see the attached

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 th e 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

Amer icans . 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 seri ous 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 th e 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 k nowledge .

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 educa tion . One could t herefore write that scientism is an all -

encompassing 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 al l 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

technologic al 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 d o 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 sci entific 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 b e

‘sacred. ’ For several very slante d 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 exa mination 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 v iewed 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 w hat 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 wh y 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 w ould 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 c hild 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 re ligious 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 illust rative 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.