Is Technology Hazardous to Human Values?
Please take the time to review the many links attached to this lesson. It provides further explanations
and illustrations to the concepts addressed in this lesson. The links will also be useful in helping you to
complete the assignment found at the end of the lesson.
There are two main views regarding the compatibility that exists between religion, science, and
technology. The first view is that religion, science, and technology should not be viewed as being
incompatible. In this view, one can find scientists or technologists who believe that they have found
religion in science. The other view is that religion is not compatible with science or technology. In the
views of some, science had forever expunged the notion of a God and that science would eventually
explain everything. This debate has been going on for centuries. However, the debate tended to
subside in the early 1970s. At this time, science came to win the minds and emotions of many educated
Americans. Further, advances in technology promoted the idea that these advances led to progress and
economic prosperity. This view further helped to solidify science and technology in the minds of most
Americans.
Rifkin was concerned with the advancement of science and technology and how contemporary views
were no longer in harmony with nature or religion. Rifkin caused a great deal of media attention to the
issues surrounding genetic engineering and if it was appropriate to patent humans. While this
technology was still beyond the capability of science, it did create wonderful reading in the popular
press. Thomas Hughes provides a historical perspective of the relationship between technology and
religion: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/359336.html
The issues surrounding the patenting of life deserves discussion, and someone else would have raised
the issue had not Rifkin done so in 1995. While this issue was debated on nightly news and within
newspapers, the issue raised by Rifkin did not develop into a serious follow-up response among most
religious groups. Even the legislative bodies in the United States gave no indication that they would take
up the issue in any serious manner.
The question then should be raised, had science and technology become so important that they had
won an easy victory? Additionally, had science and technology developed into a cultural phenomenon
where religion was no longer seen as necessary or important in shaping our human values? These
questions have implications for our perceptions of both science and technology. The question that I
hope each person would ask is: "Should science and technology be the greatest forms of human
progress?"
This notion that science and technology contains a set of shared values among those that place faith in
their use means that these values provide a path to follow in the living of a life. Central to this idea is
that science and technology have become the most reliable sources of knowledge about the nature of
things, and technology is the most promising way to improve human life. In this set of views, either the
church or the state cannot question science inquiry, and science can be used to revisit all knowledge.
Thus, for some people, religion is tolerated in the name of faith, and it does not have the same forms of
credibility as those provided by science. Religion should therefore be kept out of public discourse,
public institutions, and public education. One could therefore write that scientism is an allencompassing method of knowing. It is culturally embodied and forms a way of living and knowing.
Yet this view of scientism does have problems. Science has not allowed humans to solve all of their
problems. Nor does science and technology have the future capacity to do so; some solutions are more
than a matter of time or the acquisition of more knowledge. This should be evident by the fact that
science and technology have not provided for all of human wants or desires without some level of social
or environmental consequences. Further, simply having a faith in science holds no reason in the
principle that better science and new knowledge cannot undo these negative consequences of
technological development.
Perhaps society needs something more than good science and technology to prosper. Surely, there
must be some value to religion for a society. The United States Congress would never eliminate funding
for the National Endowments for the Humanities and the Arts than for the National Science Foundation
or the National Institutes of Health. While some in the ‘Religious Right’ would love to see such an event
take place, state representatives know it would be politically harmful for them to do so because of the
separation of church and state. Jensen (2006) in an article entitled Technology and Religion illustrated
some interesting perspectives with regard to religion and technological development:
http://dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Jensen1217.htm
This then leads us to the crux of this presentation; does science and technology need to be subjected to
moral, social, and intellectual judgment? Should science and technology be called upon to justify how
they are being used and implemented within society? For views of what some individuals have written
on a discussion board visit this site: http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=67
If one believes that science and technology no longer are response to the needs of society, then perhaps
these methods of inquiry and application need to have a counterweight to balance how they are used in
society. The absence of a counterweight to the ideology of science and technology may have some
negative side effects for society. For without this counterweight, it may lead to the impression that
there are no alternatives to judge science and technology.
In the alternative view, many individuals (including scientists and technologists) place faith in secular
philosophies that give little support of value in a Supreme Being. In 1859, Charles Darwin’s publication
of Origin of Species had a profound impact on society. The Darwinian Theory is a scientific theory. The
creationists, who opposed it, saw the theory as a dangerous idea. This was because it called into
question our fundamental beliefs about the creation of life. If Darwin was correct, nothing could be
‘sacred.’ For several very slanted views against evolution, please visit the following sites:
http://www.rae.org/revevchp.html
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/
http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/locke.html
The following three websites provide a scientific examination of Charles Darwin and his theory of
evolution:
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evotheory.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/
To illustrate another example, in 1543, Copernicus proposed that the Earth was not the center of the
universe, and the Earth revolved around the Sun. This idea took over a century to take hold in society,
despite the evidence of science. The religious reformer Philipp Melanchthon suggested that some
Christian prince should suppress Copernicus, whom he viewed as a lunatic.
While the polls seem to fluctuate between 35-50 percent, an even large percentage of people in the
United States believe that ‘creation science’ or ‘intelligent design’ should be taught in school alongside
evolution. For a poll of what Americans believe should be taught in schools visit:
http://www.pewforum.org (Use search terms of creation science or intelligent design to find these
articles). For an in-depth examination that illustrates why intelligent design should not be taught in
schools, please visit: http://skepdic.com/intelligentdesign.html
Some even believe that a policy should be written into school districts where parents would be able to
`opt out’ of materials they did not want their children to be taught. If this was to take place, should we
teach evolution? Should arithmetic be taught? What about psychology? Scientists and technologist
would argue that misinforming a child is a terrible offense that undermines what we know, what we do,
and our current worldview. An author's view that Genesis is true, and evolution could never have
occurred can be found here:
http://www.byfaith.co.uk/pauldesign2.htm
Geoff Chapman also offers readings illustrating that Genesis was true:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i1/horse.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/orchids.asp
Assignment: Please develop a four to six page paper to answer the question should the development of
technology be influenced by religious and social values. In this paper, you may illustrate that both
should influence it, or it should be influenced only by religious views, or it should be influenced only by
scientific facts. In whatever perspective you take, you must provide illustrative examples of why you
have taken this position. Please use resources found in texts, on the web, etc. Please also provide your
sources in APA format.
Videos Related to Creationism vs Evolution
Creationism vs Evolution: This video illustrates a poll of the United States citizens regarding our beliefs
about creationism and evolution.
Evolution vs Creationism: Listen to the Scientists: This video presents the views of scientists regarding
evolution and the role of creationism (i.e., intelligent design) in public schools.
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (creationism vs evolution): This video illustrates the public
debates associated with intelligent design in Dover, Pennsylvania.
Debate, The Genesis Flood – Creation vs Evolution – Ken T. Hovind vs Till: This video is a debate
between a creationist and an atheist.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment