Is Technology a New Religion?
[b]"Computers are an absolutely awesome creation. One would think the mere fact that humans could create such wonderful machines would be cause to celebrate the excellence of the human mind. But do we ever hear this? No, instead, the mere existence of computers is used to belittle the human mind. And we hear this all the time, but this shouldn't surprise us. Since the dawn of the Industrial Age, machines have always been used to deskill, disempower, oppress, and dehumanize people. Furthermore, while we are constantly being subjected to dehumanizing propaganda claiming that computers will soon surpass us in intelligence and that we are nothing but machines, techno-mystics such as Ray Kurzweil and Silas Beane are literally deifying computers: Kurzweil claims that computers have the power to confer eternal life on people like himself while Beane claims computers are capable of creating an entire universe while Anthony Levandowski, a Google software engineer, has founded a tax-exempt church based on the worship of computers and artificial intelligence.
"It is very important to bear in mind exactly what computers are. They are the result of a merger between electronics and a system of symbolic logic. In creating his system of symbolic logic Whitehead claimed it was never his intention to help people think or think more clearly, but rather to completely mechanize certain operations that used to require thought so that thinking would no longer be necessary. And that is exactly what computers do: they perform operations that used to require thought. But they don't think. They are no more capable of thought than are vacuum cleaners or refrigerators. But that is not exactly what we are led to believe, is it? Instead, we are indoctrinated or conditioned to regard ourselves as separate from nature and not at all similar to other animals but rather as more like gadgets found in our homes -- like computers for example."[/b] The Triumph of the Necrophiles: A Critique of the Mechanical World View, pg11-12, John Modrow, revised edition 2019
In a conversation I had the other day, someone raised the point that the reason traditional religions are dying is because mankind has replaced them with a new religion of technology. What do you think about this premise? Is technology mankind's new religion?
"It is very important to bear in mind exactly what computers are. They are the result of a merger between electronics and a system of symbolic logic. In creating his system of symbolic logic Whitehead claimed it was never his intention to help people think or think more clearly, but rather to completely mechanize certain operations that used to require thought so that thinking would no longer be necessary. And that is exactly what computers do: they perform operations that used to require thought. But they don't think. They are no more capable of thought than are vacuum cleaners or refrigerators. But that is not exactly what we are led to believe, is it? Instead, we are indoctrinated or conditioned to regard ourselves as separate from nature and not at all similar to other animals but rather as more like gadgets found in our homes -- like computers for example."[/b] The Triumph of the Necrophiles: A Critique of the Mechanical World View, pg11-12, John Modrow, revised edition 2019
In a conversation I had the other day, someone raised the point that the reason traditional religions are dying is because mankind has replaced them with a new religion of technology. What do you think about this premise? Is technology mankind's new religion?
Comments (78)
Weird tax avoidance "strategy" .. man created the computer and so is the true creator of whatever it "creates". Be like if I made a "spin art" machine and said it made me .. there's not even anything deep to ponder it's just inaccurate lol.
As far as AI goes it wouldn't be you in the simulation. Period. Even if it was programmed to interact on the basis of your memories and persona- you'd still be you- here. You'd know this as fact if you were kept alive. Which is why in such a scenario you probably wouldn't be. It'd be more of a show for other people than anything you yourself would ever experience.
Can computers think? Here's a cool video where they train a robot arm to be able to write the word "Hi" without ever actually teaching the robot arm how to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chukkEeGrLM
In the future it is not unreasonable that they will be able to think at a much higher level. As for when they will reach the "human" level of thought, that still may be quite a ways off. Also, I don't think everyone believes tools dehumanize people. Many people praise the wonders of humanity because of our tools as well. Tools often times make certain skill sets obsolete for jobs, which can be seen as hurting human kind. I see this as short sighted thinking however. We will always invent new jobs for people to do. And if not? God forbid we get robots to do things for us to the point we can use our time for our own pursuits instead of the drudgery of "making a living".
