http://www.jubilee-centre.org/jubilee/blogs.phpen-gbSat, 28 Feb 2004 09:26:45 GMThttp://www.jubilee-centre.org/cp_comments/98/worshipping_god_with_technology#comment1678http://www.jubilee-centre.org/cp_comments/98/worshipping_god_with_technology#comment1678Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:26:45 GMThttp://www.jubilee-centre.org/cp_comments/98/worshipping_god_with_technology#comment1677? Decisions must always be made on which technologies should have priority, and on the speed with which technology should develop. But the three principles above give us few grounds on which we can prioritise different technologies. They suggest there are no Biblical grounds, apart from using technology to build an idol, for deciding to stop development of a given technology. The second principle above is dangerous also because it effectively prohibits even any discussion about whether a certain technology should be not developed. If someone does not wish to abide by one of the author's normative suggestions (e.g. that we should use bike rather than car), they they can appeal to the second principle above to override it. It allows anyone to urge that their own pet technology should be given resources for its development, and provides no framework by which such an appeal could be resisted. Moreover, from a non-Christian point of view, the second principle is dangerously close to the now discredited view of 'technology for technology's sake', and as such would make it very difficult for Christian thought based on Alexander's approach to make a real contribution to the wider debate on technology. If this were the Christian view, Christians would be seen as people with their mindset back in the 1970s. I want a full Biblical mandate to provide me with a framework that will enable me to consider and discuss which technologies to develop and which not in any particular circumstance or cultural situation. Related to this is the important question of how to decide between technology and natural processes. 3.3 Relationship Between Technology and Nature There is no discussion of the very important issue of the relationship between nature and technology. To what extent should we be content with the natural processes and things that God provided, and to what extent should we drive forward in our technological development of new things? In developing technology we are, very often, deciding that the natural things are not sufficient for us, inconvenient for us, or do not allow us to maximise some aspect and thus reduce our ability to compete with others. Romantics and Alexander, it would seem, would give opposing answers to this question, but I believe we need a more considered approach to this, and believe that, perhaps, it is the most important question we face with regard to technology. The sole time the author mentions nature is when he says "And then as a final challenge to an overly romanticised view of nature, the new heaven and the new earth are represented not by a restored garden but by a Holy City (Revelation 21)." This is unfortunate, because though I agree that an "overly romanticised view" needs to be challenged, the 'body language' of the author in writing that indicates that he is deeply unsympathetic to any view that places importance on natural (i.e. less technological) ways of living. From the absence of any other discussion of this issue, it seems he does not admit that there could be a valid (not overly romanticised) view of nature. It is important for a full biblical mandate framework to help us decide, or at least allow us to discuss the issue of, how far we let technology displace what is 'natural', and how far it is good to be content with the processes and things that God has provided in the natural world. Related to this is the section on 'Technology as Healer and Destroyer', in which he remarks, "It is ultimately human choice as to whether technology is used to heal or destroy." This is true, but I found myself thinking "Of course; that's obvious, but how does it help me?" What I need is some guidance as to the ground on which I should, 1.first, discern healing from destruction and, 2.second, make the choice between them. What about technologies that destroy one thing while healing another? Does the possibility of 'healing' a disease completely justify destruction of, for example, animals, rain forests or cultures? Especially when the disease itself is very much a result of our affluent and unconcerned lifestyles (Ezek. 16:49). A biblical view of health and destruction involves the natural world as inherently interwoven with that of human beings, rather than being seen as a mere resource; think, for example, of God's desire that animals and the land, as well as people, should enjoy sabbaths. 