Religion and Technology

[dauer]

I saw another thread that got on this topic and thought it would be fun to explore the relationship between religion and technology. In what ways does religion embrace technology? What types of technology does it embrace? Is technology ever informed by religion? Are there ways in which religion could make use of present technologies that it hasn't taken advantage of? Are there ways in which technology can help us to understand religion? Are there ways in which religion can help us to understand technology or shape the way we relate to it?

-- Dauer

 

[Dream]

I've already been strongly impacted by just a basic introduction to neural networks. I think the biological and experimental knowledge we have about neural networks destroys much of the supernatural mystique about the mind. I accept that our actions, thoughts, and decision processes could operate completely by electrical and chemical signals. Knowing such things is very empowering, IMO.

That being said, the organization and training of such a mind is still a mystery. We don't understand our minds and bodies' radiological properties, waveforms, electrical properties, quantum entanglements, etc. There are many things we don't know about it. We don't know how to fully explain weird psychological events, although some of them are possibly just hiccups in perception. A false perception of Deja-vu, for instance, can be caused by one of those hiccups.

 

[dauer]

Dream,

I've already been strongly impacted by just a basic introduction to neural networks. I think the biological and experimental knowledge we have about neural networks destroys much of the supernatural mystique about the mind. I accept that our actions, thoughts, and decision processes could operate completely by electrical and chemical signals. Knowing such things is very empowering, IMO.

To me that says something about the way the scientific theories of the day can shape the way in which other parts of the world are understood. For example, in the writings of freud and jung, descriptions of libido or psychic energy make use of the laws of conservation and thermodynamics.

There's a book I was reading recently, I don't remember which one, but it talked about seeing the theory of evolution in a more positive and ethically inspired light than "survival of the fittest."

How does your understanding of G!d mesh with your understanding of the brain?

-- Dauer

 

[Dream]

My personal understanding of God has been fairly flexible for the last 10 years and has changed somewhat. I became aware of neural nets almost 20 years ago, and it was obvious to me that these are the basis of all thinking creatures on earth. This understanding is strong enough to be an axiom -- as strong as gravity, in my opinion. As a fundamentalist I have to incorporate something of that magnitude into my understanding of Scripture. It is not possible that G!d didn't know about it when He gave inspiration, and it is one of the reasons I changed my mind both about immortality and about a man's importance to G!d.

The biggest change is that I accept G!d literally has no need of us, and we don't rate on the same scale as G!d. When the Scripture says the nations are like grass, I take it literally. Although I think we exist for a positive purpose, we are not permanent except to the degree that G!d permits. I've felt bitter about much of creation for a long time. It seemed to me unfair that we should be made so confused and I felt G!d shared nothing in common with us. I've since changed my mind, because I realize (like the Buddhist) that this is the negative point of view, which prevents a man from seeing the truth of the matter. The true and clear point of view is that we are blessed to be alive and experience creation as part of something much bigger than ourselves. In fact, suffering is worthwhile.

 

[Nick_A]

I believe technology is based on the understanding of mechanical laws. Objective religious truth is an experiential conscious truth and is psychological in nature. Technology effects the outer man and is "result" oriented, while the essence of religion effects the inner man and is primarily concerned with the quality of "process." I use the term "essence of religion" to distinguish it from external secularized religious beliefs.

If a person has acquired a degree of "presence," the influence of technology in creating greater psychological attachments to the earth becomes obvious so in this way the results of technology make the value of the religious perspective more clear. In contrast technology can create a more efficient medium to create imaginary God concepts giving the impression of something worthwhile but in reality, just imagination.

Technology can serve the essence of religion if a person is capable of some degree of "presence." Since this is rare, more often than not, technology breeds a greater psychological dependence on it in contrast to the psychological freedom to experience objective human meaning and purpose, the essence of religion offers

 

[Dream]

Objective religious truth is an experiential conscious truth and is psychological in nature.

All things are psychological when it comes to human nature, and all things are interpreted through the psyche as physical experiences. Even abstractions are limited in scope to how they affect or will affect physical experiences. Without the psyche nothing has any human meaning to human beings, so all things must relate to our bodies and our senses or they cannot be perceived by us at all.

Technology effects the outer man and is "result" oriented, while the essence of religion effects the inner man and is primarily concerned with the quality of "process."

