# Technology and the Ramifications it might have on Christianity



## B.J. (Mar 31, 2008)

I have a few buddies that are philosophers in the area of Technology, which is fairly new to the field. They are mainly influenced by Jacques Ellul and Heidegger. As a Christian, which they aren't (at least not in an Orthodox sense), how does technological advancements help/hurt the Christian Worldview? To be more specific, I am referrring to medical cures, cloning, and A.I./cyborgs. My buddies are against the idea of technological advancements as being benficial for humans, for the most part. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Casey (Mar 31, 2008)

Interesting question. I've read Ellul's _The Presence of the Kingdom_ (I'll be posting a review of it on my blog soon). There's good stuff in there, but of course, there's a lot of error, too. I read Neil Postman's book called _Technopoly_ and found it helpful, too (along with his _Amusing Ourselves to Death_). It seems that many Christians aren't in the habit of thinking about the affects of technology (aka, technique, not just electronics) on faith and the Church and the way we live our lives. Of course a wrong conclusion that could be drawn from these kinds of works is that technology is morally wrong, or sinful, in and of itself. I think Ellul made the helpful note that technology is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. But if we make technology an ends in itself, we become enslaved to it. Not sure if this touches on your question . . . sounds like your friends are asking good questions, just coming to a wrong conclusion.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 31, 2008)

For missions, technology has been used as a weapon to show tribals not only their deficient worldview but also has been used to promote a "civilization and christianization" approach - which has arguably done more harm than good. 

Better medicine and better building supplies become a lure to pull people into following Christianity...until something better comes along. 

It has also made Western Christians equate other cultures as lower and has led to a tardiness in ordaining locals and has impeded the growth of the indegenous church.

Also, it has caused missionaries to try to turn animists into secularists before they can become Christians...ditching their beliefs in the supernatural as mere superstition before the missionary believes that they are ready to be considered as Christian. Our western christianity is very much affected by the enlightenment and in our "advanced" society we have almost thrown out all supernaturalism totally.


Many people now are throwing aside the terms "progress" or "primitive" because technological progress is only one slice of the whole pie. Talk of people groups as "backward savages" is now being poo-pooed, thankfully.

Also, for all of the West's technological superiority, our culture seems at times to be falling apart. That's not progress...

For the Gospel, high-technology cultures are not the goal of mission work but a thorough saturation of the Gospel into the culture where it is at.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 31, 2008)

StaunchPresbyterian said:


> Interesting question. I've read Ellul's _The Presence of the Kingdom_ (I'll be posting a review of it on my blog soon). There's good stuff in there, but of course, there's a lot of error, too. I read Neil Postman's book called _Technopoly_ and found it helpful, too (along with his _Amusing Ourselves to Death_). It seems that many Christians aren't in the habit of thinking about the affects of technology (aka, technique, not just electronics) on faith and the Church and the way we live our lives. Of course a wrong conclusion that could be drawn from these kinds of works is that technology is morally wrong, or sinful, in and of itself. I think Ellul made the helpful note that technology is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. But if we make technology an ends in itself, we become enslaved to it. Not sure if this touches on your question . . . sounds like your friends are asking good questions, just coming to a wrong conclusion.



Neil Postman, as well as Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" should be required reading at the undergraduate level in every school in America.


----------



## B.J. (Mar 31, 2008)

Let me try to unpack my thoughts a little more.


Are there elements of the human experience that A.I. proponents are overlooking as to what makes us different from robots? For instance, there seems to be some empirical evidence that suggest the human mind is no differnet, ultimatly, than a computer. 

Any thoughts?


What would we consider a clone to be, if a human can be cloned? Human? Soul_-less_?


What about things like stem cell research? Even though we have laws which prevent certain aspects of this technology, that doesn't mean these things aren't a possibility. If we can manufacture limbs for people or cure certain things with this technology, does this effect our Christianity in anyway?

I hope I am being clear.


----------



## Casey (Mar 31, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Neil Postman, as well as Bloom's "The Closing of the American Mind" should be required reading at the undergraduate level in every school in America.


My wife just bought this book for me about a week ago at a local library for a steal of a deal. I'm looking forward to going through it (when I find the time!).


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 31, 2008)

I don't see any problems with cloning animals, if it can be done wihout messing up their genetics.

All stem cells do not come from aborted babies. We can use stem cell research from ethical sources to do great things.