As for a new "religion", there will always be those who find causes they obsess over and "worship". It could be science, sports, philosophy, or some other passion in their life they believe gives them meaning, purpose, or fulfillment. I would say religion slowly loses steam in open and educated societies because people have alternatives. In ignorant societies, religion may be the only avenue they've heard towards fulfillment and the value of the self. It may be the first time they've heard about working towards something greater than yourself, your village, or your government.
I believe religion fulfills a human emotional need that provides a rationality the secular world often cannot. If the secular world can produce alternative rationalities that fulfill the human need that religion fills, then it presents an alternative that people can choose.
Science and the internet have definitely helped.
I don't see it happening this way. Christianity, for example, was not aware of itself as we see it today looking back over the epochs of history. But now we can call it a "world religion." What's that? A new category. Further, we can view it far more objectively now that our species has gained some distance from it. Surely it must be the same way with technology. I don't think of it in terms of a self-conscious religious movement, that would be quite absurd, I think of it in terms of subconscious commitments, here we derive the idea of religion from mankind's practice of technology, his operational use of the medium, how it causes him to act and how he acts toward it. Do people worship technology, for example? There is a great deal of time spent with technology, and people have a very high reverence for the objects of technology, far more than they have ever had for traditional religious objects.
What happens if the average person must go without their phone, without the internet, without television, even for the space of one week? What happens to their emotional life? Religion gave mankind a sense of safety and wonder, technology does the same thing, but I would argue that it does it far more effectively.
I see. If what we're trying to discover here is whether people's implicit use and regard towards technology trends to a religion, I don't think it quite hits the mark. First, we would need to define what a religion is. Feel free to add or amend to this, but I'll start that a simple definition of religion is a group of people who believe in something besides themselves has the knowledge and power to guide them towards a life with purpose. This could be a cult like figure, or a God for example.
When AI arrives in the future, there might very well be a religion because an AI would be an entity that could provide an "answer". Technology as it is right now might have hints of this depending on what specific technology is being used, but I think it still trends more towards a "tool".
A tool is an object that we use to accomplish a specific purpose. A pen, a book, and a word document are all tools we can use to communicate ideas with other people. But the pen, the book, nor the word document itself provide an answer to life. People who write on the word document may be someone a religion sprouts out of, but no one worships the mighty Microsoft Word to give us the answers to life.
Quoting JerseyFlight
They become bored. Technology has been a fantastic way to gain human connections, business, and entertainment. It is not the tools themselves that we are enamored with, it the tools ability to provide us access to these things that we crave that we appreciate. But at the end of the day, we don't look to the tool itself for answers to life's questions, but the people we connect with.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Did you have a symbol in mind yourself to discuss? If not, I suppose the closest we could get to symbols with technology off the top of my mind is the Apple symbol. I don't know about now, but at one time it meant a name brand of originality, creativity, and quality. But I'm not sure that's isolated to technology. Name brand imagery and symbolism is supposed to excite you to buy the product, not look to it for life's deeper answers on how to live.
Alright, I've added enough for now. Is my line of reasoning going where you expected, or did you want to go somewhere else with it?
I have purposely bypassed this approach. This leads to a dead end.
Quoting Philosophim
Same as religion, it provided a constant narrative of excitement, good and evil, spirits, heaven, hell, through which life was framed and carried along in a kind of daze. Remove these from the psyche and many people struggle to cope. Freud's explanation is still the best one on religion, Becker expanded it.
Quoting Philosophim
No, I am not suggesting that technology is religious in the sense of literal symbols. I am literally talking about the gadgets themselves, this is why I said they are more like 'entities.' But we have to analyze them from the basis of a symbolic structure, I believe they fall into this category. And even if they don't, it would still be utterly fascinating to analyze them from this basis.
The hardest part here is the ability to think outside the context of technology and to analyze it from a sociological perspective. One must pretend they are looking back on the age of technology to observe 1) what it did to man and 2) how man embraced it.
Friend, like I have already said, your contribution to this Forum is totally original. Technology and sexuality is another interesting topic. I think it could be a separate thread.
Ok
I would argue we most certainly do, but here "worship" has changed from the older, organized, religious ritual, to one that we would not consciously call "worship." It has to do with man's reverence and love for the object. There are people, if you scratch their (metal object) car they will kill you.
