A few months back the Canadian Mennonite (February 6, 2012 Volume 16 Number 3) published a feature article by Andy Brubacher Kaethler on the use of technology in worship
It is an interesting article that uses as its touchstone the usual critical positions of Grant and Borgmann.
While his article is worth reading, and I encourage you to do so, if you do, you should also read the comments.
Brubacher Kaethler uses a couple of examples to highlight in his mind the poor use of technology.
At "the youth summit at the Mennonite World Conference assembly in Paraguay in 2009" ... he observed "the worship leaders from some continents adopted an American Idol-style, egoistical, sexualized and audience-pandering stage presence.Other continental worship leaders simply felt inadequate and deferred to the worship band".
Later, after listing some excellent question on how we use technology in churches he answers those questions with "seek lower tech or electronic-free worship and fellowship experiences, observing the difference between technologically mediated relationships and incarnational relationships. Technology is morally disorienting. It hides the complexity of issues under a veneer of efficiency and coolness (and lets face it, some gadgets are really cool)".
This leap from good questions to the low tech answer is quite troubling for me because the author makes a hidden point of reference the key goal of worship. All through the article what actually matters to the author is not the technology but the worship experience. Much of the article confuses culture with technology and that confronting these two dimensions require different questions. In the example above, the exact same scene may have been evident with much more rudimentary technology available. Deference to western culture is rampant and has been for a long time.
But the bigger point is that the article continues to reinforce the recent notion that technology = digital / audio / visual technologies. But we live in societies that operate on multiple layers of platforms of technology that form stratas that we no longer perceive.
Not all of us, but many particularly in Canada worship in relatively modern buildings with central heating. I'm not saying we should not have heating but we should at least be aware that heating definitely changes the worship experience. One church I have attended was particularly problematic to heat due to large (inappropriate) glass walls and church was not that enjoyable. Many of us drive to church - we want to attend a Mennonite or Baptist or whatever but there is not one nearby so we drive. This changes the worship experience. We now get to choose. In the post reformation England once things had settled back down there might be the Church of England and a Catholic church in your village and that was pretty much the choice. Building technologies change worship experiences. The Gothic revolution of Cathedrals with their high jolted ceilings and huge internal spaces changed the experience for some from small tiny village churches to massive Cathedrals.
If we are going to set the standard for our worship experience purely on experience it will be difficult to come to any agreement on the role of technology. Nevertheless there are important questions. We must be critically aware of our technologies and our culture. These are not separate silos but indeed are intertwined, although they need judged independently and interdependently.
I'll close with some of the better and less loaded questions of the piece.
Will using this device help or hinder my relationship with creation?
Would a change in my behaviour be a better solution than a technological change?
Will using this device help or hinder my relationships with family, friends and the church community?
Will this device really deepen communication, understanding, empathy or compassion?
With these I am in agreement. We can not blindly reject or assimilate technology - choices have consequences.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
People of Faith and Modern Surveillance
I just wanted to give a plug for an upcoming Regent summer course. It looks really interesting and it is a really important issue that we understand what is going on.
Go here and read Rosie's blog about the course....
http://faithandtechnology.org/blog/2012/04/15/surveillance-in-the-twenty-first-century-a-summer-course/
Go here and read Rosie's blog about the course....
http://faithandtechnology.org/blog/2012/04/15/surveillance-in-the-twenty-first-century-a-summer-course/
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Pillar 4: Eschatology and technology
This is the last of my four pillars of a theology of technology. I have been thinking about this last blog for a couple of months and I am not that much clearer on the outline of the idea than when I first started. However, I remain convinced that eschatology matters for a theology of technology.
The reason is that across nearly 25 years of adult activity in churches I have tried to get them more interested in the everyday lives of those in the congregation. This started with my interest in economics and theology and moved onto an interest in connecting work day week lives with Sunday. Across that time and in three churches of two different denominations on two continents my success has been zero - none, zip. It seems like I am in good company though, Robert Banks and Paul Stevens both more articulate and gifted communicators than I who have spent their lives on this topic have less impact than they should have had. My diagnosis is that there have been two barriers.