----------



## Berit (Apr 1, 2008)

> there seems to be some empirical evidence that suggest the human mind is no differnet, ultimatly, than a computer



B.J.

Actually viewing the human mind as a computer has come under some heavy criticism as of late. One of the criticisms is whats known as "The frame problem."

Basically what frame problem is, is that when working with computers and A.I. these systems have data stored in a kind of framework. Think about when you access some material on your computer, it possible you will go through a number of folders and sub folders to get to a particular item you want. When searching for something a computer does something similar, like when you tell it to search for something it will list the number of files gone through.

The problem is, is that humans do not use this process of going through "folders" and data storages in their brain, rather somethings humans do in regards to memories and other activities is vastly faster than any computer, and because computers work within a framework it is right now not possible for A.I. to mimic this process since we dealing with entirely different structures and methods of "data retrieval."

If you want to know some articles or information I can post it later.


----------



## Casey (Apr 1, 2008)

Berit said:


> If you want to know some articles or information I can post it later.


I'd be interested in these articles.

When getting Bloom's book, my wife also found this one: Amazon.com: The Child and the Machine: How Computers Put Our Children's Education at Risk: Alison Armstrong,Charles Casement: Books


And the review of Ellul's book is on my blog now (I read it a couple years ago for a class; I could have been more critical in the review):
The Presence of the Kingdom by Jacques Ellul « Paradise Regained


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 1, 2008)

B.J. said:


> Are there elements of the human experience that A.I. proponents are overlooking as to what makes us different from robots? For instance, there seems to be some empirical evidence that suggest the human mind is no differnet, ultimatly, than a computer.
> 
> Any thoughts?



The image of God element is overlooked. Or better said, completely unacknowledged. 

AI workers are trying to develop an intelligence in the image of man. But, of course, that argument doesn't hold much sway among empiricists, even though they will keep bumping into it no matter how much neuron mapping they can mimic.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Apr 1, 2008)

I don't know, but it sure seems like Eve was a clone to me. Look at the mess that got us into! LOL


----------



## Berit (Apr 1, 2008)

Here are some articles and books in regards to the a the Frame problem and a computational understanding of the Human mind.

Dennett, Cognitive wheels: the frame problem of AI”, The robot’s dilemma, pp.41-74 (1987)
reprinted from “Minds, machines and evolution”, Ablex Publishing, 1984

Dreyfus, “What Computers Can’t Do”, MIT Press, 1972

Fodor, “The Mind Doesn’t Work that Way; The Scope and Limits of Computational Psychology”, MIT Press, 2001
Fodor, “Modules, frames, fridgeons, sleeping dogs, & the music of spheres”, The robot’s
dilemma, pp.139-149, Ablex Publishing, 1987
Fodor, “The Modularity of Mind: An Essay on Faculty Psychology”. MIT Press, 1983

Searle, "Minds, Brains, and Programs", Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3, pp. 417-424,
1980[a]


----------



## py3ak (Apr 1, 2008)

> Better medicine and better building supplies become a lure to pull people into following Christianity...until something better comes along.



In Guatemala they called that _ánima por lámina_ --your soul for corrugated tin (or asbestos), used in roofing.


----------



## Josiah (Apr 1, 2008)

*Ordained Servant*

This Issue of Ordained Servant addresses this particular subject and has been edifying to me.


----------



## stevestutz (Apr 28, 2008)

I think it is interesting how we as American Christians tend to think that Science is the complete study of "how things work". Especially when it comes to medical science, we tend to (at least in my observation) categorize the flesh as explainable by science alone, and then conversely we classify the Bible as simply the science of the spiritual. This sort of mental block between the things of the flesh (this world) and the things of the spirit (NOT this world) hinders our understanding of just how much Science does in fact explain. 

Secular knowledge definitely teaches that studies such as Psychology and Biology completely explain what we need to know about ourselves. But when these secular truths are put into examination by light of even a basic understanding of Holy Scripture, it is obvious that there are holes in the "completeness" of the fields of science, which can only be filled by the Word.

Because of this, I am led to believe that even if human scientific understanding were at its utmost highpoint we would never be able to perfectly replicate a human being, obviously we would be missing a soul. And at this point in our understanding, we do not know how much the spirit/flesh interaction defines _who we are._ How much do chemicals determine our personality, and how much does the soul? Without our fleshy vessels what are we? Simply a spirit without a personality? Will science ever reach the point where it can be God, where it can create? I know it will not.

"18while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."
2 Corinthians 4:18 NASB


----------

