Religion and the new technology

[Thats my opinion]

My week was spent at a local seminary which hosted a conference on “the emerging church.” This young movement is composed of pastors and theological teachers from across the nation who are disillusioned with the traditional denominations, and who are looking for ways to build congregations around a new post-modern theology. The theme of the conference centered on ways to understand Process theology in building progressive religious institutions.

Instead of focusing on the theological implications of the conference, I want to reflect on the technological style of this group of young religious leaders, practically all of whom were in their 20s.

While world-respected theologians were speaking, I observed practically every participant sitting before open laptops. I have seen that before, but in this case the members of the group were also looking at their smart phones, most of them texting. They also had open a third screen reading a book or some other document. In addition many of them were taking pen and ink notes and listening to the lecture. During the question periods it was obvious that they were deeply tuned in to the lecture.

Here is my question. As you think about religious, theological or philosophic issues, what is the way modern technology influences your thinking? Current studies indicate that a difference or a change in technology alters the way the brain processes information. How have these new tools affected how you think?

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. I'm interested in spirituality and tech.

For me, the Nexus between the two comes not in the tech itself, not from my smartphone itself, but from the ramifications of it. The tech abstracts to math, which abstracts to philosophy, which abstracts (for me) to spirituality.

The real breakthrough of this information age is the concept that information is real, the idea that a *real thing* can be in two places at once, like a picture on your smart phone. I mean people always had books and paintings, but the new trend is toward the vanishing of the media, the canvas and the paper book as being the real thing, toward the representation as reality. The Mona Lisa is no longer a painting in France, now its the backdrop to a million ads, its digital image, its part of a TV show: its primary existence is as a non-local phenomenon, its physical existence in France is secondary to its non-local existence as information in the human mind.

So in one sense, spiritually, the world has made a huge step away from materialism. But in another sense, its gotten itself into a new mess, amoral non-materialism, and the old models of faith are breaking down in response. Its much harder to define right and wrong in terms of a partially non-physical world, where things have distant effects through tech. And when I read half the things I am just blown away by the evil that's going on in this world, passing under the radar because its wrapped in a technological complexity or some manipulation of public opinion. We're increasingly in a world of obfuscation and created "reality", as human focus moves from manipulating matter to manipulating information.

To me though, God is what is beyond the wall of illusion. Its the Rock. (Luke 6:48) So I think increasingly, the role of faith is to give people a way out of the madness, that open door when the information dream becomes the information nightmare. My two cents anywho.

[Thats my opinion]

5. Very helpful! nt

[Thats my opinion]

8. Another response.

Historically much of what communicates is not the thing in itself, but images of the thing. Art, for instance, is only a pointer to what is real, not reality itself. Evan a picture of the Mona Lisa is not the woman! Is it possible that this technology is just another way to point beyond itself? Or does it suppose that it actually penetrates the real? I am inclined to think the former is truer than the latter. Even so, I am about convinced that we are being badly manipulated. There is a reductionism here that makes me uncomfortable. Or maybe that is just my 8 decades of doing it the other way. And I still wonder if all these gadgets alter the way the brain processes information.

[napoleon_in_rags]

13. "This is not a response"

Last edited Fri Feb 3, 2012, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Its a series of touches to a sceen, held in memory on my phone, then communicted through radio , electricity to DU, stored in a database, wrapped up in html just for you when you log in to see it. So yes, its quite a few levels of representation beyond the old "this is not a pipe" painting. So much so the 'painting' part has vanished into technological obscurity.

So can it point to the divine? Is a pipe still a pipe when the representation can seem as real as the real thing? That's the question for me...The more impressive, the more immersive a techno religious experience is, the more it distracts people from that quiet inner seeking?

I think it does change our brains.

[bananas]

34. "the vanishing of the media" reminds me of Marshall McLuhan and Bob Dobbs

I see that Bob turned 90 last week:

http://www.fivebodied.com/viewtopic.php?t=4932

BLOWOUT/BLOWBACK Bash for my 90th BIRTHDAY on Thurs Feb 2...

... starting at 6pm EST!!!

One celebrity who will lurk, at least, is Scooter Braun, Justin Bieber's manager.

We've bonded since we met because the huge environments we "manage" both rose into intergalactic prominence on the same wave (2009-2012).

<snip>

[napoleon_in_rags]

36. LOL! I meant to say "vanishing of the medium"

As in books, cds, etc. But I like what I said now too. Thanks for those links, loving it.

[intaglio]

2. For me this is easy

It's easy because I have spent some time thinking about it in relation to faith.

