A response to Ken Funk.
The point is that "technology," at least in these cases, can be viewed essentially as an unqualified good, which we not only accept gratefully but perhaps ponder why these gifts were so delayed in the long history of humans. As in all things, we accept the unavoidable risks and work to reduce them--a long-term task for many engineers and scientists.
Technology, per se, can be good with no need to look for associated faults of negligible significance. (In all cases, the goal of perfect reliability is not attainable.) As such, I believe many Christians involved in the development of "technology" can validly present a positive view of technology to the ASA. That was the guiding thought in my role in creating the name "Christian Engineers and Scientists in Technology" (CEST)--a current ASA affiliation.
I have had a life-long career in developing microwave power technology and microwave safety standards. Throughout, I thank God daily for the insights that reflect imperfectly his understanding of microwave physics and have never felt guilty before God for my career. If I refer to the "Guide to Prudent Technological Practice" (Table 1 in Funk's paper), I meet all his criteria for positive assessment except those (especially #8) that imply absence of competition (industrial or academic) and valid proprietary intellectual property. This ethical dilemma is akin to debating whether the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox is "God's team." We can rationalize this problem and still end up optimistic pro-technology Christians.
John M. Osepchuk
Full Spectrum Consulting
248 Deacon Haynes Road
Concord, MA 01742
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Osepchuk, John M.|
|Publication:||Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith|
|Article Type:||Letter to the editor|
|Date:||Mar 1, 2008|
|Previous Article:||Prudence and the redeeming of technology: a response to Ken Funk.|
|Next Article:||Residual radiocarbon in an old-earth scenario.|