3.4 Distinct Areas of Concern re. Technology I work in information technology, in which there are at least four areas of concern: • the shaping (or bringing into being) of a type of technology, • its use to create artifacts for human use or systems with which humans work, • the repercussions of use of such artifacts or systems (beneficial or detrimental), and • the way in which technology is itself an environment, an Umwelt , in which we live, affecting the way we live, our expectations, our aspirations, our world views, etc. (e.g. the Internet or the dominance of Microsoft). The author does not sufficiently differentiate between them. Most of his discussion is on the first, though he slides into the others from time to time without apparently realising that different issues pertain in those. I find the norms that guide me in each area are different, and it is confusing or even harmful if norms of one area are assumed to apply to others. I want a biblical mandate to provide a framework that recognises the difference between - though also the connections between - the above, and enable me to consider each from a biblical point of view. 3.5 Traditional and Systemic Technologies Taking part of the preceding point further, there is a difference between technology as fashioning things using natural materials and what has been called systemic technology, in which we are very much removed from natural materials and which require a huge societal infrastructure to support it (e.g. cars would be useless were it not for the road system, the system of supplying fuel, the system of dealing with accidents, the police, etc.). This difference is much discussed in philosophy of technology circles. But I believe the author does not sufficiently distinguish between them. The three examples he gives of large technological projects in the Scriptures - Noah's ark, the tabernacle and the temple - are all of the first kind, and retained the natural materials - gold, jewels, stone, linen, etc. - which, in a sense, could still be discerned and could be seen as themselves glorifying their Creator. It is dangerous if we draw general conclusions from these three projects and apply them to the huge systemic projects of today. There are a number of differences between natural and systemic technology. " One is that in systemic technology, the natural materials can no longer be discerned and no longer themselves glorify their Creator; all shouts glory to Man rather than God. " Also, in systemic technology, we become locked in to a system and thereby lose some of our freedom - which might be of little consequence to us in the affluent West but is much more problematic in the poorer parts of the world. (This is one of the problems I have with GM crops as distinct and that set GM apart from selective breeding.) " A third thing is that systemic technology distances us and our lifestyles, habits and expectations from the natural world, so that it becomes less important to us and our stewardship of it becomes a more distant concern. " A fourth is that systemic technology tends to pander to our laziness and worship of convenience, our pride and desire to be above others, and so on. This is not to say that systemic technology is inherently evil, but rather that a full biblical understanding of technology should provide a framework in which the difference between systemic and traditional technologies is recognised and in which its salient characteristics may be given their due, so that we can properly discern when it is evil and when good. In the view I hold, it has much to do with world views and aspirations which, in Western climes (including Americanized-Christian climes), are predominently idolatrous, as we see below. 3.6 New and Mature Technologies The author suggests "Today technology often promotes smaller-scale working ... quiet rural settings ..." Such good effects might occur in the initial stages of the development of a technology, especially among people of good will; and often the early adopters of technology are such people. But, in most cases, this proves to be a rather romanticized view of technology which does not match the reality once a technology becomes mature. Think, for example, of the promise of the paperless office! The initial promise of a technology too often turns out to be a chimera or worse. We need to differentiate between initial and mature stages in the inception of a technology. A technology cannot be justified simply because of apparent benefits that appear during its early years. A fully biblical framework would provide a means by which the mature state of a new technology could be at least discussed, and by which premature acquiescence to the initial, exciting stages of the technology could be avoided. 3.7 Dehumanisation The section 'Technology as Humanising and Dehumanising' introduces a very important topic, and the author very nicely links this with the norm of loving our neighbour and underlines the importance of indirect impacts on people and things distant from us users of technology. The author cites global warming and low-lying areas of the world as a major issue to which we should give attention. But I found the treatment of the topic of the dehumanising effect of technology somewhat disappointing. 