God, Human, Animal, Machine: Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning

IF 0.2 0 RELIGION
Meghan O'Gieblyn
{"title":"God, Human, Animal, Machine: Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning","authors":"Meghan O'Gieblyn","doi":"10.56315/pscf3-23ogieblyn","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"GOD, HUMAN, ANIMAL, MACHINE: Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning by Meghan O'Gieblyn. New York: Doubleday, 2021. 304 pages. Hardcover; $28.00. ISBN: 9780385543828. *Meghan O'Gieblyn's God, Human, Animal, Machine is the most honest, insightful, and therefore challenging book of its kind I have ever read. Part intellectual memoir and part philosophy, it walks us through O'Gieblyn's journey away from the Christian faith of her youth toward seeing herself \"more or less as a machine\" (p. 7). God, she has become convinced, is a projection of the human imagination, a product of our solipsism. \"For centuries we said we were made in God's image, when in truth we made him in ours\" (p. 12). *This is such a common late modern narrative of disenchantment that the reader expects the usual suspects to follow. Namely, vitriol against the ignorance of theologians, and a solid articulation of the merits of scientific naturalism. But that is not what we get here. What we get is the kind of intellectual honesty that is willing to admit that if humans are inherently meaning-making creatures, then all of us could be getting it wrong. *O'Gieblyn maps her own disenchantment narrative onto that of the modern western world. Descartes couldn't be sure of anything but his being a thinking thing; Kant couldn't be sure that those thoughts had anything to do with the world as it actually is. Once you go through this door, the only honest position is that every human belief about ultimate reality is based on faith in something. She makes this point brilliantly through David Chalmers, who endeavored to explain the idea (said of philosophers) that \"one starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist\" (p. 180). Chalmers knows that each of these perspectives necessarily entails accepting different metaphorical lenses, none of which can be definitively proven by science or philosophy. *O'Gieblyn thus finds Bernardo Kastrup's \"shortcut through this trajectory\" particularly fascinating. For Kastrup, consciousness is all that exists, and the \"entire observable world is patterns of excitation\" of a \"universal mind\" that is the cosmos (p. 185). \"By the time you seriously consider all the options and their limitations,\" O'Gieblyn writes, \"the idea of God begins to seem just as crazy as anything else\" (p. 185). She knows how this sounds, and immediately wonders if she's predisposed to this position because of her previous faith and her desire for meaning. And she is correct: there can be no way out for the honest skeptic. \"It's not as though I never experienced God's presence or guidance as a Christian; it was that I could not, as so many of my friends and classmates managed to do, rule out the possibility that those signs and assurances were merely narratives I was constructing\" (pp. 187-88). *I found this refreshing precisely because O'Gieblyn knows it cuts both ways. If Christians and materialists could admit to sharing this limitation, we might have a new starting point for genuine, and possibly life-changing, conversations. O'Gieblyn has done her scientific and philosophical homework, and she's found the stumbling stone for everyone: consciousness. For despite the arrogance of titles like Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, scientists and philosophers familiar with quantum physics know that there is