Near as 10 years ago I would have classified myself as an "agnostic" and carefully explain that I meant that literally, I was a-gnosis without the revealed knowledge that would allow me to believe in any deity. This was my position because, like many others, I had neither the time nor inclination to investigate what I now see as the trivial and deceptive arguments of the religious apologists. Then came the information explosion on the internet.

Suddenly the resources to counter these nonsenses became available and the previously isolated individuals, agnostic and atheist, could talk to each other. Information could be shared and the foundations of faith could be shown to be human not divine; full of contradictions and primitive superstition. The writings of oily academics like William Lane Craig could be analysed by many minds acting together and revealed for the santorum that they actually are. Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and texting allow the previously unempowered to answer the hubris and falsehoods of those who seek to count the unshriven amongst the "saved" of the preacher's particular fantasy.

The downside is that the technology and resources are available to the religious as well and will be used to spread the faith and to find special pleadings that counter the arguments of the faithless. This is fine after all "what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander" and I believe that reason and fact are on the side of the unbeliever.

10 years ago I claimed to be agnostic; in fact I did not believe in God or Gods, I was atheist but lacked the gnosis to admit it.

[Thats my opinion]

9. Interesting perspective.

We all start where we are, and what we receive as information is bound to be partial. And the brain only may deal with the stimuli that encounters it. To this end you are correct, that much of what religion has produced is manipulative. But the advocates of irreligion may have been just as manipulative. If I Google, "arguments for atheism" and what I get exhausts my research, i will come out at one place. If I do the same thing for "religion," the conclusion would move that way.. But what if faith is not just a matter of accumulating arguments (information) but has to do with experience? In I am confronted by Mystery, by grace, by being unconditionally loved, by purpose and meaning, by an ethical demand, I may have opened up a whole other way to believe or not believe. Information may not be the only way to access, or be accessed by, what is real. One may never encounter the holy on Google. This forum has often discussed whether there are other ways of knowing. Religion asserts there are other ways of knowing and being known.

[intaglio]

15. So prove that any of this has happened to you

I have been in ecstatic states; playing chess, in T'ai Chi forms, during (European) fencing and have been able to "speak in tongues" since my teens. There have been times when I have felt overwhelming joy at a sunset and, due to my depressive illness, felt demon haunted. Unconditional love has been given by me and received in return.

But none of this had anything to do with any deity, it is part of the normal awareness of humans.

I tried for years I searched for the enlightenment not realising that it was always within myself, not a gift from some semi-competent deity who cannot keep the revealed holy books consistent or reasonable. These holy books are never in accord with established history, archeology or science. Remember these are the holy books that are supposed to guide the faithful and provide evidence of the deity of choice. If they provide evidence why do you need faith?

Why do you need to resort to unreason and the threat of vengeance from some mythic being to keep you from doing wrong? Why can you not admit that the usual social interactions and mores will provide a guide for you?

[Thats my opinion]

19. You are correct in your suspicion of manipulative religion.

But what you call,"the normal awareness of humans,"may be just the way God works. And is unconditional love---UNCONDITIONAL-- really just the quirk of your imagination? What you call "usual social interactions" may not be so usual, unless one is tuned into their possibility and reality. So you may have rejected religious language but may, in fact, be on the border of what is very religious indeed.

[intaglio]

24. It is normal

You are so eager to lay the source of good and evil outside the humanity of which you are a part that you ignore the commonality of these experiences, not just in the present day but throughout human existence.

People prior to the idol now named "Jesus" had the same experiences and wrote or made oral tales about them. People from different traditions and races all over the world have had such feelings for all of the time of which we have knowledge yet before the present day only a minuscule fraction of these put the source of those feelings in a creature perhaps named YHWH. In contradiction, prior to this current time, some others saw the work of multiple Gods or demons or spirits whilst many saw it just as things that humans did or experienced and either unrelated to religion or entirely separate from divine will or in opposition to such will.

Examine the traditions of unconditional love and the fact that poets, authors and songwriters continue the explore this wonderful feeling that needs no outside influence except the beloved being. If it is just a quirk of my imagination then my imagination is in good company.

As to rejecting religious language, why do I need to use special conventions of thought or speech? Using such things is no more than magical thinking.

[skepticscott]

25. What this poster and so many others

still find so necessary is to find something, anything in their lives to call "god".

[Thats my opinion]

29. Regarding your last two paragraphs, you are talking about some other form of religion,

not one that many of us here hold, so quit the straw man bit.