Without defining what a religion is, I'm not sure we can come to any meaningful discussion comparing it to technology. Each of us would just use our own subjective interpretations at that point, and we would each be in our own opinionated world. If that is the type of topic you would like this to be, I will bow out and let others continue.
Yes but we have to connect the computer symbols with the screen technology. They go hand in hand. People are drawn to TV and when you add symbols you do end up with a kind of worship. I don't know near enough about symbolic logic and the like to say anything more. There must be guys and gals out there who can though
Certain human acts are no more than a form of worship. I won't go into detail, but when something or someone is the sole of your reality, that is worship
Religion is already operating and functioning in the world and has been for thousands of years. The formal definition is not needed. My approach to this question is to view it through the operational lens. The last thing I said is the most important: The hardest part here is the ability to think outside the context of technology and to analyze it from a sociological perspective. One must pretend they are looking back on the age of technology to observe 1) what it did to man and 2) how man embraced it.
What I have learned, having had many exchanges, is that the act of formally defining things is often the mark of a novice dialectician. (Imagine a young person reading Plato for the first time and then just asking for a definition of every word, this is insecure). I have learned that it's often a good way not to get anywhere in the domain of knowledge. My goal is to cover ground as swiftly as possible. I'm not saying this should never be done, sometimes it's forced by the context.
This is true, and I think, a good point. Literal symbolism is hyperized by technology, but instead of giving allegiance to a solitary symbolic structure, in technology the gadget gives one a kind of mastery or liberalism over symbolic structures in general. This would make technology a vastly superior religion to any religion that came before it.
I think 180 had the more appropriate word, idolatry. I guess you might be wanting to discuss whether the worship of idols qualifies as a religion? Or would you dispute that the worship of technology qualifies as idolatry? If the latter, consider that technology is artificial.
I think Jerseyflight would agree with me that all worship is idolatry because nothing is the summation of all good. He can correct me if I'm wrong
What does the summation of all good have to do with idolatry?
Not this.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Not this as well.
What I'm getting at is man's embrace of technology, not in the sense that we formally consider it religion, this would not even occur to us. I'm referring to technology as a religion through a kind of historical, sociological analysis, only we are trying to preempt the history in our analysis. What makes it a religion? The answer is nothing conscious on our part, it is our practical embrace and use of technology, the role it has come to play in our lives.
Well, I never thought about this before. But I think my position would come something close to this. Can worship ever be a good thing? (Interesting question). Is worship the kind of thing that always implies an unconscious negativity? I'm not sure. Would the worship of thought be problematic? Is there anything we could worship that would increase our quality as humans?
I don't see what you're getting at. If something becomes an indispensable part of a person's life, say a car, or a phone, why would you call that thing a religion, unless the person was worshipping it as an idol?
As the OP details, it is an official religion in America
For me the qualifier here is not idol worship, but the irrational role it comes to dominate in one's life. The above quote by Modrow is interesting because he points this out in a swift way: "Computers are an absolutely awesome creation. One would think the mere fact that humans could create such wonderful machines would be cause to celebrate the excellence of the human mind. But do we ever hear this? No, instead, the mere existence of computers is used to belittle the human mind."
When I speak of religion it's very important to keep in mind that it's from a sociological analysis. This perspective begins from the premise that religions are culturally formed belief systems. Maybe is correct and we have no choice but begin with a formal definition, however, in order to cover ground we must not get stuck here. I do think this topic is of value because our culture is immersed in technology. Further, religious people are more attached to technology than they are their own religions. This is most fascinating. Technology from the sociological perspective is not just technology, it has a cultural and psychological element to it.
I maybe completely off the mark on this one but I get the distinct feeling that parents love it when their kids are smart and simply go bonkers when they're smarter.
Yes, your comment is an equivocation, though an innocent one. :smile:
Equivocation? How so? Was God, despite how things turned out between him and Adam and Eve, not pleased with his creation? Again, I could be mistaken about this but don't inventors draw a great deal of satisfaction from their inventions?
The topic here is the question, 'Is Technology a New Religion,' you are talking about people deriving pleasure or satisfaction from religion.
Technology has some religious aspects on it, such as rituals, as checking your mail every morning. that may be any function, or action. Myths are also big part of technology, such as "technology will destroy the world", or any conspiracy theories related to technology, and it causes. Internet works like totem, where people gather around, and spent time together. Also technology fills the conception of holy, and profane, for many technology gives amazing feelings, when one example gets newest brand of latest products.
Its very obvious to define "technology" as religion, when every aspect fits the major "theories" of religion.
From this perspective, we can say God is a human creation, just like technology is a human creation. But I think what makes something a religion is the structure of the belief system, and I don't see that similarity between the structure of the belief systems relating to God, and the structure of the belief systems relating to technology. We sort of take technology for granted instead of being in awe of it, as you describe, and religions do not teach us to take God for granted, that's what faith is concerned with, things we cannot take for granted.. So what I see in the human relationship with technology is a lack of religion.
You are incorrect. Logical thinking requires solid definitions. It is often the novice who needs to be coached into formally defining their terms. Logic is deductive thinking, and requires the elimination of as much inductive influence as possible. Ill defined terms are inductive thinking, and lead to muddled arguments. They are usually arguments to defend emotional thinking.
That being said, it is not novice to not want to define your terms if you are merely asking for some inductive fun thinking. But if you've been telling yourself people who are trying to have a logical conversation with you that they are a novice for wanting to define their terms? That is either novice thinking, or a lame excuse when you are not clever or capable enough to answer their request JerseyFlight.
Wrong, I am incompetent at using formal logic and therefore it is useless, I refuse to see it any other way.
Hi Judaka, I stated the unwillingness to define one's definitions is the mark of a novice, or those who cannot arise to the occasion. There is nothing wrong with this at all. That doesn't really counter my point.
But I do want to clarify, it does not require formal logic. It is merely taking the time to clarify what people mean when they mention a word. A common problem among even intermediate thinkers is not clarifying their positions, leaving certain things implicit in the argument that they expect the other person to know. This is not necessarily malicious, but can lead to unintentional straw man arguments, which basically means talking past one another.
I'll give a little formal logic to show what I mean, but don't worry, its nothing crazy.
Lets say you use a term like religion that we'll call, "A".
Now when I mean religion, it means as a base that it is an organized structure in which one or more people look to an authority figure for guidance in how to live their life.
That entire definition of "authority figure yada yada..." can equal "B".
So when I speak about religion, you know that A = B.
But someone might have a different definition of religion. Lets say another poster believed that religion meant, "One or more people who have a cultural awe of some thing". We can call this, C. In their mind, A = C.
Now if these two people talk but do not clarify what each means by "A" (religion), then they will each be implicitly talking about something different. I would be talking implicitly about B, and the other person would be talking implicitly about C even though we are both using the same word, A.
If these implicit differences never come up, both people will likely be confused and angry at the other person's reasoning. If I'm talking about B, it may not apply to C. If they're talking about C, it might not apply to B.
While I stated that intermediates sometimes neglect this, people new to philosophy struggle with expressing the implicit definitions tied to their statement. Its like an ice berg. Often times general language will be used by a novice with the expectation that the listener can see under the water, and observe the rest of the ice berg. Either that or people will intentionally use obtuse or complex language in the hopes that they will sound smarter than they are, and attempt to avoid the need for clarity. More experienced debaters and philosophers, who are honestly trying to get to the truth of the matter, understand that the rest of the ice berg needs to be revealed, and try to tighten and clarify their language.
Again, there is nothing wrong with being a novice, and I am not claiming you need to study formal logic. But if you want to improve your arguments and discussions, a solid fundamental you can work on is to work on communicating the lower half of your iceberg in your argument. Once you've gained some experience here, also try to be generous with the person you are discussing with in too. Try to look for their lower half of the iceberg, and see if you can get them to voice the implicit arguments they may not realize they are doing as well.
I've lost all faith in sarcasm over the internet.
Ha ha! Its hard to know what is serious, and what is not without tone. I've made the mistake of not taking people seriously before, and accidently offended them. Oh well, I would rather err on the side of me taking something too seriously instead of not enough. =P
I think one of the main things for me is its status of reverence in the lives of individuals and cultures.
While technology is free of a formalized, dogmatic structure humans do have beliefs regarding its value, but like I mentioned above, I think what warrants it to the category of a kind of modern religion is man's reverence for it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think this is how an archaic religion would view the question, that is, that the new religion does not qualify as being a religion because it's lacking the attributes of the previous religion.
Yes, it does require some definitions, but you fail to grasp my point. What you are talking about is the process of novice dialectics. This is proven quite easily, when two knowledgeable philosophers come together to discourse they do not define every term, because they are not coming to the conversation without any prior understanding. Further, if you reason this way you will not get very far in knowledge. I can easily play what I call, 'the narrowing game,' but I try not to do it because I am trying to get somewhere in the conversation, I am not merely trying to win. You are, in fact, already practicing what I say, unless I'm mistaken and you define every conjunction? Of course you don't and neither does the other person because you have a basic understanding of these symbols. It's the same way with more advanced dialectics, this act of presupposing, of shared meaning, is how knowledge unfolds through dialectic.
I usually do not discourse with novice dialecticians. I don't have time for it. They would be better served by seeking out someone like yourself. As I already said: 'I'm not saying this should never be done, sometimes it's forced by the context.'
But surely one can be a novice dialectic when it comes to one particular subject and a well versed one when it comes to another. No?
If a philosopher of mind and a philosopher of religion meet to have a discussion, would not one of them require some definitions to be able to continue discourse?
And here im talking about the generally accepted definitions of things but often others have their own definitions and it becomes very confusing if someone doesnt ask for a concrete description.
Or am I completely of the mark here?
Yes. We are all in this predicament no matter how intelligent or well read we might be, the world of knowledge has surpassed the ability of the individual mind.
Quoting DoppyTheElv
Yes. But this begs that question, why would I attempt to have a conversation on the philosophy of mind (with a person who is learned in this area) without any prior knowledge?
What I said is quite accurate friend... even now you do not need a definition for every word I use, and what does this allow us to do? It allows us to communicate at a deeper level.
I didnt mean it as an argument my apologies. I simply wanted to get a clearer picture of what you were saying. I agree with your stance. Thanks for the answer!
It takes time to learn this about dialectics, but it also takes time to be able to put this into practice because one has to gain some knowledge in order to be able to discourse with knowledge. It's understandable that this approach would be contested, it's certainly counter-intuitive to rationality. I can't tell you exactly when I realized this in discourse, but I remember realizing that I should just try to reply to a response without going into the question of definition, I thought I had a basic idea of what the other person was saying, the surprise is that the discourse then begins to move. However, like I already mentioned, there are times when this is not possible. People are dishonest (as well as subconscious) and they try to smuggle in premises, this cannot be allowed, especially if much is at stake, if we are talking about Christian morality, for example. Christians are notorious for asking loaded questions, which means one cannot have advanced dialectical discourses with them, one seldom makes it past the point of arguments over definition. Demanding a definition for every term is the mark of a novice dialectician.
Strange you say this, because people are only turning to organized religion in a superficial sense. Are you really suggesting that people will choose the comfort of the ideal of God over Netflix? Come on son, that world is dying. Further, religion does not answer the questions you posed, it merely pretends to answer them.
Some people are superficial. Some people also get very deep into religion.
Why do you think it's either/or? Religious people watch Netflix. It doesn't make them any less religious.
The percent of people who identify atheist/agnostic has remained pretty flat over the years: 2% were atheists in 2009. 4% in 2019. If religion is dying, it's a slow death.
https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/pf_10-17-19_rdd-update-new3/
Sure, but science is incapable of answering the questions I brought up. It doesn't even pretend to. Into that vacuum steps religion. I don't see that changing, no matter what we invent.
