Techno-Salvation
by Benjamin ShenderOne of the principle religious beliefs of civilized cultures is the conception of “salvation.” The details vary widely, but the ultimate concept remains remarkably uniform. Humans are in some way innately flawed, and it is because of this flaw that people need to be “saved” from themselves. In Christianity this salvation comes from a faith in Christ. In Judaism it comes from following the commandments of Torah. In Buddhism it comes from achieving enlightenment. The means differ, but the goal of being “saved” remains the same.
This concept is inherent to civilization as a principle justification for its inadequacies. Crime, murder, mental illness, starvation, etc all become more rampant as a culture becomes increasingly civilized. Even in the United States, more than 22 percent of adults have a mental illness. This does not include children or adolescents. And this is despite the apparent wealth of the United States, and the American brag of being the “greatest country in the world.” Though it is important to note that this is not unusual for the world, globally speaking the only condition that causes a greater drain on resources then depression is a sum of all cardiovascular conditions. But, thanks to the concept of salvation, this can all be attributed to humanity being naturally flawed. Essentially the excuse is “none of this would exist if humans were not poorly designed.”
This belief is so intrinsic, that even atheists must have their own version. While the atheist version does not, and by definition cannot, include a deity or other divine revelation, it is still Salvationism. The atheist belief has the same purpose and function of the religious belief, and still calls for “saving” humanity. But the atheist belief is based on secular concepts. Atheists believe that saving humanity requires better education, more advanced technology, less proselytizing from religious sects (Christians tend to receive the brunt of this), and even fewer religious people in general. Ultimately this creates a code of salvation not dissimilar to most other forms of salvation.
1) Further the knowledge of Techno-Salvation
2) Spread scientific knowledge to the infidel
3) Defend the cause of further technological and scientific development
4) Bring up your children to follow Techno-Salvation
5) Technical fields of endeavor are the greatest calling
These codes are all based on the idea that the human mind itself is the key to overcoming man’s flaws. Which is not far removed from the idea that minding God’s laws is the key to overcoming man’s flaws. Or the idea that keeping God in your heart is the key to overcoming man’s flaws. The only difference being the specific means to salvation.
Yeah, but science is the TRUTH. That’s why it will succeed where religions have failed…
Comment by Raku — 24 October 2005 @ 2:55 PM
And Quinn has yet another view of salvation — we need to be saved from civilization. Jason’s “The Eschatology of the Left” covers this pretty well. So what does this mean? What conclusions can we draw from this salvation phenomenon? For me, the conclusion is that it is inevitable that humans see the world in a religious (theological) framework. It seems inescapable.
It’s just that this latest theology, atheism, (maybe more properly called scientism, or technologism) doesn’t want to acknowledge its status as theology. Oh well.
Comment by Devin — 24 October 2005 @ 3:13 PM
I’ve been trying to communicate this idea over at MetaFilter with, well, mixed results.
Anyway, not all myths are the same. This faith in technology is undoubtedly salvationistic, but primitivism is a different myth–it is apocalyptic. All myths, though, because it’s impossible for a human to think otherwise.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 24 October 2005 @ 3:21 PM
“Even in the United States, more than 22 percent of adults have a mental illness.”
That’s a somewhat loaded statement. The socialized definitions of mental illnesses can’t be separated from power structures that benefit - consciously or not - from certain definitions more than others.
This is one of those factoids that can be twisted to prove anyone’s point.
Comment by Mews — 24 October 2005 @ 4:15 PM
Even from that perspective, it indicates a sizable group of people who either cannot or will not meld into civilization.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 October 2005 @ 6:15 PM
I find it deeply interesting that so many people have bought into the idea that the Universe is the same for everyone, just experienced differently, and that there is a universal bedrock of absolute Truth.
Why should there be?
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 24 October 2005 @ 8:01 PM
Ok, now that I have some time, I’ll address this:
The very concept that science is the truth is non-falisfiable, which belays the very science the statement seeks to idealize. Science isn’t truth, science is a group of collected facts. The belief that science can solve any problem is faith-based. There is no evidence or logical exposition that can lead to the conclusion that science will solve a problem, unless you begin with the conclusion already in mind. Doing so is not scientific and is suprious logic at it’s most infectious.
Indeed, the very idea that science can succeed in a religous field, the idea that religons have failed, and expressing the presupposed divinity of science were some of the points I was trying to make.
What ultimate truth science has at its disposal that mellenia of philosophers and theologians have missed? Not scientific inquiry, mant of the most prominant of both groups were engineers, chemists, and astrologers. Not data, both used lots of data in their writings. Not logic, it was developed by philosophers before the scientific method. The idea that all points must be changable to new data and circumstance? Perhaps, but science is hardly unique in this. And even this point falls by the wayside amongst academic scientists who would just as soon discard an ugly fact in favor of their pretty theory. And there are always elements of science that are not questionable. These elements of scientific heresy abound. Any question of them leaves the questioner categorized as being as looney as those odd blasphamers: the fundies. Things like evolution, the morality of medical development, the origins of life, and the origins of the universe. Science is not perfect, it’s not meant to be. Granted, perfection is not required. But, there you have it: perfection is not required.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 24 October 2005 @ 11:36 PM
I think Roxy was being sarcastic, Ben.
Comment by Devin — 25 October 2005 @ 1:47 AM
I suspected as much, but didn’t want to assume. If she was serious it would have been quite rude.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 25 October 2005 @ 8:53 AM
A good book to read that is highly critical of science, technology, and this culture is Derrick Jensen’s Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control. I walked away from this book with a full understanding that if were going to survive on this planet it is absolutely essential for us to understand there exists other worldviews besides that of the scientific one.
Comment by Curt — 25 October 2005 @ 9:36 AM
I think Roxy was being sarcastic, Ben.
Well, yes. But actually, I was being serious in a way. This is an argument that I am often faced with when I talk to fundie atheist and evolutionist friends, and it is one of the more difficult things for me to explain my point of view on, so I was interested to see someone else’s take on it. Thanks for the explanation, Ben!
Comment by Raku — 25 October 2005 @ 1:12 PM
It’s interesting to note that, whether by design, fate, or coincidence, the mythological Devil is a physical representation of the two greatest hardships ever befallen mankind: domestication (horns, hooves and tail) and agriculture (trident/pitchfork).
Comment by Raku — 27 October 2005 @ 1:28 PM
Whoa.
That’s quite the observation.
Comment by Devin — 27 October 2005 @ 3:53 PM
And furthering Roxy’s pretense of being a fundie atheist/ skeptizealot, my response to Benjamin’s post would be something along the lines of:
STRAW MAN! STRAW MAN! POLLY WANT ATTENTION! POLLY WANT ATTENTION! {AWK! AWK!} SCIENCE IS GOD AND TECHNOLOGY WILL SAVE US! {AWK! AWK!}
Comment by Thomas Rondy — 9 September 2006 @ 3:37 AM