a lot up for debate here. The hard problem of consciousness is not a God-of-the-gaps thing, where we tack the \"mystery\" label on something we can't explain and then return to happy-clappy worship. It's a whole world of weirdness, and God could be behind it all. Or not. *O'Gieblyn's intellectual honesty leads her to be able to pinpoint exactly what it is she is rejecting when she rejects the Christian God. She identifies first with Job, and then with Ivan in The Brothers Karamozov. In a pivotal conversation between Ivan and Alyosha, Ivan can't stomach the fact that God's work in this world would require innocent children to suffer. He says, \"I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong.\" While O'Gieblyn's Moody Bible Institute classmates saw Alyosha's response of loving faith the point of the passage, \"what the novel had made clear to me was that I deeply admired Ivan in his rebellion, just as I had admired Job in his\" (p. 235). She was able to reconsider her apostasy as an act of courage. She is not rejecting God, but a \"system of human thought\" (p. 236). *This frankness is reason enough for me to wish I could have a regular coffee date with O'Gieblyn. But I'm barely scratching the surface of this wide-ranging, insightful text that does an especially superb job of analyzing the ideology of digital culture. All cultural metaphors create meaning and then disappear from view as metaphor. The digital age's primary metaphors (brain as computer; mind as nodes on a network) have left us with a particular view of being, \"which might be described as an ontology of vacancy--a great emptying-out of qualities, content, and meaning. This ontology feeds into its epistemology, which holds that knowledge lies not in concepts themselves but in the relationships that constitute them, which can be discovered by artificial networks that lack any true knowledge of what they are uncovering\" (p. 245). In short, in the twenty-first century, individuals don't lead out of good character with altruistic motives. Memes gain influence not by being good ideas, but by being irresistible clickbait. Although O'Gieblyn describes this ideology with incredible journalistic restraint, there can be no doubt. This is our epistemological crisis, and it is not going anywhere anytime soon. *Carefully researched and beautifully written, God, Human, Animal, Machine provides an excellent starting point for meaningful discussion between atheists and believers. It is a valuable resource for anyone interested in the relationships between science, technology, and religion. *Reviewed by Christina Bieber Lake, the Clyde S. Kilby Professor of English, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187.","PeriodicalId":53927,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56315/pscf3-23ogieblyn","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

GOD, HUMAN, ANIMAL, MACHINE: Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning by Meghan O'Gieblyn. New York: Doubleday, 2021. 304 pages. Hardcover; $28.00. ISBN: 9780385543828. *Meghan O'Gieblyn's God, Human, Animal, Machine is the most honest, insightful, and therefore challenging book of its kind I have ever read. Part intellectual memoir and part philosophy, it walks us through O'Gieblyn's journey away from the Christian faith of her youth toward seeing herself "more or less as a machine" (p. 7). God, she has become convinced, is a projection of the human imagination, a product of our solipsism. "For centuries we said we were made in God's image, when in truth we made him in ours" (p. 12). *This is such a common late modern narrative of disenchantment that the reader expects the usual suspects to follow. Namely, vitriol against