Crystal Clear

Dr. Derek Schuurman, professor of computer science at Redeemer University College, spoke to fellow faculty on February 15, 2006 about free software and the free university (as in the Free University in Amsterdam and Kuyper’s intentions for it). Universities were started to share and exchange ideas among peers and the logical outcome of that would be to do the same with computer software both used and developed at a university.

Mostly professors from other disciplines at this liberal arts university in Hamilton, Ontario, attended the gathering, but some students and alumni also were present. Schuurman began by giving an overview of free software, what is open source, and contrasted this to proprietary software. Many of the professors are mainly computer users and are unfamiliar with the underlying technologies.

Redeemer University College is a Christian college and Schuurman then turned to reflecting on how Christianity interacts, if at all, with software development, and especially with open source software. He stated that the language of open source and the development paradigm have many aspects with which Christians can agree. This includes sharing and helping others and freedom.

Schuurman next talked about Abraham Kuyper and put forth ideas about Neo-Kuyperianism with regards to Open Source Software. Kuyper is a recent, influential thinker in Reformed theology, and Redeemer has Reformed roots. Kuyper talked about two kinds of scientific development, Christian and non, and would have extended that to computer science, but Schuurman would rather speak of Christian software development as being distinctive, but having difference as a consequence, not an aim. In order then to have faithful Christian software and technology, the only way to affect change is if it is open and able to be changed. Therefore, open source provides an excellent avenue for faithful Christian scholarship.

He quoted Neil Postman, who in Technopoly, states that technology is not neutral, but rather is value laden. All technology makers embed their values in their products, which are then biased toward certain users. Schuurman mentioned two values easily seen in current technology: consumerism and greed, both of which would be non-Christian values.

Christian approaches to technology, as mentioned by Schuurman from Quentin Schultz’s book, High Tech Worship, are either (1) rejection of all technology, (2) adoption of technology exactly how others use it, (3) adaptation by asking how, where, when and why to use technology, and (4) creation by changing and shaping technology. With open source, one has an opportunity to participate in creating new technology and software, and this is why Schuurman wants Christians to be aware of the open
source movement and to play an active role.

Schuurman identified four aspects Open Source software allows which are of particular value to Christians. First, better stewardship of money and resources is possible. Many programs are free, and much of the software can be run on older hardware, extending its usefulness. Second, by sharing information and software, people can follow the command to “Love your neighbour” and can also help out the under privileged. Third, collaboration and peer review can flourish and encourage further insights and developments. Fourth, open source software allows Christians to participate in the shaping of technology.

During the question period, many professors expressed their appreciation at learning about something completely new and somewhat foreign. A few expressed concern for developers who seem to just give away their time and get no reward for their work. Schuurman and members of the audience spoke of how many of the main developers are employed by various organizations, and that those organizations are willing to pay them and have the final product be open source. One professor then asked how he could try out these ideas since he runs Windows and knows very little about Open Source software. Many examples of Open Source software for Windows were mentioned (Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org), and Schuurman said there usually are Linux users willing to help others install Linux for those interested. Schuurman also mentioned that many of the professors at Redeemer are already using open source, since they had recently began using Moodle, a course management system.

Comments(0)

Technopoly is a state of culture and of the mind and “consists in the deification of technology, which means that the culture seeks its authorization in technology.” (p. 71, Technopoly)

Neil Postman calls us to examine technology, new and old; to look at why each is or was developed and to reflect on what has changed because of it. Too often, he says, new technologies are not critiqued because we believe any techological progress is good, necessary, and inevitable.

But what have we lost in the process? Much, says Postman. He mentions information overload so that unless one is an expert, there can hardly be a proper critique of ideas. With the information overload then comes a need for more control of information which leads to more and more bureaucracy. Medical diagnosis become trusting machines over observation and disregards mental or emotional states as factors in health. He mentions computers as furthering the reduction of humans to machines with yes or no responses. Even education, Postman argues, allows irrelevant technologies to change learning, such as IQ tests which do little to grade real intelligence but rather pick out those whose thought patterns follow a technological line of reasoning. He critiques polls and statistics for displacing the real issues or answers to real questions, especially in politics.

Interestingly, the World Wide Web gained its size and importance after this book was written. The Internet and the web creates other questions, specifically that we haven’t asked what the Internet meant or what it is changing and whether we should let it make those changes or not. Yet the Internet also has allowed for computers to connect people and create community, in opposition to reducing people to machines.

The picture Postman paints of a loss of culture and increase in bureaucracy without any thought to control the rapid changes technology forces is not very optimistic. He can only envision an education system that teaches history of all subjects, including technology, as a way to view the larger picture of the world, and the ascent of humanity in it, as a way to stop this slide. History of science and art and literature can help to see what has changed because of technology additions. Postman wants critical thinking teachers to help students think critically about the world.

But without a moral or religious framework how can we say something is right or wrong? Would Postman use the ascent of humanity to provide the moral backing for value statements?

The modern world with its dichotomy that splits science from religion is breaking down as we move further into post-modernity. I’m not convinced the ascent of humanity can bring about the cohesion that has been lost. Perhaps something more wholistic, with religion and science integrated could provide a balanced framework to dethrone technology.

Comments(0)

Which is better? To have a doomsayer proved wrong, or be caught unprepared by difficult or catastrophic problems?

Are negiative theories of the future always to be disbelieved? Are they always just scare tactics?

If a doomsdayer is proved wrong, was he never right, or did he affect change? I have heard it said that Paul Ehrlich’s book “The Population Bomb” highlighted issues and helped to start movments that were a part of the reason his predictions were incorrect.

If someone predicted that the levies in New Orleans would not hold against a major hurricane (like they did not with Katrina in 2005) and they were subsequently fixed, and then they held, would that person be criticized as overreacting?

Unfortunately, the world is too complex to say one action causes one other action. There are too many interactions that play a part.

But on the opposite side, how can we also discredit someone just because their theory did not pan out?

In the end, would you rather make changes and have a doomsayer proved wrong or proved right?

Comments(0)