The true nature of reality is that we are not supposed to be here
As usual, an interesting, original comment. Friend, I hope you just keep on being you.
The universe is certainly hostile to the life that we are, on such an overabundant level that it's hard to see how anyone could argue that this universe was made for the kind of life that we are. Most of this planet is not even habitable for our species.
Thanks again. Society is obsessed with photos and mirrors. There is no proof these have any relationship to reality if they differ even slightly from what we see with our eyeballs in the flesh. We are primarily what others are see when they look at us
Things that fall under the heading of technology, at least photos. Interesting, technology allows us to worship ourselves, Christianity did the same, it just did it through proxy, that is, 'mankind is so great that God made everything for him, even killed himself for this golden species.' Tremendous egoism and narcissism disguised as humility.
Maybe this is the real culprit behind religion, how well it allows us to validate our own importance? If this is the case, no religion has even come close to technology in this sense.
Jersey, I have a master's in philosophy. You have no idea what you're talking about. Feel free to show other wise. What are your credentials? Do you have a source that backs your claim?
See my reply to Judaka to understand why defining terms in discussion is a fundamental of logical discourse.
Quoting JerseyFlight
No, that's not what I stated, and you know this. I asked you to clarify the a key word in your topic so I could better understand the context you were speaking in. You retreated.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Yes, like when a person asks you, "So when your topic is religion, what do you mean by religion?" you clarify. Its called having a conversation.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Jersey, man, you might want to examine yourself first. Your "proof" of two philosophers conversing is nothing solid. You retreat from an incredibly basic request to clarify the term you were using and attack my character instead of attacking the argument. These are all novice moves bud.
Further, I have a masters degree with a focus on epistemology. Do you see me going around with my nose in the air thinking that "I'm better than all of these novices"? No. That's not what a professional does. When you gain skills and knowledge, you do not suddenly become a person in the clouds. That's egocentric, and irresponsible. You're still a human like everyone else, you just happen to know a few more things. That knowledge is to be spread, shared, and engaged with by others, not hoarded like some treasure of personal superiority.
You are not a dense person, so I leaning on the assumption you are using this as an excuse to avoid conversation when it becomes difficult for you. That is being an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite. You'll be a polemicist and yell at people all day, but when someone asks you to rise to clarify your point, you retreat. Didn't you say thought thrived on conflict? Don't you constantly lament that philosopher's are not willing to engage you on points you find important? Yet here you are retreating with a poor excuse when you have all of that in front of you.
Although I'm not referring to religion per se, the question is about whether technology is a religion.
Retreat I did not, what I did was explain why I am not interested in this approach and provide an argument. Your credentials cannot save you from an argument. You are already doing the exact thing I am talking about -- that's why we are not defining every word here. This allows us to actually have a conversation.
Quoting Philosophim
When did I say I was better? I just don't have time for it. Further, I would clarify that teaching and philosophizing are different activities. I weigh all questions equally, whether they come from scholars or beggars, on the basis of their value.
Quoting Philosophim
I couldn't agree with you more passionately, friend, I'm not the one you need to rebuke here. These lines need to be directed at American philosophy and academia in general, most specifically analytical philosophy. A large portion of my mental powers are spent trying to figure out how to do the very thing you are talking about.
Quoting Philosophim
Extracting a formal definition for religion is not difficult. Maybe try taking my own explication here (time/value) as oppose to divining my motives.
Quoting Philosophim
Yell? That is not polemics. Further, one cannot yell with words, one can emphasize, but one cannot yell.
Quoting Philosophim
I always qualify this because I am not merely stating an emotive platitude. Talking to an ignorant person in a specific way can detract both from intelligence and quality. Not every instance of negation is an instance of quality negation. Take Christianity for example, it is quite a large waste of life and resources to spend one's time refuting apologetic arguments. One is decreased by engaging the sophistry of creationism for example.
This is what I can tell you. I am not interested in debating the formal definition of religion. The real question is how far a philosopher's method can take him in the direction of knowledge. To do this effectively one must learn how to discriminate on the basis of intelligence, to speak in Nietzsche's terms, one must learn how to pass by.