The mind is not some computer portal for etheric signals, but is a sense organ of the body. Our body is all we know, and even mystical experiences cannot claim more than this. Your suggestions make us seem to be more than we are. We and our psychology are the outward result of hidden processes, and are not capable of being a part of them or experiencing them.

I use the term "essence of religion" to distinguish it from external secularized religious beliefs.

Your distinction is nothing but a nothing between words. It is but a definition that is missing a term and is using the same term twice to fill the space. Try filling in that missing term and see if it makes any sense and it reads-- {I use the term "essence of religion" to distinguish (essence of religion) from external secularized religious(of or pertaining to the essence of religion) beliefs.} Through such division by zero, you say 'secularized religion' is religion without meaning; but it is impossible to secularize religion. Religion, like all things, is physically perceived. All of religion is based upon the appreciation of our physical existence and always communicates physical implications for our actions. Other definitions tend to have the same problem of using the same concept twice in place of a missing term.

Religious development is mental development. The essence and purpose of religion is to fuse the images of our bad experiences with the images of our good ones so that we can accept that suffering only exists because we are alive, which is so much better than being dead. Such a view excludes: laziness, temper tantrums, boredom, etc. and includes love, joy, peace, etc.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Dream

All things are psychological when it comes to human nature, and all things are interpreted through the psyche as physical experiences. Even abstractions are limited in scope to how they affect or will affect physical experiences. Without the psyche nothing has any human meaning to human beings, so all things must relate to our bodies and our senses or they cannot be perceived by us at all.

You are referring to reactive psychology or behaviorism and in this way we are much like a horse or a dog.. Our contact with external life comes through the senses

All things are psychological when it comes to human nature, and all things are interpreted through the psyche as physical experiences. Even abstractions are limited in scope to how they affect or will affect physical experiences. Without the psyche nothing has any human meaning to human beings, so all things must relate to our bodies and our senses or they cannot be perceived by us at all.

Our associative mind doesn't sense but rather interprets and classifies sensations. I was referring to higher mind and its relation to consciousness. I am referring to what Jesus is describing in the Gospel of Thomas

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

Jesus is referring to a conscious quality of psychology and you are referring to behaviorism.

We are what we are but it is not the potential of our being. So in reality we manifest less than what we objectively ARE or our objective potential. What we subjectively are is defined by values of the external world. What we are objectively is determined by the quality and potential of our being.

Your distinction is nothing but a nothing between words. It is but a definition that is missing a term and is using the same term twice to fill the space. Try filling in that missing term and see if it makes any sense and it reads-- {I use the term "essence of religion" to distinguish (essence of religion) from external secularized religious(of or pertaining to the essence of religion) beliefs.} Through such division by zero, you say 'secularized religion' is religion without meaning; but it is impossible to secularize religion. Religion, like all things, is physically perceived. All of religion is based upon the appreciation of our physical existence and always communicates physical implications for our actions. Other definitions tend to have the same problem of using the same concept twice in place of a missing term.

Suppose I said:

I use the term "essence of woman" to distinguish it from external secularized personalities and physical forms."

Could you accept the idea that the objective essence of woman is not defined by their personalities though this is what we physically perceive?.

Religious development is mental development. The essence and purpose of religion is to fuse the images of our bad experiences with the images of our good ones so that we can accept that suffering only exists because we are alive, which is so much better than being dead. Such a view excludes: laziness, temper tantrums, boredom, etc. and includes love, joy, peace, etc.

Religious development is the development of the heart. Technological advances is a manifestation of mental development. Unfortunately we no longer know what it means to allow the heart to grow as the mind can grow. We know how to teach the associative mind but are ignorant as to what it means to teach the heart. Mostly what I read is sugary platitudes or visions of la la land. We speak of compassion but who is capable of anything other than selective compassion? It is an attribute of a developed heart that distinguishes objective quality.

This emotional experience of objective quality allows the heart to feel its connection to higher consciousness and at the same time its connection to external life. It allows conscious awareness to replace self justification and lead to healthy religious growth. The conscious mind needs the heart of quality or else the results can be demonic.

 

[Dream]

So in reality we manifest less than what we objectively ARE or our objective potential. What we subjectively are is defined by values of the external world. What we are objectively is determined by the quality and potential of our being.....Religious development is the development of the heart. Technological advances is a manifestation of mental development. Unfortunately we no longer know what it means to allow the heart to grow as the mind can grow....

