These are thoughts on Jonathan Petre’s article from Telegraph.co.uk entitled, “Threat to church phone masts `that relay porn`”. Chancellor George Pulman, Chelmsford’s ecclesiastical judge, rejected an application from St Peter and St Paul church in Chingford, north east London, to erect a T-mobile base station in its spire. Last December, the Church of England made a bold statement to communication companies by acknowledging the ethical issues surrounding new picture and video technology. This abandonment not only signifies a literal contrast between The Church of England and T-Mobil, but a potential philosophic contrast between religious thinking and the consequences of technology. In regards to the connections between religion and virtual technology, cell phone communication has been a cultural phenomenon, and a means of virtual communication by which a change as occurred in the rules of language and interaction. Cellular technology has made the real acts of talking and coming together more efficient, timely and widespread, which are enhancements that encourage more human potential when applied to almost anything. When applied to religion, the ability to talk to masses of people all over the world at almost any time can, and has become a tool to spread religious beliefs. However, In this particular case, the potential connection between the church and technology was an antenna on the church spire. The church used to made money from renting the space on their roofs for cell phone bay stations, but now the potential use of cell phone imaging technology to send pornographic files through a church sanctified bay station has caused the Court of Arches to reconsider their arrangement with companies like T-Mobil. The church recognizes the majority of good potential that comes from their arrangements, in that only a small majority of people are using the technology for elicit purposes, but in the end the bad potential defeats the purpose of an ethically aware church providing cell phone service. It is like technology is a double edged sword that religion will never truly be able to handle. Which begs the question, How can an ethical philosophy based on principals that come from an inherently unworldly source ever fully commingle with any worldly thing. Virtual reality seems separate from Real reality, but in a sense aren’t all things virtual based in Reality. Every virtual program runs of physical hardware, just as every imagined creature looks like some aspect of an earthly form. Virtual reality could be seen as the imagination of reality, but if the source is real, how could its byproduct be unreal? Is it wrong to say that one’s thoughts are real because they are inherently based in reality, and thus can be applied to real things? In short, religion and virtual reality seem interconnected in their abilities to express that which cannot actually be seen, but because all things virtual can indeed draw their sources to reality, and religion claims to draw its sources from that with is totally transcendent from reality, religion and virtual reality will never totally mix. If technology is a double edged sword, then why would a holy man ever hold it?
