The thing about it was, it seemed like something you'd be likely to run into in the 19th century. Not an uncommon occurence. The Religious Right in my country loves shows set back in an idylllic time in the past, like "Little House on the Prairie." They think if only we could return to the "Good Old Days." They think that the 20th century is the most violent ever. I would say it's much less violent. They just need to re-read their Dostoyevsky, ****ens, et al. For a great read on the seamy side of New York City in the 19th century, get a copy of Luc Sante's "Low Life". NYC was a violent city then. Full of brothels, where you could purchase anything...little boys, little girls, etc. Funny how people wax nostalgic on that period. I think most of us, if sent back to that time, would run screaming from it.

[fable]

Good point, @VD. A glance at the written past shows two trends: in some cultures, the past is always better and idealized; in others, the past is always awful, and the future will be better, still. I have to wonder if our nation's general belief in the second of these two themes prompts smaller groups within to jump to the first; so that while most of America focuses on the future joys of ever-improving cars and medical facilities, at least a few groups point back to good, noble village culture, when everybody mattered, everybody helped one another, everybody worshipped the same, and all the evil guys wore black...or were black.

[Nippy]

I get really frustrated when I see articles in newspapers berating and attacking games because of there design, structure or contents.

Lets take for example Unreal Tournament, I play the game quite reguarly and enjoy the competiveness of it. It admittedly is violent. Sniper Rifles will decapitate an enemy and will leave gore on the ground, however my Dad plays it too, as does his colleagues at work. Infact I reguarly go to his company and occasionally on the weekends we will play a game of UT, it promotes teamwork and organisation (we limit the games to Assault and Capture the Flag.)

I see games like Quake 3. My personal opinion is that I dislike this game, but I have no problems playing it. Some people see the surreal settings and characters like Orbb running around with Rocket Launchers and many instantly presume that this game is "rubbish" or a violent and unnecessary past time.

Most of the people who say that are above 40. I'm afraid that the real reason, as far as I can tell, for the reason games are frowned upon, is because most of the analysis is done by people unused to computers and the massive increase in technology. I feel it is a case of "technophobia" and as such, disagree with the views of such people. The thing I fail to understand (as shown in Gaxx's essay) is that the people who do attack it never play it! They don't understand that modern culture allows people to play computer games miles apart and forge friendships. They lack the knowledge that for most people, playing a computer game is a way to unwind and relax from a hard day at school or at the office.

I read all of the Doctor's analysis of latest trends in increased violence and I honestly gawk and the lack of knowlege they have of computer games, they don't understand that a lot of the knowledge and graphical skills in computer games also allow Physics models to be tested and Earthquake analysis to be done on a graphical scale. They basically lack the fundamental knowledge required to make an accurate judgement.

Ok, now my rant is over...

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by VoodooDali

I distinctly remember standing on the "A" train and reading the section about a drunk rich guy and his group of drunk rich friends (19th c. Russian Fratboys?) beating a horse to death for the fun of it. It was described so well, it made me sick. I just couldn't keep reading the book. The thing about it was, it seemed like something you'd be likely to run into in the 19th century. Not an uncommon occurence.

I agree with you, I certainly think it was an acceptable behaviour in Europe during the 19th century, just as many expressions of violence we are nauseated by today, were totally accepted then. Violence against children, domestic violence and sexual abuse are examples of phenomena that we view differently today. The teacher giving the pupils a slap in the face or a spank wasn't illegal, not even viewed as intolerable, as late as 50 years ago in many European countries.

The 20th century has been very violent I think if we look at violence committed by goverments towards citizens, and the world wars. Societies killing off their own populations have off occured before - in South America for instance in times of food supply crisis and for rital reasons, witch hunts in certain towns etc, but even the percentage of the population killed was equal to that of the 20th century killings, the sheer number in such a short time span is of course is staggering. On the contrary, I certainly think violence between individuals is much less now than it was from the Medivial times and forward (at least, that's what sociologists and historicans say, and reading of old law text and other documents certainly support this). The increase in violence, as measured by reported crimes and estimations of "hidden numbers", are from the WWII and to present time. Part of this increase definitely represents increased reporting, but many criminologists and sociologists believe there is also a real increase of some types of violence, like for the past 50 years or so.