In reality, we manifest less than G!d, because we are limited in our capabilities. All creatures must learn about the physical meaning of space around them to develop awareness of themselves. You've heard people say that without friction the world would fly apart? Without time, space has no measurement and our minds have no substance. Anything we perceive must be related to us through these means.The word heart is from Bible cultures who used it to refer to the mind or emotions, not to something we can't even perceive! In Bible terms, to make wise--is to revive the soul--is to rejoice the heart--is to enlighten the eyes. Psalm 19:7-8 "The law of the L!RD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the L!RD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the L!RD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the L!RD is pure, enlightening the eyes;"

Suppose I said: I use the term "essence of woman" to distinguish it from external secularized personalities and physical forms." Could you accept the idea that the objective essence of woman is not defined by their personalities though this is what we physically perceive?.

There is no objective essence of woman that you and I can perceive or discuss. Essence is a thought which in your mind relates to some experiences you have had -- nothing more. If you were to tell me you had a supernatural experience there could be no way for you to describe it, because you cannot perceive outside the context of time and space. If you would have a truly supernatural experience you must completely change and no longer relate to human experiences, just like a tree that walks and talks is no longer a tree and cannot relate its experiences to trees.

 

[Nick_A]

Dream

We seem to disagree as to relativity. What does it mean to "rejoice the heart?" Does this mean the same as when we experience what we call joy or something else. I maintain that it is far more profound to enlighten the eyes. You could win the lottery and experience great joy but it wouldn't enlighten the eyes.

I believe in Kant's idea of noumena or a thing in itself and how it is recognizable as phenomena for us. So for me there is an essence of woman, of man, of beauty, of justice, and all these are expressions of objective quality which becomes more known to Man in the process of awakening.

It is a basic difference but it doesn't require a dual at dawn to settle it.

 

[Dream]

The mind is enlightened and it is made wise. It also rejoices in and is revived by the law of the L!RD.

Technology has revealed and is capable of revealing to a further extent that what we are can only be described as fragile. Even our concepts are limited to the realm of space which we inhabit. Our arguments must have meaning here if they are to have meaning elsewhere. If it is false in three dimensions, then it cannot be extended to four. What is true in two is also true in three.

 

[arthra]

I saw another thread that got on this topic and thought it would be fun to explore the relationship between religion and technology. In what ways does religion embrace technology? What types of technology does it embrace? Is technology ever informed by religion? Are there ways in which religion could make use of present technologies that it hasn't taken advantage of? Are there ways in which technology can help us to understand religion? Are there ways in which religion can help us to understand technology or shape the way we relate to it?

-- Dauer

I think those are great questions...

Historically there seems to be a rift between science and religion with the two seemingly at war and in the West at least religion apparently losing ground at least in the recent past.

I don't think though that there need to be though a conflict between religion and science or technology. When technology has run amok without standards you could have something like the development of war machines that kill millions.. Gas ovens to kill more people... Nuclear bombs and missiles to seal our doom.. so religion it seems to me should be there to set moral and ethical standards.

There is a field of medicine too where ethics are discussed as life and death matters are commonly dealt with. So I think there is a role for religion that provides us with a needed ethical and moral dimension.

Also I believe there can be an experimental approach to religion and spiritual discovery that has been developed by science.

So the two religion and science can compliment one another.

- Art

 

[Quahom1]

I think those are great questions...

Historically there seems to be a rift between science and religion with the two seemingly at war and in the West at least religion apparently losing ground at least in the recent past.

I don't think though that there need to be though a conflict between religion and science or technology. When technology has run amok without standards you could have something like the development of war machines that kill millions.. Gas ovens to kill more people... Nuclear bombs and missiles to seal our doom.. so religion it seems to me should be there to set moral and ethical standards.

There is a field of medicine too where ethics are discussed as life and death matters are commonly dealt with. So I think there is a role for religion that provides us with a needed ethical and moral dimension.

Also I believe there can be an experimental approach to religion and spiritual discovery that has been developed by science.

So the two religion and science can compliment one another.

- Art

Science without faith is lame, Faith without science is blind (i read that somewhere and find it revealing).

 

[dauer]

Q,

Science without faith is lame, Faith without science is blind (i read that somewhere and find it revealing).

I like that.


One thing I wanted to bring up earlier but held off on because of the dialogue between Dream and Nick, is the way religions seem to become very attached to older technologies at times, particularly those that require some craftsmanship. I tend to see technology as neither good or bad, as a tool that can be used for good or for evil depending on its application.