The first is that with professionalised pastorate, many of who have no vocation beyond that of the university environment and churches there are several inbuilt barriers. The lives of pastors revolve around church, their personal value (and income) depend on healthy churches. Second, having little experience of other jobs, they find it hard to relate to pressures and hierarchical structures or increasingly with the fragmented economy of sole contractors. Therefore church becomes an experience focussed on God in a Sunday morning context without a connection to the rest of the week.
The second aspect of this puzzle is that eschatology gets wrapped up in this picture somehow. The Protestant Reformation got us more focussed on God and subtly and not-so-subtly introduced other values such as new views of time and efficiency for the here and now while simultaneously creating a focus on 'saving souls'. We still carry in our heads images of heaven without work, but the scholarship on the Book of Revelation during the last 20 years has emphasised a different image - one of activity on the new heaven and the new Earth. The best we can often manage though in our churches is the injunction to be moral in the workplace with no depth to that concept. We don't see the laity talking about their calling and their mission fields.
Eschatology and our daily lives in the here and now are intimately connected - our view of the New Earth and the way we live now are connected but we have barely begun to unwrap what this means in the experience of churches. It may be present in our Bible / Theology colleges but it needs to be the experience of Christians worldwide.
Thus if we want to have a theology of technology we need the theology of the everyday (as Robert Banks would say) and as importantly as having gifted scholars write eloquent books on the subject we need to get our churches to live a different experience. Technology is just part of the mosaic of our everyday for which many of us don't have more than baby Christian speak for .... can we grow to maturity?
The reason is that across nearly 25 years of adult activity in churches I have tried to get them more interested in the everyday lives of those in the congregation. This started with my interest in economics and theology and moved onto an interest in connecting work day week lives with Sunday. Across that time and in three churches of two different denominations on two continents my success has been zero - none, zip. It seems like I am in good company though, Robert Banks and Paul Stevens both more articulate and gifted communicators than I who have spent their lives on this topic have less impact than they should have had. My diagnosis is that there have been two barriers.
The first is that with professionalised pastorate, many of who have no vocation beyond that of the university environment and churches there are several inbuilt barriers. The lives of pastors revolve around church, their personal value (and income) depend on healthy churches. Second, having little experience of other jobs, they find it hard to relate to pressures and hierarchical structures or increasingly with the fragmented economy of sole contractors. Therefore church becomes an experience focussed on God in a Sunday morning context without a connection to the rest of the week.
The second aspect of this puzzle is that eschatology gets wrapped up in this picture somehow. The Protestant Reformation got us more focussed on God and subtly and not-so-subtly introduced other values such as new views of time and efficiency for the here and now while simultaneously creating a focus on 'saving souls'. We still carry in our heads images of heaven without work, but the scholarship on the Book of Revelation during the last 20 years has emphasised a different image - one of activity on the new heaven and the new Earth. The best we can often manage though in our churches is the injunction to be moral in the workplace with no depth to that concept. We don't see the laity talking about their calling and their mission fields.
Eschatology and our daily lives in the here and now are intimately connected - our view of the New Earth and the way we live now are connected but we have barely begun to unwrap what this means in the experience of churches. It may be present in our Bible / Theology colleges but it needs to be the experience of Christians worldwide.
Thus if we want to have a theology of technology we need the theology of the everyday (as Robert Banks would say) and as importantly as having gifted scholars write eloquent books on the subject we need to get our churches to live a different experience. Technology is just part of the mosaic of our everyday for which many of us don't have more than baby Christian speak for .... can we grow to maturity?
Monday, March 19, 2012
Pillar 3: Philosophy of Technology
And so we come to the topic which attempts to link with the topic that is typically that most corresponds to the what is considered central to the conversation of theology and technology.
Most theologically trained academics feel more comfortable in the realms of philosophy than science or engineering. So what is considered to be the philosophy of technology. The book Readings in the Philosophy of Technology by David Kaplan has a really useful introduction.
Page xiv reads in part...