Personally, I fail to see the role of computer games in relation to developement of violent or abusive personality traits. I think the reasons why a person develops in this maladaptive way, are far deeper and more complicated. But the average media are always presenting the cheapest and simplest shots, and we also have to understand that people want simple explanations, explanations that allows them to have a feeling of control over the situation. When we read in the newspaper about a new school killing, a 9-year old stabbing a friend to death with a pair of scissors, or a gang of boys aged 5-8 raping and killing a 4-year old girl, then we want to believe in simple solutions because it's not very nice to realise that this is human nature and the human society under current conditions, and it's not very nice to realise that there is no simple way to protect ourselves or our children from this.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by VoodooDali


The Religious Right in my country loves shows set back in an idylllic time in the past, like "Little House on the Prairie." They think if only we could return to the "Good Old Days." They think that the 20th century is the most violent ever. I would say it's much less violent. They just need to re-read their Dostoyevsky, ****ens, et al. For a great read on the seamy side of New York City in the 19th century, get a copy of Luc Sante's "Low Life". NYC was a violent city then. Full of brothels, where you could purchase anything...little boys, little girls, etc. Funny how people wax nostalgic on that period. I think most of us, if sent back to that time, would run screaming from it.

You obviously don't come from the United States if you think its Religious Right waxes nostalgic for Little House on the Prairie. This is one of the most stereotypical and ridiculous things I've read in a long time.

Regardiing Dostoyevsky, he was one of the few 19th Century authors who recognized what would befall humankind in the 20th century if nihilism and athism became dominant philosophies, concluding succinctly that "Without God, everything is permissible." The 20th century's death toll bears that out. Historians who have nothing to do with the Religious Right can attest to its violence. More people have died in the past century (over 50 million from WWI and WWI alone) than in any other century in history. To call it anything BUT mankind's most violent century is a gross historical misconception.

[fable]

Whatever the conviction with which individuals write, could we keep the emotional level of the replies down? Thanks.

[VoodooDali]

39 y.o. and still counting

@Nippy,
I understand what you're saying. I had a big stormy argument with an old, rather pedantic friend of ours about gaming. When I told him I was into gaming, he looked at me like I said I was into nose-picking. He'd never played anything beyond the Atari era. He totally believed that games were worthless wastes of time at best, and promoted violence at worst. He told me that he would not allow his 14 year old daughter to play games. I told him that was the same thing as telling her what music she could or could not listen to. (You know what happens when you do that--she becomes a punk rocker or a Black Sabbath fanatic!)

Anyhoo, some thoughts...
I think they don't look into other aspects of gamer's lives. I play all sorts of games and always have. I love Bridge and Chess, bowling, etc. I bet most of the people who game a lot have not limited it to just computers.

Computer games are changing so rapidly. It's even hard for gamers to keep up with them. Most people think all games are like Quake. I think they would be pleasantly surprised by the multi-narrative structure of BG and the constant moral dilemmas it poses. The "Dad" I described above was unaware of developments in games like "The Sims" or "Black & White" and thought they sounded fairly interesting when I described them to him. (Mind you, I'm not a fan of either, but they are examples of extremely popular games that aren't just hack 'n' slash.)

I think that computer game development is still in its infancy. As a result, it is not taken seriously as an art form by the establishment. A good analogy is the development of film. When film began, it was found in amusement parks--those stereoscopes and such. Film was an amusing novelty. No one back then imagined that film would explode into what it is today. I think the same is going to happen with games. I'm looking forward to the time when games have less-cliche'd storylines, more ambiguity, etc. As in film.

Here's a nice quote from the artist Marcel Duchamp, who quit art to devote his life to chess:
"You play chess and you kill, but you don't kill much and people live afterwards--in chess, but not in real wars. It's a peaceful thing. To play. To play in life. And (if you play) you are just as alive or more alive than people who believe in art or politics."

[Shadow Sandrock]

*Settles down to a game of Mario Tennis...*

Blood, gore, terrorism, suffering, torment, demons, devils, swearing, and sex, all in one game of Mario Tennis that will possess me to take over New York City in the name of Bin Laden... and *Gasp* Mario Golf is from the occult too! It teaches how to punch somebody until they die and shoot people! And what about that vile, heinous game Yoshi's Story, oh God, they will possess us and make us kill off 4 year old Uganda girls one by one!

Yup yup, video games, the thorn in the flesh, uh-huh suuuure...

(Nice essay !)

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by EMINEM
Regardiing Dostoyevsky, he was one of the few 19th Century authors who recognized what would befall humankind in the 20th century if nihilism and athism became dominant philosophies, concluding succinctly that "Without God, everything is permissible." The 20th century's death toll bears that out. Historians who have nothing to do with the Religious Right can attest to its violence. More people have died in the past century (over 50 million from WWI and WWI alone) than in any other century in history. To call it anything BUT mankind's most violent century is a gross historical misconception.