Perhaps the way God works is through the "normal awareness of humans." Perhaps God is not a person out there, but the energy that works at every moment and in every event within the processes of nature, and lures on those who are sensitive to what is happening.

[Angry Dragon]

31. You have to explain that a great deal more

for it to be valid............

[Thats my opinion]

38. For every complex question there is a simple answer

which is usually wrong. When I attempt longer responses outlining what is currently going on in theology, I don't get a very open hearing. If you all really want the longer answer and will hear them----no I don't mean accept them---just hear them, I'm OK with that. Maybe the place to start is to go back and reread the various replies I have made. But when I try to spell it out what I get is,"quit lecturing."

[skepticscott]

40. And for every question that's actually pretty simple

There's someone trying pretend it's complex, to avoid having to give straight answers about it.

And nobody EVER prevents you from posting as long an answer as you think is necessary...that's just more of your pre-emptive victimhood. If your long answers don't get a warm response, you might open your mind and consider the possibility that they just don't hold water when examined in the cold light of reason. Are you open or closed to that possibility?

[Angry Dragon]

41. The reason I asked the question is it

seemed you used many 'perhaps'
I, myself, do not mind long answers.

The universe holds many forces. Do all these forces come from one source??
Does one have the right to call this one force god??
It just seems that in response #29 you raised a lot of questions. I do not see how this fits in with the widely held organized religions.

I and others can prove that forces exist in the universe. Does this make it a god that gives a damn if I believe in it or not??

You talk about forces within man. There are already religions that say the same thing.

You talked about things that exist outside the accepted Bible. All I did wwas ask you to explain this view.

[Thats my opinion]

44. you raise some sound interesting questions

and I will try to take them a piece at a time. Right now I've got some deadlines that must be met, so be patient.

[cleanhippie]

33. You need to grease the wheels on those goalposts...

One minute, you are a christian, the next, a "personal god" type, now you are a "god is energy..." guy.



What a crock. You just keep moving the goalposts firther and further from where you started in an attempt to rationalize your irrational beliefs.

[intaglio]

35. What straw men?

All religious texts are self contradictory, all contain false history, all contain nonsense instead of science; yet all are supposedly divinely inspired. If deities or a deity cannot ensure that the texts relied upon by their followers are reliable then that deity is incompetent. In addition to this is the fact that all major faiths use the threat of punishment to enforce the edicts of the faith. This punishment can be minor, such as reincarnation into a "lower" life form or major, hell. It is these errors in faith that forces the young ministers identified in the OP to use modern technology to search for half convincing counters to the reasonable doubts raised by the informed, whether unbelievers or believers.

You, on the other hand seem to be claiming that the unreliable narration of a faith and its texts are not the foundation of your faith then you are not a member of any faith, you are just making it up as you go along.

[skepticscott]

37. "Just making it up as you go along"

pretty much nails it. The fundamental thrust of "liberal" and "progressive" religionists is to continually morph their god into a form that (they hope) will render it immune to rational examination and their belief in it immune to criticism.

[Thats my opinion]

39. You are certainly entitled to your opinion,

but as an outsider to the conversation it may be bit presumptuous to assume that, "you are just making it up as you go along" is either a fair or accurate reading. Telling someone else what they think instead of listening to what they articulate is probably not the best way to understand.

[intaglio]

42. I think you mean I am an outsider to the conversation with God

If you that mean I am an outsider to the conversation you and others are having with God, then you need to answer the question of why God is playing favourites? Why does this (imaginary) deity choose to speak to certain people and not others? Why has the vast bulk of humanity through time been left ignorant of this deity? These are all the same question, it is just the phrasing that is different.

I have tried the "all teachings about God(s) are pale shadows of the reality of God, because God only gives us what we can understand," version of belief and can say that it doesn't make sense. It means either:

1) that God is spoon feeding the human race because humans in the past or from other cultures lacked the intelligence to understand the reality you are permitted to see, or;

2) beliefs about God(s) are constructs of the society that produces them and have no other connection to reality.

Personally, I find the second meaning far more persuasive than the first.

[Thats my opinion]

43. Religious thought has long since gone way past the idea of God

that you are somehow fixated on. Your response assumes a concept of God which both of us would think less than useful. As every discipline grows--it is called evolution--so concepts of God continue to grow. We are far far from the old man in the sky who plays favorites, or that there is a big person somewhere out there who gives us only what we can understand, or who spoon feeds the human race.