However, if you simply must have it, if you cannot understand what I am here saying, then I will provide a formal definition to fulfill your request. (Notice that I have already been discussing this topic with other people, though we did not begin with a formal definition, some progress has already been made between us.)
Only that, "if you don't see no matter what," then I don't see the point of discoursing with you. You have already made up your mind.
Sorry, I can't help you here MadFool.
This is unclear.
I like to ask Christians, 'is it possible that what the Bible says could be false?' They usually say no, which proves they are dogmatists, have invincible psychological conviction. One cannot reason with this, one can only refute it.
Are you assuming I'm a Christian? I'm not.
That was not my point. My point was your dogmatism.
It is good to see more and more people turning against this type of pseudophilosophy. Well said @Philosophim!
If what you say is correct I should not be able to discourse on this topic with anyone until a formal definition has been established, but that is not what has transpired here. When two people learned in religion come together they can indeed ask this question and proceed forward with it. Nevertheless I will provide a formal definition:
"Religion: a specific form of social consciousness whose characteristic feature is a fantastic reflection in people's minds of external forces dominating over them, a reflection in which earthly forces assume unearthly forms. Marxism/Leninism considers R. a historically transient phenomenon of social consciousness and shows the main factors that determine its existence at different stages of society's development. The appearance of R. in primitive society was conditioned by man's impotence in face of the forces of nature because of the low level of the productive forces. The existence of R. in antagonistic class societies may be traced to class oppression, unfair social relations, the poverty and rightless status of the masses, which breed despair and a sense of hopelessness thus turning people's hopes to supernatural forces. By giving people false bearings and placing the solution of the vital problems of being in the other world, R. strengthens and perpetuates man's dependence on external forces and dooms him to passiveness, holding down his creative potential. In the society of antagonistic
classes it diverts working people from active participation in the struggle for changing the world and impedes the formation of their class consciousness. Marx called R. "opium for the people". A scientific analysis of R. rests on the premise that it is a complex social phenomenon, a system of specific ideas,
feelings and religious rites, and in a class society also of institutions that bring together professional clergymen. The above aspects are directly related to, and change with the social relations. This is distinctly seen in the present conditions when R. is being modernised under the influence of social, scientific and technological progress which has led to a crisis of R. The essence of R., however, remains unchanged and its disappearance, as predetermined by the course of social development,
is inevitable..."
This part may be somewhat consistent with "technology".
Quoting JerseyFlight
This I believe is not consistent with "technology".
And the point of inconsistency begins in the other part, with the phrase "holding down its creative potential". Technology, under a scientific analysis, is a creative potential, so if religion imposes restrictions on creativity, then it is fundamentally opposed to technology which acts to circumvent those restrictions.
The specifics of the inconsistency, are that the creativity which is supported by technology promotes a divisive power within the society. Through providing a multitude of various choices, technology promotes division within society, as indicated by the numerous different branches of science and engineering. On the other hand, religion promotes unity "a system", unified by bringing together professionals, as you describe.
You might see that the conditions described in the first quote above, the hopelessness and despair, are created by technology in its divisive capacity of creating haves and have nots. Religion proposes "supernatural forces", as the true source of equity amongst people. Whether this is a false bearing or not is debatable.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Religion might disappear if someone could propose a principle of equity which is not dependent on the super natural. Until then, the divisiveness created by technology will continue to fester and the need for religion will only grow..
Yes, you are saying you are better, because that person is beneath your time. That's what thinking you are better than other people who reply to you means. Of course, you seem to have the time to give a lengthy reply after I called you out on it. Your claim to carefully measuring posts that are worth replying to doesn't hold water in my case. Let me remind you of the post that you didn't need to reply to, but did anyway.
Quoting Philosophim
If you are carefully measuring your time/value here, why bother replying to a post that is politely telling you if you did not wish to define your terms, I couldn't see being a contributor to the conversation. I'm indicating I'm leaving, but to please continue on. I did not insult your thread, or your argument, and I thought the conversation had gone nicely.
There is no time/value in leaving a snide comment about me being a "novice".