the ignorance of theologians, and a solid articulation of the merits of scientific naturalism. But that is not what we get here. What we get is the kind of intellectual honesty that is willing to admit that if humans are inherently meaning-making creatures, then all of us could be getting it wrong. *O'Gieblyn maps her own disenchantment narrative onto that of the modern western world. Descartes couldn't be sure of anything but his being a thinking thing; Kant couldn't be sure that those thoughts had anything to do with the world as it actually is. Once you go through this door, the only honest position is that every human belief about ultimate reality is based on faith in something. She makes this point brilliantly through David Chalmers, who endeavored to explain the idea (said of philosophers) that "one starts as a materialist, then one becomes a dualist, then a panpsychist, and one ends up as an idealist" (p. 180). Chalmers knows that each of these perspectives necessarily entails accepting different metaphorical lenses, none of which can be definitively proven by science or philosophy. *O'Gieblyn thus finds Bernardo Kastrup's "shortcut through this trajectory" particularly fascinating. For Kastrup, consciousness is all that exists, and the "entire observable world is patterns of excitation" of a "universal mind" that is the cosmos (p. 185). "By the time you seriously consider all the options and their limitations," O'Gieblyn writes, "the idea of God begins to seem just as crazy as anything else" (p. 185). She knows how this sounds, and immediately wonders if she's predisposed to this position because of her previous faith and her desire for meaning. And she is correct: there can be no way out for the honest skeptic. "It's not as though I never experienced God's presence or guidance as a Christian; it was that I could not, as so many of my friends and classmates managed to do, rule out the possibility that those signs and assurances were merely narratives I was constructing" (pp. 187-88). *I found this refreshing precisely because O'Gieblyn knows it cuts both ways. If Christians and materialists could admit to sharing this limitation, we might have a new starting point for genuine, and possibly life-changing, conversations. O'Gieblyn has done her scientific and philosophical homework, and she's found the stumbling stone for everyone: consciousness. For despite the arrogance of titles like Daniel Dennett's Consciousness Explained, scientists and philosophers familiar with quantum physics know that there is a lot up for debate here. The hard problem of consciousness is not a God-of-the-gaps thing, where we tack the "mystery" label on something we can't explain and then return to happy-clappy worship. It's a whole world of weirdness, and God could be behind it all. Or not. *O'Gieblyn's intellectual honesty leads her to be able to pinpoint exactly what it is she is rejecting when she rejects the Christian God. She identifies first with Job, and then with Ivan in The Brothers Karamozov. In a pivotal conversation between Ivan and Alyosha, Ivan can't stomach the fact that God's work in this world would require innocent children to suffer. He says, "I would rather remain with my unavenged suffering and unsatisfied indignation, even if I were wrong." While O'Gieblyn's Moody Bible Institute classmates saw Alyosha's response of loving faith the point of the passage, "what the novel had made clear to me was that I deeply admired Ivan in his rebellion, just as I had admired Job in his" (p. 235). She was able to reconsider her apostasy as an act of courage. She is not rejecting God, but a "system of human thought" (p. 236). *This frankness is reason enough for me to wish