I think it would be easy to attack science, or any other discipline, using concepts that the scientific community has or is in the process of rejecting. When I say that you are an outside, it is the vital conversations going on within the theological community that you are either unaware if or don't want to admit even exists.

It is interesting that those of who just want to attack religion evade the question posed in my initial post: Does a change in technology change the way the brain functions?

[intaglio]

45. Interesting

I think you had better inform William Lane Craig of your opinion immediately! He needs to know that he and his ilk hold outdated views about the nature of deity.

For the rest you are talking nonsense; what is more it is evidence free nonsense because it depends upon the lack of evidence for its conclusions. The God you believe in is a retreat; no longer incarnate but spirit, no longer above the firmament but in an undetectable aetherial realm, no longer interventionist but only a prime cause, no longer a judge but an observer. You make an assumption, that there is a deity, and then modify that deity to fit in the vanishing gaps current knowledge. If the deity is what you say then how can it have informed the world of its existence?

If this ghost has, somehow, broken down the barriers between spirit and matter then why has the message been different or non-existent for every age, every culture, every nation and every individual? If this deity has this power and chooses not to use it is not that deity guilty of deceit? If this deity does not have that power then explain how it is a deity.

Regarding your OP. The question is imprecise for you ask about the way the brain functions. That "way" is electrochemical activity modified by inputs from the senses, customary pathways, genetics and perhaps, if Penrose is right, quantum effects from cellular architecture. If however you mean "is brain function changed by technology?" then the answer is yes, a trivial example is the effect of video games upon the sensory and emotional functions in the brains of games players or less trivially the apparent loss of verbal memory in literate as opposed to non-literate cultures.

[skepticscott]

46. So who exactly is this "we"

that is so far from a "heavenly father" concept of god? It certainly doesn't includes Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, Episcopalians, Baptists, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Orthodox, Anglicans, Mormons, Pentacostals, Muslims or Jews. Does it include anyone but your little clique of ivory tower academics and pompously progressive religionists? You've managed with a phrase to dismiss the beliefs of billions of religious people as outdated and irrelevant, which the absolute height of arrogance.

And your attempted analogy with science is even lamer than usual for you. Science progresses based on greater and greater understanding of demonstrably real objects and phenomenon. Switching theological horses when you have no idea whether your new version of "god" is any more real than the old one, isn't remotely similar.

[Jim__]

3. Instant access to information; but usually a quick, shallow stab at this information.

Last edited Fri Feb 3, 2012, 08:25 AM - Edit history (1)

If I am thinking or reading about an issue and see a reference to something that I am either not familiar with or something that I have read about a while ago, I usually look it up - right now. I "google" it and glance over some reference material. This can help answer some questions that would otherwise interfere with my focus on the more immediate issue. The downside to this is that the information that I access tends to be shallow.

There is a huge difference between the information that is gleaned this way (e.g. information that is obtained through google) and information that is obtained through serious research into a topic. An awful lot of the information on any topic is, at best, uncertain. The more I research a topic, the more I understand that a lot of the information that is available on the topic is interpreted differently by different subject experts.

Instant access to information gives us the illusion of knowledge. Serious research usually leads to a realization that there are many open questions.

[hr /]

I am curious as to what you mean by post-modern theology.

[Thats my opinion]

6. As do you,

Last edited Fri Feb 3, 2012, 04:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I wonder about the depth of the information I get when I am reading and simply need to hit my cursor over a word, and get an instant definition. My research may be simplified, but at what cost?

[Thats my opinion]

10. About post-modern theology

While this in not the same as post-modern philosophy ala Derida et al, there are common threads.
For the last half century theology has focused on God as process, activity, "actual occasions," energy, the ground of being not a Being, not a person up there somewhere, or an omnipotent big daddy. It is that energy which in in all things, which does not interrupt nature, but is the source of all that is. So the energy behind evolution is this dynamic which continually lures and empowers all of nature. The Bible is a book of stories arising from the life and encounters of a people of faith, and not truth handed down from above.

It is difficult to explain this in a short response. God and the physical world are in continual interaction, each acting upon the other. God is not identified with nature, but is the energy in nature; what we call "Panentheism." Reality is made of of events, not just things. There is a world of literature about this, and I can refer you to the best of it if you are interested.

[rrneck]

4. Information is almost completely commodified.

When Mark Zukerberg can make money by knowing what kind of underwear you buy, I think the commidification of information is almost complete. And then along comes Twitter, a format that requires you to compress communication so it can more efficiently harvest "profitable terms" so now we don't just get logos projected at us, we make our own.

