Kutsalın Dijital İnşası: Türkiye’de Yapay Zekâ Çağında Dini İletişimin Dönüşümü ve Medyalaşması

Öz

Dijitalleşmenin dini bilgi ve pratikler üzerindeki dönüştürücü gücü, günümüzde yapay zekâ (YZ) teknolojilerinin yükselişiyle birlikte geleneksel otorite yapılarını farklı bir düzleme taşıyan yeni bir boyuta evrilmiştir. Bu araştırma, YZ’nin dini iletişim üzerindeki dönüştürücü etkisini Hjarvard’ın "medya mantığı" ve Lundby’nin "sosyal inşacılık" kuramları çerçevesinde incelemektedir. Teknolojinin pasif bir araç olmaktan çıkıp dini anlamı yeniden kurgulayan bir algoritmik otoriteye evrildiği savunulmaktadır. Çalışmada nitel araştırma yöntemi benimsenmiş; amaçlı örnekleme yoluyla belirlenen 12 katılımcı ile yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Örneklem, kurumsal bakış açısını temsil eden "dini otorite" grubu ve teknolojiyi aktif kullanan "dijital kullanıcılar" olmak üzere iki ana kategoriye ayrılmıştır. Bulgular, kurumsal otorite temsilcilerinin YZ’yi dini bilginin özünü zayıflatan, bağlamdan kopuk ve ruhsuz bir mekanizma olarak gördüğünü, hiyerarşik icazet sisteminin yerini denetimsiz bir hıza bıraktığını ortaya koymaktadır. Buna karşılık dijital kullanıcılar, YZ’yi yargılanmayan bir muhatap ve bireysel inanç inşasına olanak tanıyan güvenli bir alan olarak deneyimlemektedir. Sonuç olarak; YZ dini ortadan kaldırmamakta, ancak onu rasyonalize ederek parçalı, kişiselleştirilmiş ve medya mantığına uyumlu yeni bir kutsallık formuna dönüştürdüğü söylenebilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ
• Dini İletişim
• Medyalaşma
• Algoritmik Otorite
• Sosyal İnşacılık

The Digital Construction of the Sacred: Mediatization and Transformation of Religious Communication in the Age of Artificial Intelligence in Türkiye

Öz

The transformative power of digitalization on religious knowledge and practices has evolved into a new dimension with the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, moving traditional authority structures to a different plane. This research examines the transformative impact of AI on religious communication within the framework of Stig Hjarvard’s "media logic" and Knut Lundby’s "social constructivism" theories. It is argued that technology has evolved from being a passive tool into an algorithmic authority that reconstructs religious meaning. A qualitative research method was adopted, and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 participants selected through purposeful sampling. The sample is divided into two main categories: the "religious authority" group representing the institutional perspective, and "digital users" who actively use technology. The findings reveal that institutional authority representatives perceive AI as a "soulless" mechanism detached from context that weakens the essence of religious knowledge, where the hierarchical system of authorization (ijazah) is replaced by unregulated speed. Conversely, digital users experience AI as a non-judgmental interlocutor and a safe space that enables individual construction of faith. Consequently, AI does not eliminate religion but rationalizes it, transforming it into a fragmented, personalized, and new form of sacredness aligned with media logic.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence
• Religious Communication
• Mediatization
• Algorithmic Authority
• Social Constructivism

Kaynakça

1. Averbeck-Lietz, S., & Lundby, K. (2014). Understanding mediatization in “first modernity”: Sociological classics and their perspectives on mediated and mediatized societies. Mediatization of communication, 21, 109.
2. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Polity. Press. Oxford.
3. Beer, D. (2019). The social power of algorithms. İçinde The social power of algorithms (ss. 1-13). Routledge.
4. Bucher, T. (2018). If... then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press. Campbell, H. (2013). Religious Practice in New Media Worlds. Routledge.
5. Castells, M., & Kılıç, E. (2008). Enformasyon çağı: Ekonomi, toplum ve kültür.
6. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2018). The mediated construction of reality. John Wiley & Sons.
7. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
8. Dawson, L. L., & Cowan, D. E. (2004). Religion online: Finding faith on the Internet. Psychology Press.

9. Ess, C. M. (2017). Can we say anything ethical about Digital Religion? Philosophical and methodological considerations. New Media & Society, 19(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816649914
10. Floridi, L. (2019). The logic of information: A theory of philosophy as conceptual design. Oxford University Press.
11. Foucault, M. (2019). Hapishanenin Doğuşu (M. A. Kılıçbay, Çev.). İmge Kitabevi Yayınları.
12. Giddens, A., & Tatlıcan, Ü. (2010). Modernite ve bireysel-kimlik: Geç modern çağda benlik ve toplum. Say Yayınları.
13. Gillespie, T., Boczkowski, P. J., & Foot, K. A. (2014). Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. MIT Press.
14. Han, B.-C. (2024). Şeffaflık Toplumu (H. Barışcan, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
15. Helland, C. (2005). Online religion as lived religion. Methodological issues in the study of religious participation on the internet. Online-Heidelberg Journal of Religions on the Internet. https://heiup.uni-heidelberg.de/journals/religions/article/view/380
16. Hepp, A. (2019). Deep mediatization. Routledge.
17. Hjarvard, S. (2008a). The mediatization of religion: A theory of the media as agents of religious change. Northern Lights: Film & Media Studies Yearbook, 6(1), 9-26. https://doi.org/10.1386/nl.6.1.9_1
18. Hjarvard, S. (2008b). The Mediatization of Society: A Theory of the Media as Agents of Social and Cultural Change. Nordicom Review, 29(2), 102-131. https://doi.org/10.1515/nor-2017-0181
19. Hjarvard, S. (2011). The mediatisation of religion: Theorising religion, media and social change. Culture and Religion, 12(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14755610.2011.579719
20. Luckmann, T. (1967). The Invisible Religion: The Problem of Religion in Modern Society New York: MacMillan.
21. Lundby, K. (2013). Religion Across Media. New York: Peter Lang US. https://doi. org/10.3, 726, 978-1.
22. Matthias, A. (2004). The responsibility gap: Ascribing responsibility for the actions of learning automata. Ethics and information technology, 6(3), 175-183.
23. Napoli, P. M. (2019). Social media and the public interest: Media regulation in the disinformation age. Columbia university press.
24. Noble, S. U. (2020). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York University Press.
25. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. Sage publications.
26. Postman, N. (2013). Teknopoli: Kültürün teknolojiye teslim oluşu. Sentez Yayıncılık.
27. Roof, W. C. (2001). Spiritual marketplace: Baby boomers and the remaking of American religion. https://www.torrossa.com/gs/resourceProxy?an=5576168&publisher=FZO137
28. Said, E. (1978). Orientalism pantheon books. New York.
29. Singler, B. (2017). Roko’s Basilisk or Pascal’s? Thinking of Singularity Thought Experiments as Implicit Religion. Implicit Religion, 20(3). https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=14639955&AN=129925341&h=ThGETookOM1YfJsVuKWAalqWrBaSqw7oqwQ6IJI%2FrZ8UavS9mgtckHEUbVx0xvRGPqoB8aayoxMg0PzGVvEb6Q%3D%3D&crl=c
30. Weber, M. (2008). Protestan Ahlakı Ve Kapitalizmin Ruhu (Z. Gürata, Çev.). Ayraç Yayınları. Yıldırım, A., & Simsek, H. (1999). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (11 baski: 1999-2018). https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/70532