ENGL 4275/WRDS 4011: “Rhetoric of Technology” » February 6th: The Religion of Technology (Part 1 of 3)

February 6th: The Religion of Technology (Part 1 of 3)

Plan for the Day

All-Too-Common Arguments…

Conniff, Richard. “In the Name of the Law: How to Win Arguments without Really Trying.” Smithsonian, vol. 38, no. 7, Oct. 2007, p. 128.

I have this on Canvas under February 6th. It’s not required reading, but it’s a one-page article that discusses argumentum ad hitlerum. This is a reading I assign in other classes, but, because it’s Presidential Election season and social media is loaded with this fallacy, I have to mention it. Where (out there in the world) do you read/see/hear arguments that compare one group or another to NAZIs?

  • “Godwin’s Law…holds that the longer an argument drags on, the likelier someone will stoop to a Hitler or Nazi analogy” (emphasis mine, para. 2)
  • Discussions of genocide…why don’t speakers go back further and point to the genocide of indigenous cultures in the Americas?
  • Prepackaged, ready-made arguments: “These little laws [e.g., Godwin’s Law] allow us to sound intelligent without having to do any homework” (para. 3)
  • What other prepackaged arguments do you hear?

David Noble’s The Religion of Technology (pp. 1-87)

I’d like to point out an often repeated (by me) quotation from a former professor of mine told our class that people hate being told that their culture is based on societal constructions and has no connection to absolute truth (paraphrased from memory):

  • “cultural pride deals in absolute value or worth—they don’t want to hear it’s contextual” (Thomas Van, 9/16/2003).

Being the cultural, social creatures that we are, much of our world (our knowledge and reality) is shaped by our experiences. I know some don’t like to hear this, but we are rarely able to free ourselves from the cultures into which we’re born. Even the choices we think we have are simply choices on a cultural menu, a relatively well-defined grouping that’s socially constructed.

But there’s good news about cultural constructions and perceptions. Because members of a culture share commons backgrounds and ideologies, we can see patterns to the social constructions that emerge (e.g. technologies). Think about language for a moment: You might not be conscious of it, but, when you use idioms, refer to Seinfeld episodes, and use language, you’re engaging in socially constructive activities. How might you react to the following:

  • “Hindsight is 20/20, so your Monday Morning Quarterbacking isn’t impressive.”
  • “That outfit is so Seinfeld’s puffy shirt.”
  • “Let’s grab a buggy before going into Harris Teeter.”
  • “I’m fixing to leave here.”
  • “It’s like finding a needle in a coal mine.”
  • “Break a leg!” {In buco al lupo…creppi.}

David F. Noble’s “The Religion of Technology”

Let’s try to first define “the religion of technology.” Noble’s book seems to first define it (via Erigena) as humanity’s pursuit to discover “prelapsarian powers” (pp. 16-17). However, there is more to it as the book unfolds. Broadly, I think we may define “the religion of technology” as the ideology driving technological advancement in order to gain salvation and (as the second half of Noble’s book demonstrates) become godlike–creators of life.

Today, we’ll concentrate on the pursuit of scientists and engineers to restore paradise for the new Adam. I’ll argue that regardless of your religious or non-religious beliefs, you–a citizen or visitor in this culture–have been influenced by the politics surrounding the Abrahamic religions. Pull out a dollar or tell me your plans for mid-December to early January if you disagree…

Let’s go to a webpage devoted to Noble’s book.

Next Class

Keep up with your reading and have Noble’s book read up to p. 171.