Lets also put your approach on another foot and see if it holds water.
Lets say you enter a Christian thread and ask them to define God after you're not sure what they mean by God. They tell you,
Quoting JerseyFlight
Deciding to leave because you see you can't discuss with his approach, you say as such, and take your leave. They then reply:
Quoting JerseyFlight
Do you think, "Oh, that person must be so wise and experienced in discussing! I guess I have a lot to learn by asking him to clarify what he meant by God! They aren't being snide, its just a time/value evaluation obviously!"
Or do you think that the person realized they couldn't or didn't want to answer a question because they didn't like where it might go? And because they were insecure about it, they decided to throw a parting shot as you left? Come now Jersey, we know which one you would think.
If mine or your own words still don't convince you, notice others are asking you to clarify what in the world you mean by "religion" as well? Its not a bunch of "novices" asking you to waste your time Jersey. Its people asking a basic question because the topic doesn't make any sense without it. If you want to make your posts take less of your time defending, work on answering questions clearly that ask clarification for on what you're actually trying to say. You'll get far less blow back on what you're defending, and maybe you'll find clarity in the discussion that you didn't realize you were missing.
What do you mean by measuring?
Quoting Philosophim
What do you mean by indicating?
Quoting Philosophim
What do you mean by insecure?
Quoting Philosophim
What do you mean by novices?
One cannot get very far in this kind of exchange. Further, this is not the kind of exchange we are having, we are having the kind of exchange I referenced, where meanings are assumed so that conclusions can be comprehended.
A formal definition has been provided so you are free to proceed in terms of your method, it doesn't mean I will be joining you, but have it at friend.
Your objections here are nothing more than a personal complaint, you are free to it, but I am not interested in it. The topic of the thread: is technology a new religion?
Quoting Philosophim
I wasn't aware that a masters degree gives one the ability to read minds?
Best of luck to you. :smile:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is interesting... thinking in terms of an elite assemblage of people that technology casts into positions of status and power. Institutions are also assembled around and from technology, just like churches are assembled from Christianity.
I don't agree with your analogy. The people whom technology casts into positions of status and power are entrepreneurs, inventors, while the people that the Church gives power to are those who adhere to the structure of the religion. So we have two very distinct sources of power here. in one case the power is derived from being creative and original, while in the other the power is derived from adherence to the existing religious structure.
I'm not sure the reason of why people end up in these positions, necessarily negates the notion of these positions occupying a similar place in culture? I should mention, I am not dogmatic about any of this, my approach here is just a free flow of speculation. I find it to be an interesting question. Technology does hold a privileged position in culture, people devote themselves to it, we order our lives around it, but it is, like religion, just a thing we create, though it is more than idealism in this sense. What I think makes this topic important is the authority that technology has in culture; what also makes it important is what humans are willing to do for it, how they are prepared to submit to it.
But dishonest people will also shy away from clarifying their position when they aren't sure themselves, or they think it will open them up to countering what they want to believe.
I only asked clarification on what you meant by religion when it was obvious you and I had two very different underlying meanings. This is very simple Jersey. You chose the path of a dishonest dialectician.
Quoting JerseyFlight
Nope, but I also have a bachelor's of science. It allows me to identify BS. (Lame joke, we don't have voice tone here unfortunately) One technique you learn to quickly identify is an inconsistent ideology or stance. A dishonest dialectician will often try to defend their reasoning at any cost, and this is a typical pattern they fall into. I only point it out so you will be honest in the future. I don't begrudge your attempt to defend yourself, but if you feel you have to fall to such tactics, it is very ok to just say, "I need to think on it".
Quoting JerseyFlight
And you as well. I hope our future posts on topics fair better. Less troll, more droll eh?
Having a conversation about me? I already provided a formal definition, so I don't know what you're going on about here. I don't have a problem with formal definitions, these are the easiest thing in the world to provide. I have multiple dictionaries and philosophical, religious dictionaries in my home. I just don't find your approach to be very fruitful. Further, I agreed with you from the very beginning: "...I'm not saying this should never be done, sometimes it's forced by the context."