Open means open, and you can take advantage of opportunity to discuss, or not…
— C (@c4miller) January 29, 2017
JANUARY 29, 2017 AT 4:11 PM
I read your post twice and skimmed it several times, went out for some fresh air, then came back to it with a cup of tea, before committing to this comment. I don’t have an existing field of studies to draw upon to make more sense of it than I do. I’m not a scholar by trade, but I embarked on this MSc to learn, and I am interested in what you write because I can feel it scratching away at my brain, even if it’s beyond my initial attempts to unlock its meaning or access the background it comes from.
“I want to help them learn how to read and relate with technology theologically” That quote defines a problem which I could with time, get my head around, and likely end up with a better understanding, as I’m sure your students will too. This course must be boon for you in that regard?! I hope that you get to pursue your area of interest through the programme and in to the dissertation.
From reading Silver (2006 p.1-2) I get a sense of how, like Internet Studies, Technology and Theology could pass through the four stages of development, if it hasn’t already. I googled “christohumanism” and see there’s a raft of information about it already. Is this something you have studied/taught previously? What stage is it at already? I’m sure there is a lot to gain for other elements of AI and robotics to understand more about what makes us human, from every perspective. Religion is bound up in the formation of ethics, culture and more in the UK, and even those who follow no religion would be naive to suggest they are free from influence of a church.
I have two ministers (Church of Scotland) in my immediate family, though I’m not following any religion myself. I see technology in the Church as having similar questions around as it does in Higher Education at a practical level at least. Churches have websites, use powerpoint HD projectors; use social media; hold conferences, workshops and of course services. HEIs do those things too albeit with lectures rather than services. Technology both informs the way things are taught and what is taught, and as is required for the development of technology, it is informed by educational practice. Both strive to answer questions about our existence, and both seem to have serious questions to answer about how to remain relevant in the face of unbridled neoliberal advances for politics and economic practice in many “democratic” countries at least.
My brother-in-law is massively technology adept. He has created online communities around his work in the Church; he has used technology to change the shape of his services and that has had impact on his father’s practice (who is also CoS minister). In turn, the Church is looking at ways that it can do with technology and how it fits in a world with technology (http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/speak_out/science_and_technology).
But beyond that I look forward to reading more, least of all so I can enjoy some new areas of discussion beyond that of which I would get the chance to, outwith the occasions when I catch my family with a free moment to think on them.
(ref: Silver, D (2006) “Where is internet studies?” pp1-14 in Silver, David, Adrienne Massanari, and Steve Jones. Critical Cyberculture Studies, edited by David Silver, et al., NYU Press, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ed/detail.action?docID=865350.)”