Ehem, of course I have to object to that interpretation of Dostoyevsky's writings. His works can, and have been, read in many ways. From your frame of reference your conclusion might be the most obvious way to interpret his dealings with religious, social and psychological issues, from another frame of reference his writings can also be viewed as him presenting questions with no clear answer. I've even heard some some literature critics suggest that Dostoyevsky were promoting atheism as the only conclusion, although I personally don't believe so since he seemed to struggle with religious question over his whole life, swaying from one side to the other. After he met Belinsky (sp?) he realised that atheism was necessary as a start for revolution, and after he was in jail, he swayed back towards faith. Some critics view his faith as declining later, I don't know about this, I think only Feodor D himself might have known this. In any case, the conslusion from his works are IMO not as consistent as you present it here - anything is permissable even if there is a god, look at the christian who rapes a little girl, for instance. In his last work, the Karmazow brothers, no solution to the moral questions is presented.

[Georgi]

Originally posted by EMINEM
Regardiing Dostoyevsky, he was one of the few 19th Century authors who recognized what would befall humankind in the 20th century if nihilism and athism became dominant philosophies, concluding succinctly that "Without God, everything is permissible." The 20th century's death toll bears that out. Historians who have nothing to do with the Religious Right can attest to its violence. More people have died in the past century (over 50 million from WWI and WWI alone) than in any other century in history. To call it anything BUT mankind's most violent century is a gross historical misconception.

Historians who have nothing to do with the Religious Right might well attest to the violence of the 20th century, but I doubt if their reasoning would be the same. What about the creation of weapons of mass destruction? (Somehow I doubt that the only people involved in the creation of the latter were atheists.) Perhaps violent impulses haven't increased, but rather, thanks to technology, their implementation has become more effective?

Oh, and does atheism make murder permissible? Living now in a less religious society, are we any less horrified at acts of brutality? I think not.

[THE JAKER]

I don't really agree with eminem on most things, but I am a big Doestoevsky fan and I pretty much agree with his interpretation. I think Doestoevsky was anti-revolutionary and attempted in his insane way to promote religion in his books. Now I don't know about 'Karamosov' because I was not particularly fond of it and only read it once, but I think 'Crime and Punishment' and especially my favorite "the Devils" make the point pretty clearly that the characters who follow a sort of Nietzchean 'god is dead' viewpoint end up self-destructing in despair, and that the only hope for any character is that of religous faith and devotion to god.

Of course, I think attempting to apply any reductionist interpretation to Doestoevsky's writing is pretty much futile because I personally believe that 1. he was in fact insane 2. he constantly debates his conflicting positions on these issues in all of the books and makes good points on both sides, and 3. that he was paid by the word.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by THE JAKER
I think Doestoevsky was anti-revolutionary and attempted in his insane way to promote religion in his books. Now I don't know about 'Karamosov' because I was not particularly fond of it and only read it once, but I think 'Crime and Punishment' and especially my favorite "the Devils" make the point pretty clearly that the characters who follow a sort of Nietzchean 'god is dead' viewpoint end up self-destructing in despair, and that the only hope for any character is that of religous faith and devotion to god.

Dostoyevsky joined the Utopian Socialist when he was young, I think he came in contact with Belinsky this way, and it was of course also the reason why he was jailed in the then Tzarist Russia. He seems to have rejected the socialist ideas in jail, but to what degree is not entirely clear, and it's not clear how deep his faith was later (or whether is was flucuating, as some things). I agree with Jaker that it's sort of futile to try to guess what the "real" intentions of an author like Dostoyevksy might have been, but at least he left notes about his larger works like Karamazov and Crime...

Wheras I agree with Jaker and Eminem that Crime and Punishment comes to the conclusion that only salvation can save Raskolnikov from the suffering his "superhuman" behaviour has caused him, I don't think such clear conclusion can be drawn from all his works, and particulararly not his last work, the Karamazov brothers. Obviously opinions differ in how to interpret Dostoyevsky - as is often the case with great artists

[THE JAKER]

Like I say, I am not so big on Karmosov so I can't really say anything there. I think it would be fair to say that Raskolnikov finds salvation in love or displine/the imposed order of society as alternatives to religion.

I think that love as a means of salvation actually makes pretty good sense in Doestoevsky now that I think about it. Did anyone read "The Devils"? Like I said that's my favorite of his books. It seems like "The Idiot" was very fashionable for awhile there, and it's certainly a good read, but as a novel I think "The Devils" is a real success. It is a pretty clear condemnation of both the romantic era intellectual rebels (like Shelley), and the turn of the century anarchists.