I could have a regular coffee date with O'Gieblyn. But I'm barely scratching the surface of this wide-ranging, insightful text that does an especially superb job of analyzing the ideology of digital culture. All cultural metaphors create meaning and then disappear from view as metaphor. The digital age's primary metaphors (brain as computer; mind as nodes on a network) have left us with a particular view of being, "which might be described as an ontology of vacancy--a great emptying-out of qualities, content, and meaning. This ontology feeds into its epistemology, which holds that knowledge lies not in concepts themselves but in the relationships that constitute them, which can be discovered by artificial networks that lack any true knowledge of what they are uncovering" (p. 245). In short, in the twenty-first century, individuals don't lead out of good character with altruistic motives. Memes gain influence not by being good ideas, but by being irresistible clickbait. Although O'Gieblyn describes this ideology with incredible journalistic restraint, there can be no doubt. This is our epistemological crisis, and it is not going anywhere anytime soon. *Carefully researched and beautifully written, God, Human, Animal, Machine provides an excellent starting point for meaningful discussion between atheists and believers. It is a valuable resource for anyone interested in the relationships between science, technology, and religion. *Reviewed by Christina Bieber Lake, the Clyde S. Kilby Professor of English, Wheaton College, Wheaton, IL 60187.
《上帝、人类、动物、机器:技术、隐喻和对意义的追寻》
《上帝、人类、动物、机器:技术、隐喻和对意义的追寻》,作者:梅根·奥吉布林。纽约:双日出版社,2021年。304页。精装书;28.00美元。ISBN: 9780385543828。*梅根·奥吉布林的《上帝、人类、动物、机器》是我读过的同类书中最诚实、最富有洞察力、也最具挑战性的一本。这本书部分是知识分子的回忆录,部分是哲学,它带领我们走过了奥吉布林从年轻时的基督教信仰到将自己“或多或少地视为一台机器”(第7页)的旅程。她已经确信,上帝是人类想象力的投射,是我们唯我论的产物。“几个世纪以来,我们都说我们是按照上帝的形象造的,而事实上,我们是按照我们的形象造他的”(第12页)。*这是一个如此常见的关于觉醒的晚期现代叙事,以至于读者期望通常的怀疑随之而来。也就是说,对神学家无知的尖刻批评,以及对科学自然主义优点的扎实阐述。但这不是我们在这里得到的。我们得到的是一种智力上的诚实,愿意承认,如果人类天生就是创造意义的生物,那么我们所有人都可能搞错了。*奥吉布林将自己的祛魅叙事映射到现代西方世界。除了他是一个会思考的东西,笛卡尔什么都不能确定;康德不能确定这些思想是否与现实世界有关。一旦你走进这扇门,唯一诚实的立场就是人类对终极现实的信仰都是基于对某些东西的信仰。她通过大卫·查尔默斯(David Chalmers)出色地阐述了这一点,查尔默斯试图解释(关于哲学家的)“一个人从唯物主义者开始,然后成为二元论者,然后成为泛心论者,最后成为唯心主义者”(第180页)。查尔默斯知道,每一种观点都必然需要接受不同的隐喻镜头,其中没有一种可以被科学或哲学明确证明。O'Gieblyn因此发现Bernardo Kastrup的“通过这条轨迹的捷径”特别吸引人。对于卡斯特鲁普来说,意识是存在的一切,而“整个可观察的世界是宇宙的“宇宙精神”的“激发模式”(第185页)。“当你认真考虑所有的选择和它们的局限性时,”奥吉布林写道,“上帝的想法开始变得和其他任何事情一样疯狂”(第185页)。她知道这听起来像什么,并立即怀疑她是否因为之前的信仰和对意义的渴望而倾向于这个位置。她是对的:诚实的怀疑论者是没有出路的。“作为一个基督徒,我并不是从未经历过上帝的同在或指引;而是我不能像我的许多朋友和同学那样,排除那些迹象和保证仅仅是我编造的叙述的可能性”(第187-88页)。*我发现这一点令人耳目一新,正是因为奥吉布林知道这是有利有弊的。如果基督徒和唯物主义者能够承认共享这一限制,我们可能会有一个真正的、可能改变生活的对话的新起点。奥吉布林做了她的科学和哲学功课,她发现了每个人的绊脚石:意识。因为,尽管像丹尼尔·丹尼特的《意识的解释》这样的书名傲慢自大,但熟悉量子物理学的科学家和哲学家知道,这里有很多值得辩论的地方。意识的难题并不是一个“空白的上帝”的问题,我们给无法解释的东西贴上“神秘”的标签,然后回到快乐的崇拜中。整个世界都很奇怪,上帝可能是幕后主使。与否。*O'Gieblyn理智的诚实使她能够准确地指出,当她拒绝基督教的上帝时,她是在拒绝什么。她首先认同约伯,然后认同《卡拉莫佐夫兄弟》中的伊万。在伊万和阿廖沙的一次关键对话中,伊万无法忍受上帝在这个世界上的工作需要无辜的孩子受苦。他说,我宁愿忍受未报的痛苦和未满足的愤怒,即使我错了奥吉布林在穆迪圣经学院的同学们把阿廖沙对爱的信仰的回应看作这篇文章的重点,“这部小说让我明白的是,我深深地钦佩伊万的反叛,就像我钦佩约伯的反叛一样”(第235页)。她能够重新考虑她的叛教是一种勇敢的行为。她不是在拒绝上帝,而是在拒绝一种“人类思想体系”(第236页)。*这种坦率让我有足够的理由希望我能和奥吉布林定期喝咖啡。但对于这本内容广泛、见解深刻的书,我只是浅尝辄止,它在分析数字文化的意识形态方面做得特别出色。所有的文化隐喻创造了意义,然后从隐喻的视角中消失。 数字时代的主要隐喻(大脑是计算机;心灵作为网络上的节点,给我们留下了一种特殊的存在观,”这可以被描述为一种空缺的本体论——质量、内容和意义的巨大空虚。这种本体论与认识论相结合,认识论认为知识不存在于概念本身,而存在于构成概念的关系中,这些关系可以通过人工网络发现,而人工网络对它们所发现的东西缺乏任何真正的知识”(第245页)。简而言之,在21世纪,个人不会出于良好的品格和无私的动机而领导他人。表情包获得影响力不是因为它是好主意,而是因为它是不可抗拒的标题党。尽管奥吉布林以令人难以置信的新闻克制来描述这种意识形态,但毫无疑问。这是我们的认识论危机,它不会很快消失。*仔细研究,文笔优美,《上帝,人类,动物,机器》为无神论者和信徒之间有意义的讨论提供了一个极好的起点。对于任何对科学、技术和宗教之间的关系感兴趣的人来说,这是一个有价值的资源。*由惠顿学院克莱德·s·基尔比英语教授克里斯蒂娜·比伯·莱克评论,惠顿,伊利诺伊州60187。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
57.10%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信