17AR22-26

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )

AR 22:26 - Like it or not, you have been "datafied"

In this issue:

CULTURE - the "scary and intriguing" concept that you're becoming only data - not an individual

HERESY - progressive Christians encouraged to use the term to describe conservative views

MIRACLES - answering the assertion that "no one has had or currently has good reasons for believing in miracles"

Apologia Report 22:26 (1,346)

July 7 2017

CULTURE

We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of Our Digital Selves, by John Cheney-Lippold [1] -- Kirkus (Apr 1 '17) tells us that this work is "based on information 'observed, recorded, analyzed, and stored' in a database, your life is assigned 'categorical meaning,' whether by Google, a government agency, or any number of marketers: you are deemed unreliable, or a celebrity, or whatever, without your knowledge or any regard for who you really are. Thus you are 'datafied' into computable data, which is used (by those with the power to do so) to 'market, surveil, or control us.' Furthermore, your datafied identity is ever changing, depending on your latest online clicks. 'Data holds no significance by itself - it has to be made useful,' writes the author. 'We are thus made subject not to our data but to interpretations of that data.' Drawing on the work of a mind-boggling array of specialists, ... Cheney-Lippold explores how companies and governments use our datafied identities in marketing, predictive policing, and in such matters as race and citizenship. His discussions of privacy in such a world - and of the fact that we are 'not individuals online; we are dividuals' - will fascinate and unnerve many. In complex, thoroughly researched chapters, the author explains how this ceaseless interpretation of data by organizations that find it useful for their own purposes is setting the parameters for our present and future lives. Essential reading for anyone who cares about the internet's extraordinary impact on each of us and on our society."

Significantly, "Few aspects of this 'scary and intriguing' situation, as Cheney-Lippold <www.goo.gl/Sc7Hme> ... quite properly calls it, are overlooked in his debut, a heady and rewarding exploration of our lives in the data age. 'Online you are not who you think you are,' he writes."

See also Cheney-Lippold's interview here <www.goo.gl/bcq5j6>

And for "Culture" in back issues of AR, see <www.goo.gl/XyZqTW> (Note: To begin, just scan the result list for the topic in ALL CAPS.)

POSTSCRIPT (Jul 4 '18): Consider "Open Secrets" by Amanda Hess (New York Times Magazine, May 14 '17, pp11-13) - summarized: "Our 'privacy' has become a key currency in online life - traded away in return for convenient services and cheap thrills. But we're surprisingly ignorant of what that really means." She concludes: "These days, only the powerful can demand privacy."

---

HERESY

"Christian Fundamentalists or Atheists: Who Do Progressive Christians Like or Hate More?" by George Yancey (University of North Texas) -- concludes with a bizarre new approach to applying the term "heresy" <www.goo.gl/ms25WT> in serious academic discussion. But first, an interesting and unlikely prologue. The abstract begins: "This paper examines the propensity of theological, political, and/or denominational progressive Christians to have affinity or disaffinity towards Christian fundamentalist and atheists."

After presenting his methodology and findings, Yancey's discussion begins: "This research suggests that Christians who are progressive in their theological or political outlook have a disaffinity towards fundamentalist Christians, but not towards atheists. Furthermore, politically progressive Christians have a distinct affinity for atheists which is missing among other dimensions of Christian progressivism. ...

"[W]ith the exception of those who identify their religious progressiveness through denominational identity, Christian progressives do have more animosity towards Christian fundamentalists relative to atheists. Their comparatively higher likelihood to reject conservative Christians indicates more tolerance of atheists. Thus, it is not completely clear whether progressive Christians 'like' atheists more than conservative Christians, but they certainly are less likely to 'dislike' atheists. Research ... documents that atheists are rejected more than any religious group. But, this rejection is less among those exposed to a diversity of worldviews.... This research suggests that atheists, who often feel the sting of societal rejection ... are wise to look for allies among politically progressive Christians. ...

"It is quite possible that Christian progressives have a gross caricature of Christian fundamentalists that motivates their dislike. ...

"One way to understand this disaffinity is to look at the concept of heresy. ... This definition generally fits the fundamentalist's emphasis of inerrancy and absolutes; however, it may also be a viable concept for progressive Christians. ... For theologically progressive Christians, literal reading of the Bible and excusive interpretations of Christianity may be rationale for [accusations of] heresy.