Anyway, I really am reticent about posting in serious discussions and the last thing I want to do is get into a 19th cent. Russian Lit flamewar with C Elegans Can't we just talk about Conan?

[fable]

Originally posted by THE JAKER
Anyway, I really am reticent about posting in serious discussions and the last thing I want to do is get into a 19th cent. Russian Lit flamewar with C Elegans Can't we just talk about Conan?

Shucks, and I was waiting for you to overflow into Tolstoy, Turgenev and (my fave!) Andreyev.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans


Ehem, of course I have to object to that interpretation of Dostoyevsky's writings. His works can, and have been, read in many ways. From your frame of reference your conclusion might be the most obvious way to interpret his dealings with religious, social and psychological issues, from another frame of reference his writings can also be viewed as him presenting questions with no clear answer. I've even heard some some literature critics suggest that Dostoyevsky were promoting atheism as the only conclusion, although I personally don't believe so since he seemed to struggle with religious question over his whole life, swaying from one side to the other. After he met Belinsky (sp?) he realised that atheism was necessary as a start for revolution, and after he was in jail, he swayed back towards faith. Some critics view his faith as declining later, I don't know about this, I think only Feodor D himself might have known this. In any case, the conslusion from his works are IMO not as consistent as you present it here - anything is permissable even if there is a god, look at the christian who rapes a little girl, for instance. In his last work, the Karmazow brothers, no solution to the moral questions is presented.

I'm pretty certain Dostoyevsky's faith remained rock solid after he came back from Siberia. I mean, he had ten years to pore over the New Testament (the only book allowed in prison). In one famous passage, he wrote, "If anyone proved to me that Christ was outside the truth, then I would prefer to remain with Christ than with the truth." Regarding the Brothers Karamazov... it's funny, but I was always attracted to Ivan the agnostic more than to Alyosha the Christian mystic. Ivan faced difficult questions about good and evil in society head on, using his own conscience as a guide, while Alyosha... well, was content to lean on the truths of his faith, and the tired platitude that no matter what happens, no matter how bad society becomes, "God is in control." I realize now, however, that despite his intellectual brilliance, his [legitimate] critiques of the failures of humankind and every political system devised to deal with those failures, Ivan could offer no solutions. Alyosha had no solutions for the moral questions Ivan raised, either, but he DID have have a solution for the problems of humanity: love (agape love, that is. See the chapter on "Rebellion"). The kind of love demonstrated by the Incarnation, and physically expressed at Calvary. Its as simple, and as difficult, as that.

[VoodooDali]

Originally posted by EMINEM


You obviously don't come from the United States if you think its Religious Right waxes nostalgic for Little House on the Prairie. This is one of the most stereotypical and ridiculous things I've read in a long time.

Regardiing Dostoyevsky, he was one of the few 19th Century authors who recognized what would befall humankind in the 20th century if nihilism and athism became dominant philosophies, concluding succinctly that "Without God, everything is permissible." The 20th century's death toll bears that out. Historians who have nothing to do with the Religious Right can attest to its violence. More people have died in the past century (over 50 million from WWI and WWI alone) than in any other century in history. To call it anything BUT mankind's most violent century is a gross historical misconception.

Well, actually I am from the US. Beautiful New Jersey.

I disagree with your statement that "nihilism and atheism became dominant philosophies" in the 20th c. I think that what Nietszche and Dostoyevsky both recognized was that they had become "possible" philosophies. They wanted to imagine what the outcome of having a world-view without God would be. In some of their imaginings, it's a self-destructive nihilistic vision, in Nietszche's vision, though, it is more concerned with how that expands the role of mankind and what humans could evolve into (the Superman). Nietszche's vision was used incorrectly in an unfortunate way in the Nazi regime.

However, the dominant culture in Western society does believe in God, so atheism did not come to dominate, at the least.

This sort of argument makes me think of Thomas Mann's The Magic Mountain. Two of the characters in the book--Settembrini and Naphta -- are used to contrast optimistic humanism and pessimistic absolutist ideology in unexpected ways. Through their convoluted arguments, they end up with conclusions very different from what one would expect. However, Mann is clear in characterizing them as intrinsically linked, two sides of the same coin. Neither could exist without the other, therefore Settembrini follows Naphta when he moves to a private apartment, and their arguments are so connected that their contrasting viewpoints cancel each other out. The fate of each character is also a carefully constructed commentary of each character's life view. They end with a duel. Settembrini shoots his gun in the air. Naphta shoots himself. Naphta's suicide during the duel highlights the self destructive nature of absolutist views when they finally become absolute without resistance. Settembrini's optimistic views simply lead to disillusionment.