The Divinity of Man and the Spirit of Invention

I finished chewing through "The Religion of Technology" today, a surprisingly meaty book written by historian David F. Noble.  I don't normally spend this much time enjoying a book, but I felt that Noble's research deserved a slow, methodical read.  His thesis - that scientific enterprises have gained authority and increased dominion through the use of religious mythology - is not a new one.  Yet his thorough study of the history of science and technology, shows a surprisingly apocalyptic tone that has pervaded leading scientists' rhetoric within 1000 years scientific advance.  The myth that we will return "mankind" to a prelapsarian state of perfection, immortality, and dominion through practical science betrays the masculine and monastic roots of the technological arts.  As a student of both the humanities and history of religion, I found the book enlightening in both its thesis and cursory introduction to many fields, but I have read a few reviews that felt as if Noble was wholly critical of the scientific enterprise.  My take is that Noble was criticizing the wedding of science and religion (specifically apocalyptic christianity) that was evident in the work of a many of history's great scientists and explorers, a practice that we could do with a bit less in science and technology.  Much of the modern technological enterprises still betray their Cartesian glorification of the mind at the expense of the body, yet we must remind ourselves that we live in a physical world that offers a potentially holistic existence if we can perhaps sacrifice some of our religious desire for transcendence.  The idea that our technology promises redemption from being human is an idea which smacks of both intellectual hubris and a desire to make prescriptive the objectively descriptive job of scientists.  An friend recently pointed out to me that the peer-reviewed methodology within the sciences tends to limit the amount of storytelling and myth-making that can happen, and Noble likewise cautions us with what has happened when the scientific community has not operated in this manner by buying the stories that they were selling.  Noble is a bit dated (revising last in 1999), and it seems to me that changes in light of the new scientific intelligentsia would probably be warranted.  It seems to this author, that in our current climate (read both weather and culture)it is not the scientists that need to change, but the wider society.  We tend to ignore the sciences unless they can be sensationalized, mythologized and then commodified for our consumption, and all too often it is reason and accountability that suffer.  Explanations like "you can't explain that," despite their hilarity, win out because they are delivered with pageantry, instead of objectivity.  There's more to say, but I'd like to let a few thought simmer for a while.

We Robot

I came across a fascinating article today on BBC.  It seems that we are creating an internet-like interface for future robots to access.  It's a quick read, so I won't say much here, besides to say that EU scientists are trying to share and standardize knowledge for autonomous robots to access.  And quicker than you can say Skynet, we have the robot equivalent of wikipedia.  But apocalyptic naysayers aside, I find it profound that we are already modeling the learning of the next generation of (likely domestic) robotics after human knowledge compendiums.  I can't help think of the creation myths of numerous cultures whose portrayal of human origins are as made in God's or gods' images.  I suppose my first question is are we fashioning servants, equals, or demigods?

The Devil in Mr. Hawking

Perhaps motivated by a desire for a good argument, or more likely I have some time to fill while others are watching the Super Bowl, but I wanted to jot down some ideas on the whole theism/agnosticism or God vs. science debacle.  I plan on reconciling the two sides perfectly and conclusively proving the existence of God and the immutability of the scientific method, so I hope you're all prepared to accept Jesus into your heart and read a book on quasars when I'm finished.  But I digress, let me lay out some problems with both sides, why I think the debate is ultimately fruitless, and perhaps finally offer some tentative solutions.  Religious people feel free to pick and choose what you read, and scientists feel free to discard everything I've said because I'm open to the existence of God.

     The Problem with Religion, God, and Mythology

I won't be the first to point out any of this, but let me start with saying you cannot prove God's existence to anyone. (I lied earlier)  Whether your religious beliefs are intuitive, based in a holy book and historical figure, or a gang bang of superstitions and traditions, they are not exactly a scientifc enterprise.  You can scream till your blue in the face that God literally created the world in seven days, but the Bible never claimed to be a scientific manual, so stop treating it that way in the modern world.  As far as I'm considered, the first 2 chapters of Genesis have as much scientific merit as the Egyptian myth where the god Atum masturbates the world into existence.  The multiple centuries of trying to make the Christian Bible scientific are increasingly ridiculous, perhaps epitomized by the folks at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY.  And as much as I would've liked to take a bumpy ride on a triceratops, the lack of real science in these endeavors is comical at best and likely damaging in the long run.  The point of mythology, religious or otherwise, is not to tell us the "What" of the universe but the Why and in some cases the Who.  Using the Christian account (because I'm most familiar with it), the creation story tells us the following: (1. God created for no other reason than that's what God does - create stuff, (2. women and men were created equal and they're responsible for taking care of the earth, and most importantly in my estimation 3. humans were created in God's image, to be like God in the world.  Now regardless of the likely mythic status of this story (sorry), the methodical outline of the story is not meant to imply the method of origins.  We see organization (e.g. 7 days) and we read back in a scientific journal process.  Just stop doing this.  Seriously, it's a waste everyone's time.