"For politically progressive Christians, heresy may occur due to the politically conservative aims and goals of Christian fundamentalists. They may interpret their faith in ways that support progressive political policy which help them conceptualize the political aims of Christians as 'misreading Scripture.'" Journal of Religion & Society, 19:1 - 2017 <www.goo.gl/qpvV7y>

Here are two observations as to why theological liberals might have more affinity to atheists than to evangelicals (or fundamentalists). First, both atheists and theological liberals have been heavily influenced by the enlightenment, especially Immanuel Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" and "Critique of Practical Reason". A central Kantian postulate that still has powerful influence today is that, "We do not, through our senses, experience anything as it is in itself, rather we experience 'as'." For example, the grass does not experience itself as "green". But I, due to the reflection of light, the biology of my eye, and my social conditioning, have learned to call that experience, "greenness". Therefore, according to Kant, it is not really accurate to say, "The grass is green." Rather, "When I look at the grass, I experience it as green."

However, for evangelicals (who accept a form of theological realism, as opposed to idealism), they could say "God made the grass, and my eye so that I would experience it that way. Therefore, I am justified in stating that the grass is green."

Second, a student in a philosophy of religion class could ask, "Are you pre-critical, or post-critical?" Meaning, "Have you accepted Kant's critiques, or are you still in the Dark Ages?" A good response could be that "I am definitely 'pre-critical'. However, I would prefer to say, 'a-critical'."

In non-conservative schools today a person's stance on social and political issues is likely much more central to being *accepted* than their theological views. If conservatives avoid saying they are against abortion, LGBTQ acceptance, uncritical Muslim tolerance, or not entirely comfortable with feminism (whatever the form), they are more free to talk about evangelical theology, and still be an accepted member of that society.

The above also suggests why neo-socialism has grown stronger in our culture. Visit the following to see how Canadian secular academic Jordan Peterson relates this to the cultural changes in our schools enabled through postmodern influences: <www.goo.gl/5npkDS> and <www.goo.gl/DzgJ34>

---

MIRACLES

The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified, by Lawrence (Larry) Shapiro (Professor of Philosophy, U of Wisconsin) [2] -- early in his review, Benjamin C. F. Shaw (research assistant to Gary R. Habermas) explains that Shapiro's goal "is to 'convince you that no one has had or currently has good reasons for believing in miracles.' He does not argue that miracles have not occurred, but only that if they did, we could not know they did. Shapiro is a very clear writer and presents his arguments plainly in order to make disagreements with his arguments more visible. There are however, areas of important disagreement with his philosophical and historical arguments."

Shapiro "wonders how one would know that God was the cause of the [miracle] event, rather than seventeen gods or an unknown natural cause such as aliens.... Shapiro acknowledges that such explanations are silly, but believes them to be no sillier than suggesting that God was the cause. ...

"Shapiro does not discuss why these other alternative explanations sound strange in the first place. He never asks why those who believe in miracles typically think the event was caused by a specific God and not these other options. Interestingly, skeptics frequently claim that if they saw someone grow a limb back after prayer or if God appeared to them then they would believe God did it (not these other possibilities). Thus there does appear to be something that points, or naturally leads, toward an identifiable God....

"[T]here are no positive reasons to believe the alternative options mentioned by Shapiro, as there is no evidence for them, which he readily acknowledges. ...

"Shapiro has defined miracles in such a way that ignores the context of the event and require one to *assume* a supernatural cause." And last, "Shapiro's historical assessment of Jesus' resurrection is filled with mistakes on virtually all levels." Christian Research Journal, 40:2 -2017, pp54-5.

For "Miracles" in back issues of AR, see <www.goo.gl/SZjuvM> (Note: To begin, just scan the result list for the topic in ALL CAPS.)

-------

SOURCES: Monographs

1 - We Are Data: Algorithms and the Making of Our Digital Selves, by John Cheney-Lippold (NYU Prs, 2017, hardcover, 320 pages) <www.goo.gl/XTm7Bx>

2 - The Miracle Myth: Why Belief in the Resurrection and the Supernatural Is Unjustified, by Lawrence Shapiro (Columbia Univ Prs, 2016, hardcover, 192 pages) <www.goo.gl/8JRtYV>

------

( - previous issue - / - next issue - )