“[We must] radically challenge the basic assumptions of a technological civilization”. – Paul Ramsey
The previous post on E.Y. Mullins reminded me of something I had stored away on my hard-drive. Here are some quotes that I gathered for a term paper that I wrote last fall, that I thought you might find interesting. The issue in view is how Christians should view technology (particularly in light of family ethics).
I’m interested to hear your thoughts on the issue, and if this is something that you have really considered.
‘BH
“Natural processes which once ordered and limited life are now annoying barriers to be overcome through the sheer force of our knowledge and skill.” – Brent Waters, pg 19 Pilgrims and Progress: Technology and Christian Ethics from Rediscovering Alexandria: Science, Technology and the Churches
“Technology is not a collection of neutral instruments but is accompanied by a set of values, practices, and purposes that create a particular destiny which simultaneously limits or prevents the contruction of alternative futures.” – Waters, pg 21
In quoting George Parkin Grant, Technology and Justice pg 32, Waters says: “To put the matter crudely: when we represent technology to ourselves though its own common sense we think of ourselves as picking and choosing in a supermarket, rather than within the analogy of the package deal. We have bought a package deal of far more fundamental novelness than simply a set of instruments under our control. It is a destiny which enfolds us in its own conceptions of instrumentality, neutrality, and puposiveness.” – Waters, pg 21
“The coming to be of technology has required changes in what we think is good, what we think good is, how we conceive sanity and madness, justice and injustice, rationality and irrationality, beauty and ugliness.” – G.P. Grant, from Waters pg 22.
“It is one thing to ponder the moral implications of technology in light of an imager of divine providence or human benefit. It is quite another matter when this is pursued in the shadow of a technological image.” – Waters pg 23
“Theological claims, ethical conduct, and religious practices are pursued in behalf of humans rather than God. Christian thought and practices are reduced to expressions of perceived self-interest: faith is valued for its utility rather than its binding claims upon individual and communities.” – Waters pg 23
“What is good for humans [in this approach] becomes practically synonymous with what is good for God.” – Waters, pg. 25
Speaking of the idea that technological progress signifies a demonic force or sinful corruption, Waters states, “This approach is not unacceptable because it places too much faith in God’s initiatives and not enough in human activity but that it sees the world as something to be saved from rather than a proper object of Christian moral inquiry and action.” – Waters, pg. 25
“The purpose of Christian ethics is not to determine what forms of moral thought and conduct benefit humans (however defined) but how these activities reflect “gratitude, reverence, and service to God.” – Waters, pg. 26
“The theological and moral concern is not to create a redemptive technology. For Christians, the source of redemption is God, though this is exhibited through a variety of physical, social, and historical means. Rather, the task is to identify those sources of a technological world which produce and perpetuate alienation; that prevent a union and consent with God’s creativity.” – Waters, pg. 29
“A careless intervention into natural, social, and genetic processes which do not take into account their sustainability into the future, is to fabricate a fate rather than carve a destiny.” – Waters, pg. 32
1 Comment
December 17, 2009 at 1:42 pm
в конце концов: превосходно..