The world of technology is itself philosophically interesting - and not merely because it has important consequences. The philosophy of technology takes artifacts seriously and subjects them to the same kind of philosophical scrutiny reserved for the topics analysed by philosophers, such as language, logic and knowledge. Take for example a typical philosophy and technology concern, such as the spread of industrial pollution, stem cell research, and the environmental risks of genetically modified food. Typically, the debates focus on the pros and cons of making and using such things. We frame the issue in terms of things like costs and benefits, acceptable and unacceptable risks, desireable and undesirable consequences or sometimes as a clash between technological innovation and traditional moral or religious convictions . We then analyse the technology in terms of ready made philosophical concepts, usually moral and political concepts such as 'freedom', 'general welfare' and 'human nature'. This approach questions the limits of technology and asks whether or not societies should pursue this or that artifact or technical choice.
......
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. It makes sense to analyse human creations in terms of their risks and consequences. But, from the point of view of the philosophy of technology, we can probe the matter more deeply and take into consideration the very nature of technology and not merely its external contingencies. We can question technology. We can examine it rather than take it for granted. We do not have to treat it as a 'black box', whose nature inaccessible but the engineer of technician. We can investigate the meaning, nature and moral character of technology and its practices just as we would any other object or phenomenon. We can, for example, examine why something was designed in a particular way, what technical and non-technical factors were at work; how it functions in relation to other artifacts/users/environments; how it transforms its users; and which ideas are embedded in it. Matters like these are internal to to artifacts and technological practices, not external to them. These types of issues refuse to treat technology as merely given and which we can examine only after the fact - as if things magically appear out of thin air. Instead we analyze technology like anything else that humans make or do. Philosophers and citizens have the same capacity to question things as experts. The key is to know what kinds of questions to ask and how to apply philosophical concepts to artifacts and devices. We have to question technology it is our responsibility.
Kaplan goes on later in the introduction to suggest that there have been 4 major approaches to the philosophy of technology.
1. technological neutrality - technology is only good or bad if it works or doesn't - technology is simply a tool. Moral consequences are carried by humans.
2. technological determinism. is the idea that technology drives history. Technologies 'precipitate' social development.
3. technological autonomy. Technology is an independent force that that follows its own rules and imperatives and society shapes around this. Taken to extreme - such as in sci-fi the technology literally is autonomous.
4. The social construction of technology. Society shapes and is shaped by technology. "far from being applied science, technology on this model is more like embodied humanity' (pxviii). "Almost all the contributors to the second edition of Readings in the Philosophy of Technology take a constructionist approach' (pxviii).
And that last sentence probably reflects that state of modern philosophy of technology. I certainly do not object in overall terms to the social construction picture, but what interests me is how elements of all four and perhaps others yet to be understood and labelled exist simultaneously.
Take for example the technological determinism position. In Brian Arthur's recent book on 'What is Technology' he provides some great straightforward illustrations of the machinery of technological change. Technology unfolds in a process of simpler entities to more complex ones from those based in one science (chemistry for example) to those which require knowledge of the interdependencies. These are not his but metal could not be discovered before fire etc, alloys before simpler metals. So technology does unfold in a particular order because it relies in part on an understanding of the natural world. To say it is embodied humanity is only a half truth it is also embodied - recreated nature.
Take a different example - we have the social concern at present to 'cure cancer' just as in earlier periods we would wanted cures for the black death or polio. However, treatments for these had to wait until our knowledge of the natural world was sufficiently broad and deep that we could integrate our knowledge. A cure for cancer will come quicker if it is a social concern as it is and we throw huge sums of money at it but it will only come when we know enough.
This in part explains why our ability to create digital technologies has outpaced those of energy or transport. Getting an object to fly through the air is difficult science and to make serious progress on it is hard won. The result is we made our huge gains relatively early and now each percentage point of efficiency comes with a large price tag.
Further, there are quasi autonomous or strong deterministic elements to technology. Once we do have a new technology, humans being the creature we are - it is hard for us to turn down the allure of change, new power etc.
Even, the idea of neutrality may have merits - tightly defined in particular circumstances and for particular reasons which would box off the consequences ( everything does have consequences) - because for the masses in any given population the socio-economic-technical world is constructed for a time around them in such a configuration that certain technologies are more or less neutral for them. But if you go and read http://theologia-and-technologia.blogspot.ca/2011/10/good-and-bad-technology.html you will see that I believe that use, scale (mass) and time affect these choices.