-- Dauer

 

[Tao_Equus]

Something that seems to be emerging here is a consensus that religion has some kind of monopoly on the heart aspect of the psyche. Balderdash! Religion rather is a mental abstraction that is as likely to produce dangerous minds as healthy ones. Science and technology I see again linked to its destructive abilities without any balance to illuminate the far more numerous ways it aids us in every day life. Thousands of lives a day are saved by technology. And historically it was the religious leadership in their constant wars that drove the technological innovations of destruction and today if anyone is likely to push the nuclear button it will be with some kind of self-granted religious authority. Almost every conflict in the world today is heavily justified with the moral conviction of religious faith.

You do not need to believe in any God to have a good heart, be caring compassionate and sensitive to other people and your environment. To believe in the prospect of an improving world and work toward it in practical ways. Religion imposes something upon what are natural tendencies in us, tries to hijack what it is to be human. Religion is an artifice of superfluity sustained by repetition, brainwashing and cultural cues that remain like some bad hangover from our primitive, superstitious beginnings.

tao

 

[dauer]

Tao,

You do not need to believe in any God to have a good heart, be caring compassionate and sensitive to other people and your environment.

This much I agree with.

-- Dauer

 

[Nick_A]

Something that seems to be emerging here is a consensus that religion has some kind of monopoly on the heart aspect of the psyche. Balderdash! Religion rather is a mental abstraction that is as likely to produce dangerous minds as healthy ones. Science and technology I see again linked to its destructive abilities without any balance to illuminate the far more numerous ways it aids us in every day life. Thousands of lives a day are saved by technology. And historically it was the religious leadership in their constant wars that drove the technological innovations of destruction and today if anyone is likely to push the nuclear button it will be with some kind of self-granted religious authority. Almost every conflict in the world today is heavily justified with the moral conviction of religious faith.

You do not need to believe in any God to have a good heart, be caring compassionate and sensitive to other people and your environment. To believe in the prospect of an improving world and work toward it in practical ways. Religion imposes something upon what are natural tendencies in us, tries to hijack what it is to be human. Religion is an artifice of superfluity sustained by repetition, brainwashing and cultural cues that remain like some bad hangover from our primitive, superstitious beginnings.

tao

Hi Tao

Something that seems to be emerging here is a consensus that religion has some kind of monopoly on the heart aspect of the psyche.

You seem to be lumping all of what we call religion together as the same in "quality." There is no discrimination between the transcendent and the secular, enlightenment and fantasy. Naturally then, secularized religions will produce the opposite of their intent and as you say, some "religious authority" is quite able to push the nuclear button in defense of God.

The trouble is we judge quality by subjective secular standards but objective religious quality is determined by what we ARE.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

When the essence of religion is interpreted by the lower parts of our psych, it creates all sorts of fantasy and some is even quite dangerous. The Secular Humanist or atheist mindset is often far more balanced.
However, when awakening the heart, it is necessary to open the supernatural part which requires the need to do so at the expense of normal societal attachments. Such an awakening allows science and technology to serve man rather than man sacrificing himself to science and technology.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." A lot of well meaning humanaism becomes its opposite simply because its heart is idealistic and doesn't appreciate the practical human condition that makes us simultaneously capable of both great caring and great atrocity

 

[Dream]

If you would just 'Let go and let G!d'. Relax your conscious mind, Tao! Then your subconscious mind (which cannot easily interpret true from false), will believe in and create a religious experience for you that is compatible with everyone around you! Why are you being so stubborn, Tao? Get on the bandwagon, and if at first you don't succeed then eat lots of entheogens. You shall see visions. By all means ignore the world around you, though it be all that you are designed to experience.

 

[Quahom1]

If you would just 'Let go and let G!d'. Relax your conscious mind, Tao! Then your subconscious mind (which cannot easily interpret true from false), will believe in and create a religious experience for you that is compatible with everyone around you! Why are you being so stubborn, Tao? Get on the bandwagon, and if at first you don't succeed then eat lots of entheogens. You shall see visions. By all means ignore the world around you, though it be all that you are designed to experience.

It's going to take a moment, when Tao and God are on the same wave length, and then, Tao will ponder it for quite a while, after. Frankly I don't blame him. I would too.

 

[Dream]

BBC NEWS | Technology | Rat-brain robot aids memory study