Perhaps more pertinent to a modern existence where at least the educated don't need their holy books to be biology textbooks, enters the question of the purpose of religions.  Religion does not exactly have a consistent track record for promoting human life, allowing critical thinking, or being okay with those who are different.  Agnostics, scientists, and much of the educated world sees religions and gods as systems and symbols of control, devoid of any real benefit.  Inquisitions and crusades, biblically sanctioned racism, sexism, colonialism and a multitude of other-isms are still very much in the cultural imaginations of human societies.  And all of this happens while many hold a false perception that they are enduring persecution for their beliefs.  Please, for every Mother Teresa, there are 5 religious nut-jobs who blow up a building, hold up a "God Hates Fags" sign at a funeral, or actively work to crush the spirit of someone who doesn't fit within their community.  For my part, I agree with the sentiment of many atheists that most religions need to shut their mouths for a while and prove their worth to their communities with their actions.

     The Problem with Science and Technology

Science, or in its most practical form - Technology - gets a pass too often.  And since I railed on the faults of religions for a while, it seems they're next up to bat.  First, let us not fool ourselves into thinking science is pure objective reality.  Science, in both the academy and the popular imagination, is a mythic ordering of reality.  Whether it's the "Epic of Scientific Progress" proclaimed throughout the Enlightenment and Industrial Age, or the "Technology as Pinnacle of Human Evolution" purported in our post-modern milieu, both are prescriptive stories often devoid of internal consistency and objectivity.  In their attempts to sway the minds of the "archaic and naive religious folk," the scientific machine had to narrate their supposedly cumulative progression into modern cultures.  Their dependence on either the military industrial complex for financing, or increasingly within the tech. world their dual-loyalty to both corporation as meaning makers and community as product testers, betrays an insidious reality - pure science doesn't really exist... it is usually the indentured servant to a feudal lord with financial and less-than-benign intentions.  For every Galileo who relishes the discovery, there is an Edison who relishes the power brought by the discovery (no pun intended).

Don't take me as being anti-science, I just think that not seeing the underlying religious imagery within the story of Science and Technology allows it power over us that we were supposedly using science to dispel.  While we blame religion for its tendency to relegate difference to the sidelines (or at worst to damnation), scientific development was a cooperative (if not at times driving) force in colonialization, war, and vast environmental destruction.  Under the auspices of progress, we have become adept at killing each other, altering our bodies in damaging ways, and trying to solve the problems of the past while creating worse problems for future generations.  We embrace technology as the epitome of achievement, yet lack the ability to communicate gooder and with kindness and humanity across new social networks.  We envision our bodies as future repositories for new tech, augmenting reality to dispel the reality that soul, flavor, and deep concentration are being sacrificed for multi-tasking, efficiency, and consistency.  Perhaps science has been telling stories for too long.

     More Questions, Fewer Answers

I have been considering the problem of joining together my oft-dormant theism and an entirely naturalistic worldview for quite a while, a wedding that started when reading a book by Christian physicist Hugh Ross back in high school.  Now I'm not exactly a big fan of religious folk who want to empirically prove God's existence, because it's often quasi-science and bad theology in a distorted melange of half-truths, but the book certainly kick-started something within me.  Most attempts at reconciliation are like losing your virginity, it lasts much shorter than you would like, and usually only one side is happy with the results.  An atheist friend-of-a-friend recently said, "If you're telling people you can fly, it's not I who has to prove my disbelief, it's you who has to show that you can actually fly." He was both right and wrong in my estimation.  Right in the fact that debates over God's existence cannot be solved by some divine equation, and wrong that religious beliefs have to be justified rationally.  The concept of a god or gods is non-rational - it cannot be obtained through reason or observational methodology; this is not irrational though, or opposed to reason, it is just reached at through other means.  It seems to me, most scientists make bad theologians and vice-versa, because they're dealing with entirely different realms.  The problem is, both want to be dominant over our whole lives, and neither deserves that place.  Now I'm starting to pontificate, time for me to be quiet for a bit.  Any thoughts?