So for me the question is not which of the four is right, the question is can we discuss the boundaries of these choices and invent new ones as well.
Most theologically trained academics feel more comfortable in the realms of philosophy than science or engineering. So what is considered to be the philosophy of technology. The book Readings in the Philosophy of Technology by David Kaplan has a really useful introduction.
Page xiv reads in part...
The world of technology is itself philosophically interesting - and not merely because it has important consequences. The philosophy of technology takes artifacts seriously and subjects them to the same kind of philosophical scrutiny reserved for the topics analysed by philosophers, such as language, logic and knowledge. Take for example a typical philosophy and technology concern, such as the spread of industrial pollution, stem cell research, and the environmental risks of genetically modified food. Typically, the debates focus on the pros and cons of making and using such things. We frame the issue in terms of things like costs and benefits, acceptable and unacceptable risks, desireable and undesirable consequences or sometimes as a clash between technological innovation and traditional moral or religious convictions . We then analyse the technology in terms of ready made philosophical concepts, usually moral and political concepts such as 'freedom', 'general welfare' and 'human nature'. This approach questions the limits of technology and asks whether or not societies should pursue this or that artifact or technical choice.
......
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. It makes sense to analyse human creations in terms of their risks and consequences. But, from the point of view of the philosophy of technology, we can probe the matter more deeply and take into consideration the very nature of technology and not merely its external contingencies. We can question technology. We can examine it rather than take it for granted. We do not have to treat it as a 'black box', whose nature inaccessible but the engineer of technician. We can investigate the meaning, nature and moral character of technology and its practices just as we would any other object or phenomenon. We can, for example, examine why something was designed in a particular way, what technical and non-technical factors were at work; how it functions in relation to other artifacts/users/environments; how it transforms its users; and which ideas are embedded in it. Matters like these are internal to to artifacts and technological practices, not external to them. These types of issues refuse to treat technology as merely given and which we can examine only after the fact - as if things magically appear out of thin air. Instead we analyze technology like anything else that humans make or do. Philosophers and citizens have the same capacity to question things as experts. The key is to know what kinds of questions to ask and how to apply philosophical concepts to artifacts and devices. We have to question technology it is our responsibility.
Kaplan goes on later in the introduction to suggest that there have been 4 major approaches to the philosophy of technology.
1. technological neutrality - technology is only good or bad if it works or doesn't - technology is simply a tool. Moral consequences are carried by humans.
2. technological determinism. is the idea that technology drives history. Technologies 'precipitate' social development.
3. technological autonomy. Technology is an independent force that that follows its own rules and imperatives and society shapes around this. Taken to extreme - such as in sci-fi the technology literally is autonomous.
4. The social construction of technology. Society shapes and is shaped by technology. "far from being applied science, technology on this model is more like embodied humanity' (pxviii). "Almost all the contributors to the second edition of Readings in the Philosophy of Technology take a constructionist approach' (pxviii).
And that last sentence probably reflects that state of modern philosophy of technology. I certainly do not object in overall terms to the social construction picture, but what interests me is how elements of all four and perhaps others yet to be understood and labelled exist simultaneously.
Take for example the technological determinism position. In Brian Arthur's recent book on 'What is Technology' he provides some great straightforward illustrations of the machinery of technological change. Technology unfolds in a process of simpler entities to more complex ones from those based in one science (chemistry for example) to those which require knowledge of the interdependencies. These are not his but metal could not be discovered before fire etc, alloys before simpler metals. So technology does unfold in a particular order because it relies in part on an understanding of the natural world. To say it is embodied humanity is only a half truth it is also embodied - recreated nature.
Take a different example - we have the social concern at present to 'cure cancer' just as in earlier periods we would wanted cures for the black death or polio. However, treatments for these had to wait until our knowledge of the natural world was sufficiently broad and deep that we could integrate our knowledge. A cure for cancer will come quicker if it is a social concern as it is and we throw huge sums of money at it but it will only come when we know enough.
This in part explains why our ability to create digital technologies has outpaced those of energy or transport. Getting an object to fly through the air is difficult science and to make serious progress on it is hard won. The result is we made our huge gains relatively early and now each percentage point of efficiency comes with a large price tag.
