My barista asks me where he can find my books, and I’m not exactly thrilled by this development. My barista thinks I’m a great bloke, and I don’t want him reading my books and changing his mind.
Both locations a loaded with memories for me – busing past Evan’s Bay each day on the way to and from high school and spending my childhood growing up around the Pauatahanui Inlet. Back there for the next 10 days so will make some more memories to go with the old ones.
I was rereading a short popular article I wrote a few years back on religion and comic books with a view to expanding it into something with a bit more academic depth and focus. Something that moves from simply describing the interaction of religion and comic books (and graphic novels and other forms of narrative sequential art) to something that speaks to the particular challenges and opportunities that portraying religious material using those media throws up.
This is an area that has seen some interesting work develop over the past few years, not in the least because of the plethora of superhero movies derived from their “four-colour” paper and digital sources, as well as some very good storytelling using comicbook media. A quick skim along my office bookshelves finds a few books on this kind of thing:
And perusing further down the shelves we come across:
There are also some relevant blogs and online journals that have arrived on the scene over the past few years:
Once I knock out three other writing projects in the new year (theological education and digital technologies; theological ethics and social media; and, spirituality in video games) I’ll be looking to work some more on this. As Julien of Norwich said, “All will be well and all will be well and every kind of thing shall be well.”
Every now and then, Google Scholar (and other research sites) send an email to say someone’s referenced my PhD thesis in a publication. It’s a good way to keep track of other researchers who are also interested in theology, technology and transhumanism, as well as who is using the thesis.
The most recent of these references is this recent essay in an upcoming book:
Lorrimar, Victoria. “Human Uniqueness and Technology: Are We Co-Creators with God?” In Issues in Science and Theology: Are We Special?, edited by Michael Fuller, Dirk Evers, Anne L.C. Runehov and Knut-Willy Saether, 169-180. Cham: Springer 2017.
I’m looking forward to reading the whole essay (rather than just the snippets on Google Books) later in the year.
I’ve found that series of books – Issues in Science and Theology – helpful for my own research in the past, including when writing the PhD when I used this one:
An examination of our habits when using technology helped us explore the instruments we employ and the diverse attitudes students hold about a variety of platforms from Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, to the elements used in many worship settings. Using Campbell and Garner’s categories in Networked Theology to examine technological usage, “optimism, pessimism and ambiguity,” students strived to understand how different people respond to technology. Looking at technological justice pushed the class to deal with issues pertaining to how geographical settings, economic status, age bias, and other barriers to access could limit or eliminate programs and possibilities. Moreover, intense conversations took place around the topic of community. The class talked about what defines a community in general and the traits of specifically religious communities. Students considered the implications of exclusively online communities in contrast to more traditional face-to-face religious gatherings.
Nice to see the book being used in these contexts.
An excellent op-ed piece on the way reporting of biotechnology is often reduced, unhelpfully and dangerously, to a “promise” vs. “peril” dichotomy. To do so ignores the many different positions that arise from competing (and misunderstood) values in the interactions with biotechnologies, as well as how the application of such developments shape not only those who are the target of them but also those who apply them.
But gene editing is more like terraforming, changing the landscapes, changing the idea of roads, changing the people who walk on the roads. It would alter us as a species in at least two ways: some would be changed from being engineered; some would be changed because they undertook the engineering; and all of us would be changed by living in a world where the technology was possible. We would be defined by our stances towards it, our choices to embrace, refuse, accommodate, resist. It is not merely disease that is at stake, but identity, and in more ways than we can calculate, human gene editing would rewrite the meaning of pronouns—I, we, you—from the inside.
For the past three days I’ve been attending the annual Theology and Communication conference THEOCOM17 at Santa Clara University in California. The conference describes itself as “A gathering of Theologians on Digital Communication” and this year’s theme is “Digital Shepherding: Pastoral Theology and Ministry in a Digital Age”.
The schedule of presentations is below, which I’ve annotated with relevant web links. Overall, some very interesting papers and excellent conversation.
From Pastoral Theology to Practical Theology: The Impact of Karl Rahner’s Understanding of Practical Theology in a Digital World
Archimandrite Alexandros Salmas
St. Gregory the Theologian: A Patristic Paradigm for Pastoral Theology and Ministry in the Digital Age
The Embodiment of the Word: A Pastoral Approach to Scripture in a Digital Age