'Dehumanising' is used more for its connotation than its meaning, and this led the author into 'chucking in' at the end "Even more dehumanising is the failure to create and use technologies to meet human needs." Despite the author's obvious wish that we should accept this, we cannot accept this as given, without proper argument or discussion. Perhaps more seriously, the author seems to avoid the real problem of dehumanisation, because he confuses dehumanisation with other "destructive consequences". Thinkers like Weber and Habermas have long ago discussed the dehumanising effects of technology, especially of the systemic kind, and they trace it to loss of meaning. A fully biblical framework would address this issue - and Schuurman [1984] does so and proposes "a liberating perspective on technology" that avoids dehumanisation. I have taken Schuurman's ideas further in an attempt to humanise all areas of information technology, in my forthcoming work 'An Integrative Philosophy for Information Systems'. I believe much of the dehumanising effect of technology occurs when technology leads us to treat human beings as less than God intended them to be. In fact, a fully biblical framework would go further, and address the issue of technology leading us to treat anything (e.g. plants, animals) as less than God intended them to be. 3.8 Technology and World Views Dehumanisation is linked with world views held by society, and especially world views held by the powerful and well-resourced and dominant in society. In several places, it seems as though the author does not fully recognise the importance of world view, and the place technology has within this. (Indeed, more generally, the relationship between technology and other societal issues is at best only partially discussed.) For example, he opines "Hopefully Christians will not be amongst the contemporary Luddites who instinctively attack new technologies without being willing to undertake the hard slog necessary to assess their possible benefits." I agree at one level. But many of those he dismisses as 'Luddites' are concerned about a particular technology because of the idolatrous world view that accompanies it, and with which such technology is irretrievably connected. We are against certain technologies because of the associated world views. To "assess the possible benefits" is not enough, because even if there are benefits the idolatrous world view needs to be resisted. Jeroboam "assessed the benefits" of creating a gold image of the Lord in Samaria, but God held it to be sin. The author's tendency to isolate the issue of technology from our world views, aspirations, lifestyles, cultures, etc. shows in his attempt to justify GM crops. He tries to narrow our focus to the technology and its functional impact of providing food for the world's poor, understood in largely quantitative terms of population growth. But the poor are more than mouths to feed; they are human beings in cultures, and it is the height of arrogance to suggest we know best how their habits and cultures should be changed. (He does allude to this issue in one place, where he cites Calvin as urging ".. hand it down to posterity as he received it, or even better .." but he fails to apply that thinking to the issue of GM.) A fully biblical understanding of technology would acknowledge the issues of world views, especially of an idolatrous kind (and not just whether technology is used to build an idol or not). Useful works that discuss this include Goudzwaard's Idols of our Time and Walsh and Middleton's The Transforming Vision . 4. Conclusion The paper by Alexander is a useful contribution in a Christian discussion about technology because it raises some useful points. But it must not be seen as a definitive Christian view on technology because so much is missing. I have suggested that a fully biblical understanding of technology will be a framework that, in addition to maintaining the essential validity of technological functioning among human beings, would: " ensure that all important norms are among the primary principles, " provide a basis for discussing which technologies to develop and which not to, " give us a basis for discussing how far we let technology displace what is 'natural', and how far it is good to be content with the processes and things that God has provided in the natural world, " recognise the distinct areas of concern related to technology, " recognise the difference between systemic and traditional technologies and enable us to discern when each is appropriate, " discourage us from premature acquiescence to immature technologies and acknowledge that the mature state of a technology can be very different, " provide a 'liberating perspective' that discourages us from treating human beings, animals, plants or anything as less than God intended them to be, " recognises that, very often, technologies are inescapably tied in with certain world views, and that resistance to a technology might be needed while its accompanying world view is in force. Would this make for a much longer paper? I believe not. There is much that could be removed without damaging the overall argument, and much of the argument could be tightened. The paper already contains elements that would contribute to some of these, and they merely have to be brought into sharper focus. It would, however, require a different view to be taken on the root passage in Genesis 1. Our 'dominion' does not authorise us to use the rest of creation as a resource, for our own tasks, convenience or pleasure, but rather it sees us as imaging God for the sake of the rest of creation. But that is a whole new discussion, for later. References Goudzwaard B (1984) Idols of our Time. IVP. Schuurman E (1980) Technology and the Future. Toronto: Wedge Publishing. Walsh B, Middleton B (1984) The Transforming Vision. IVP.]]>http://www.jubilee-centre.org/cp_comments/98/worshipping_god_with_technology#comment1677Sun, 01 Feb 2004 09:21:41 GMT