Further, there are quasi autonomous or strong deterministic elements to technology. Once we do have a new technology, humans being the creature we are - it is hard for us to turn down the allure of change, new power etc.
Even, the idea of neutrality may have merits - tightly defined in particular circumstances and for particular reasons which would box off the consequences ( everything does have consequences) - because for the masses in any given population the socio-economic-technical world is constructed for a time around them in such a configuration that certain technologies are more or less neutral for them. But if you go and read http://theologia-and-technologia.blogspot.ca/2011/10/good-and-bad-technology.html you will see that I believe that use, scale (mass) and time affect these choices.
So for me the question is not which of the four is right, the question is can we discuss the boundaries of these choices and invent new ones as well.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Pillar 2: Redeeming Technology
While Pillar 1 is all about Christian living at its simplest. Sex, money, relationships, power and technology are all the same in many ways in the sight of God. Live with love and simplicity.
But, we implement this way of living in different ways in different areas of our lives.
My interest in technology and faith is motivated in part by the 3 big tectonic plates of global economic, social and environmental changes that are colliding at present. Technology is the fault lines between these plates - more on this in a later blog.
But because of the nature of technology and what is happening at present we can focus on technology in the different dimensions of:
A- Harmony with the Creator: .... spiritual transformation
B- Harmony with our Being: ... psycho-social transformation
C- Harmony with Others: ... socio-political transformation
D- Harmony with the Creation:... economic-ecological transformation
Harmony with the creator - as the new book From the Garden to the City http://fromthegardentothecity.com/ makes clear that creating things is part of who we are as creating beings. Expressing creativeness in line with a Christian worldview an appropriate calling.
Harmony with our Being - the use of technology can be valuable to how we live and it can also be damaging. We need to become more aware of how the use of technology changes us for good and bad.
Harmony with Others - Again we can use technology in a way that abuses power or gets in the way of relationships. Rosie's blog - http://faithandtechnology.org/blog/ often deals with issues of living well with technology both with ourselves and others.
Harmony with the Creation:... economic-ecological transformation
This is probably the aspect that where I can make the most insightful comments. Technology has both improved the quality of life for millions over the last 50 years and more progress is possible. However, as lifestyle improve so does resources use. We desparately need technologies that enable us to reduce consumption. Additive manufacturing for example will greatly reduce waste but on the other hand it will have literally unimaginable effects on the global economy.
This four way structure is great way of focusing and thinking more clearly about our relationship with technology and particularly directions for creating postive aspects of technology.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Pillar 1: The Christian tradition of a critical position
Before Christmas that I was trying to encapsulate the multiple dimensions of the relationship between Christians and technology in 4 pillars.
Here I want to expand on the first pillar.
What I have in mind is actually nothing terribly sophisticated. It is the most basic level reading of the Bible story and particularly Paul's emphasis on living in tune with God. There are a number of passages I could have chosen but this one from Colossians is great. Lets read it again.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Colossians 3
1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your[a] life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.[b] 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive one another if any of you has a grievance against someone. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the message of Christ dwell among you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in your hearts. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
NIV from www.biblegateway.com
_____________________________________________________________
So then if our use of technology leads us in the wrong direction then we must change.
If we spend too much times on it, if we spend too much money on it, if technology use leads us in the wrong ways to live then we must change.
That is not to say technology will be always negative, it can help us do good. Clothe yourselves with:
. compassion,
. kindness,
. humility,
. gentleness and
. patience.
Technology, as a human tool will I think tend because of our nature to feed our negative character - our desire for more control and belief in that control leading to less compassion and kindness, our desire for more power can lead to less humility and technology can certainly feed less patience. On this last one take a look at Philed Higher and Deeper here http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1456
That may sound like I am being down on technology but actually it is true of whatever technological level we are at - Israel relied on Egypt rather than God and we use organisations and institutions the same way. As a population we gravitate away from God. Technology helps us in that but it isn't the cause, the root cause is our own will and the fight within.
To redeem technology we ourselves must first be redeemed, we must make Jesus Lord. Then we can cultivate the fruits of the spirit and in doing so redeem what we touch.