It seems that the ease with which information is transferred is inversely proportional to the quality of the ideas it represents. Information is not wisdom. Information is consumed, while wisdom is earned. Our approach to life has become that of a consumer shopping online for an ideology that fits. Important life decisions can be selected from a series of drop down menus. What you call a conference on religion I call a trade show. Those kids with computers are no different from someone at a car lot running vin numbers through Carfax.

Whether it's God or karma, the holy spirit or oneness with gaia, an electrochemical stew or an id or simply DNA, that something inside us is unique to each of us. And the only way we will understand it is to study it ourselves. Nobody else can do it for us. There is no easy way to get it done. And there is no "Swiss Army knife" cocktail of attitudes and practices that can do the job for you.


Given the state of the human race today and its recent history, self awareness certainly cannot be found through any technological, industrialized process. The more any ideology can be funnelled through such processes, the more inimical it will be to spiritual development.

[Thats my opinion]

7. So I wonder if you may believe that much of what is happening is manipulative?

Your suspicion that what I observed--and participated in--was just like a trade show has set my imagination going. I too believe what when theology/philosophy are viewed through a technological reductionism, the inherent complexity has been lost. At this point I wonder if we are moving so rapidly in that direction there may be no way to turn back. My only protest has been a refusal to get a smart phone or to tweet. I know myself well enough to realize that my compulsive nature might keep my face in the thing too much of the time.

[rrneck]

11. I don't necessarily think it's manipulative

It's efficient.

We have become so adept at developing systems of thought (and belief) that it has become easier to switch ideologies than make the one we have work. As a result it seems like the path to spiritual growth and self awareness is through smart shopping and the task of cultural development is a marketing issue.

Our culture is designed to give us so many containers into which we can pour ourselves we don't know who we are any more. The solution to the problem is not more contaners but candid introspection. How many times have you heard someone qualify an opinion with a litany of associations and characteristics? Our anomie is such that we can only see ourselves through characteristics we find advantageous or labels designed to be adopted with little effort.

Disaster capitalism functions just as well for the production of religion to suckle the emotionally adrift as it does for the plywood industry before a hurricane. Neither offer a solution for the problem at hand, but profit from the coming disaster.

[skepticscott]

12. So when will you be telling

the Catholics, the Lutherans, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Episcopalians, the Congregationalists, the Pentecostals, the Jews, the Muslims (to name a few) that their concept of "god" is completely out of date and utterly wrong, their beliefs are fundamentally flawed and their seminaries are teaching blatant misinformation?

[rug]

14. Probably after you stop.

[skepticscott]

16. If I were championing a new theology

that I claimed was superior to of all of those I mentioned, your post might not be ridiculous. But I'm not. This OP does nothing to change my view that all theologies are equally valid and at the same distance from reality, and that theology is largely a way to help religious believers convince themselves that their beliefs are not more harsh or foolish than they can tolerate, rather than a way to actually understand anything real.

I suspect, though, that your sad response will be the most substantive one that is forthcoming. You'd think by now that the religionistas and apologists would have a deeper bench.

[rug]

18. Considering the OP is not about that, I'm not surprised.

It's hard to change an opinion when you're not paying attention.

[skepticscott]

21. The OP IS about a new theology

which is being proposed and promoted to supplant those of the denominations I mentioned (among others). If YOU'D been paying attention to the poster's ongoing agenda, you'd be aware of that. The point (which you, not surprisingly, managed to miss) is that this "post-modern" theology is no more than another invention, which is no closer to an understanding of any real god with a real (as opposed to imagined) existence than any other, despite the fact that it presumes to be.

[Angry Dragon]

32. ...............

[Sal316]

17. Were you at Claremont this week?

[Thats my opinion]

20. Yes i was?

Were you?. John Cobb is a neighbor and a very good friend of mine.

[Sal316]

27. I was.

I'm the guy that brought the Java Stout for Wednesday's night Homebrewed 3-D!

[Thats my opinion]

28. That was the one session I missed. nt

[NinjaKid]

22. Religion and moren technology could not mix

It's impossible to mix religion and modern technology. Religion is ancient and has never evolved so as it could adapt to modern times.

[Chinita]

23. Yes

I could not help but agree to this one !

[Thats my opinion]

26. Speaking from the inside,

which is a different perspective then someone speaking from the outside, I could not disagree more. Either you just don't know, or more likely, you may not want to know. They are profoundly mixed.

[Sal316]

30. Uhh... you couldn't be more wrong.

But hey...