So as I indicated at the beginning there is nothing profound in this post, but I want to emphasise the importance of this pillar. If we are going to engage our fellow Christians in conversations about technology then I think starting here has importance. It is too easy o race over this to the more difficult and problematic topics but it starts here. Love God, Love people.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Christianity and Technology: Four Pillars
For about 15 years I had pursued an interest in Christian perspectives of economics but finding that somewhat frustrating about a decade ago I switched to thinking about Christianity and technology.
When I was telling friends about this interest mostly the reaction was 'is there one?'. Technology is a tool that I choose to use or not. Now the field of the philosophy of technology has long grappled with exactly that issue but for most people outside of some concept of basics ethics deep philosophy has little power of persuasion.
Further, in part I agree with this. Despite the closeness in many areas of philosophy and theology due to their mutual interest in existence, reasoning and moral argument, I don't think this enough for a Christian discission of technology. Writers such as Ellul and Borgmann and others who have written with great insight cannot provide the basis thinking in this area because it leaves out a number dimensions of Christian life and typically closes off dicussion rather than opening up discussion for informed debate.
So here is a first bash, but I think not the last, at outlining the primary dimensions to the debate which I have called here the four pillars.
1. A critical stance.
This is the most general pillar and the one that can be most easily communicated with the general Christian population.
There is a long tradtion within Chritianity of attempting to be in but not of the world. This is mostly clearly visible with the interactions between Christians and science. Although, there has been since Darwin a view of many Christians that science is bad or wrong etc. But authors such as Donald Mackay (1922-1987 see obit http://www.springerlink.com/content/h687013153q67731/ ) a notable brain scientist argued that Christians have nothing to fear from the best science because it is motivated by search for knowledge of truth and as we have a God who claims to be the author of truth then the two are not in conflict. However, it is equally true that Christians should and do stand against scientism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism where the claims go beyond the ability of science to make claims (for example where science is claimed to rule out the existence of God.
This same critical stance can be applied to the area of technology. From this perspective, it should be presented that while Christians can use and make technology, we should all be wary of idolising it. It will solve some problems only to create new ones. It can be used for good and probably will be used badly. We can never become uncritical of its creation or use.
2. Taking a transformative perspective to our lives
When we read the early chapters of the book of Genesis the fall clearly creates disruptions in a series of relations.
Lets look at the text, I have bolded the relationships.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly
We can see here three relationships clearly are broken
Our goal is to build
A- Harmony with the Creator: .... spiritual transformation
Personally I think this is a great list and a beautiful way of expressing the essence of 'living for Christ'. Insofar as it is an expression of how we are to live generally it provides a conceptual basis for our relationship with technology. For example our individual relationship with technology should not violate our hunger to develop a personal relationship with God. It also should be destructive of creation. Equally, we cn write our efforts in the postiive. By developing particular technologies we can help the poor or use creation more wisely.
3. Philosophy of technology
The basis of the philosophy of technology is not to take for granted the superficial appearance of a device. Heidegger wrote The Question Concerning Technology and Albert Borgmann has written on the device paradigm. Now, clearly there are debates to be had whether these philosophical positions are strong or weak - I think it would be ill advised to say good or bad.
On the one hand, I do want to affirm that this tradition is important but on the other the point of this blog is to say I think there are other important pillars on which we need to build a dialogue.
However, and as the bulk of writing on Christianity and technology works from this perspective I will leave this pillar here and return to it in a future blog.
4. Escatology an technology
Escatology (the study of last things) seems particularly important to the question of our relationship with technology. If, one's view is that this world is going to be destroyed, soon, and that in the new creation there is no work to do then we can trash this planet and live with minimal thought to tomorrow then the only care about technology is whether it is 'any good'. Alternatively, changing just one aspect of this worldview - that of when God may call 'time' - how we think of technology will radically change.
As a thought experiment if this epoch lasts another 1000 years what technological change is possible in that time? We had better start a taking this discussion about technology to the next level now.
Reframing the debate
By ignoring the impact of modern technologies and economy on creation Christians lost the potential to lead change back in the 1960s. Instead, as group they were seen as dragging their heels as part of the problem and and the resulting movement with its pseudo-religious concepts undermined Christian apologetics for decades. The possibility for this happening again is all to real.
Over coming weeks I want to discuss each of these pillars in more detail.
When I was telling friends about this interest mostly the reaction was 'is there one?'. Technology is a tool that I choose to use or not. Now the field of the philosophy of technology has long grappled with exactly that issue but for most people outside of some concept of basics ethics deep philosophy has little power of persuasion.
Further, in part I agree with this. Despite the closeness in many areas of philosophy and theology due to their mutual interest in existence, reasoning and moral argument, I don't think this enough for a Christian discission of technology. Writers such as Ellul and Borgmann and others who have written with great insight cannot provide the basis thinking in this area because it leaves out a number dimensions of Christian life and typically closes off dicussion rather than opening up discussion for informed debate.
So here is a first bash, but I think not the last, at outlining the primary dimensions to the debate which I have called here the four pillars.
- The Christian tradition of a critical position
- Taking a transformative perspective to our lives
- Philosophy of technology
- Escatology and technology
1. A critical stance.
This is the most general pillar and the one that can be most easily communicated with the general Christian population.
There is a long tradtion within Chritianity of attempting to be in but not of the world. This is mostly clearly visible with the interactions between Christians and science. Although, there has been since Darwin a view of many Christians that science is bad or wrong etc. But authors such as Donald Mackay (1922-1987 see obit http://www.springerlink.com/content/h687013153q67731/ ) a notable brain scientist argued that Christians have nothing to fear from the best science because it is motivated by search for knowledge of truth and as we have a God who claims to be the author of truth then the two are not in conflict. However, it is equally true that Christians should and do stand against scientism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism where the claims go beyond the ability of science to make claims (for example where science is claimed to rule out the existence of God.
This same critical stance can be applied to the area of technology. From this perspective, it should be presented that while Christians can use and make technology, we should all be wary of idolising it. It will solve some problems only to create new ones. It can be used for good and probably will be used badly. We can never become uncritical of its creation or use.
2. Taking a transformative perspective to our lives
When we read the early chapters of the book of Genesis the fall clearly creates disruptions in a series of relations.
Lets look at the text, I have bolded the relationships.
8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9 But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” 10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.” 11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”
12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.” 13 Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” 14 So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, “Cursed are you above all livestock and all wild animals! You will crawl on your belly
and you will eat dust all the days of your life. 15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman,
16 To the woman he said, “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” 17 To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. 19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” NIVWe can see here three relationships clearly are broken
- mankind and God
- Men and women (personally and generalised as broken society)
- mankind and creation
Our goal is to build
A- Harmony with the Creator: .... spiritual transformation
B- Harmony
with our Being: ... psycho-social transformation
C- Harmony with
Others: ... socio-political transformation
D- Harmony with the
Creation:... economic-ecological transformation
3. Philosophy of technology
The basis of the philosophy of technology is not to take for granted the superficial appearance of a device. Heidegger wrote The Question Concerning Technology and Albert Borgmann has written on the device paradigm. Now, clearly there are debates to be had whether these philosophical positions are strong or weak - I think it would be ill advised to say good or bad.
On the one hand, I do want to affirm that this tradition is important but on the other the point of this blog is to say I think there are other important pillars on which we need to build a dialogue.
However, and as the bulk of writing on Christianity and technology works from this perspective I will leave this pillar here and return to it in a future blog.
4. Escatology an technology
Escatology (the study of last things) seems particularly important to the question of our relationship with technology. If, one's view is that this world is going to be destroyed, soon, and that in the new creation there is no work to do then we can trash this planet and live with minimal thought to tomorrow then the only care about technology is whether it is 'any good'. Alternatively, changing just one aspect of this worldview - that of when God may call 'time' - how we think of technology will radically change.
As a thought experiment if this epoch lasts another 1000 years what technological change is possible in that time? We had better start a taking this discussion about technology to the next level now.
Reframing the debate
By ignoring the impact of modern technologies and economy on creation Christians lost the potential to lead change back in the 1960s. Instead, as group they were seen as dragging their heels as part of the problem and and the resulting movement with its pseudo-religious concepts undermined Christian apologetics for decades. The possibility for this happening again is all to real.
Over coming weeks I want to discuss each of these pillars in more detail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)