More Engineering and Theology

Ok no interesting replies to my posting, but I don’t want to give up on this topic just yet.

On another forum, some comments suggested it would not be a good idea prescribing ever more “stuff” for inclusion in engineering curricula. I agree, and worry that this tendency to over prescribe leaves little time for deep learning and results in a spoon-feeding approach; and I ask myself is that good for the profession?

I have always seen my engineering career as a journey, a never ending path of learning along which I am driven by a love for the subject. As such the few years spent as university have long-since become only a small part of what makes me an engineer.

This may be likened to some form of religious devotion, something spiritual, something beyond the materialist and utilitarian application of scientific principles to problems. Rather it may be characterised by a desire to understand the nature of engineering knowledge and how that knowledge can be used for the benefit of mankind the universe and everything. To some extent, it seems this zeal is missing from new entrants to the engineering profession; it seems the profession may be losing touch with its soul.

And what can theology teach us? Well theology is very much about nurturing the soul and it serves as a reminder of what values we should focus on if we are to put the soul back into engineering. I would hazard a guess that a foundation for life-long learning and dedication is more about soul than about science.

To some extent this is exactly the sort of question that needs to be address by a forum exploring the philosophy of engineering and so I appeal to readers to consider this topic; for I wonder – How important is the soul to the profession? If it is, how do we nourish it? And if we do, when do we start?

Philosophy of Engineering?

I see a few blogs on this subject and I wonder - how frequently do engineers ask themselves why do they do what they do?

Like all other professions, the body of knowledge that constitutes the sphere of engineering continues to grow. The education of engineers is thus forced to focus on increasingly specialised areas of knowledge with the threat that the greater meaning of engineering is lost.

At its heart, engineering is about production. Engineers take materials from the world about them and reshape them for the betterment of mankind. This requires a conscious effort and the application of logical thought to satisfy a perceived need.

As a logical process, engineering involves the formulation of concepts, the design of solutions and the creation of physical manifestations of those solutions. It utilises resources that may be inert, semi automated or even living and it is driven by an instinct for survival, a need for protection and desire to develop.

Engineering is not free to be applied at will to any perceived need, but must work within cultural constraints and adhere to the moral and ethical standards of the society in whose service it is employed. Not withstanding such limitations, its proponents do aspire to achieve the both artful and efficient utilisation of resources and the attainment of ultimate truth in the solutions derived from their efforts.

In essence, to grasp the greater meaning of engineering requires the development of philosophical concepts such as a cognitive awareness of life, self, others and the external world. This needs to be blended with a higher understanding of science, the environment and society. And as servants for society engineers, through their education, should acquire knowledge of a sense of duty, sentiment and humility.

Engineering is therefore not just about mathematics, design, experimentation and manufacture; it is about epistemology, ethics and metaphysics. If engineers desire to truly understand themselves, their profession and their role in society, they need to include in their education the study of philosophy and perhaps by that they may enrich even this learned field by developing their own philosophy of engineering.

Engineering and Theology

So there I was reading an interesting paper titled "Theology and the outcomes-based curriculum: the value of not knowing" in the 2006 spring edition of the "Discourse" journal when I became struck by the familiarity of the narrative.

The question struck me; could it be that there are parallels between the teaching of theology and the teaching of engineering? It seemed that there were.

The paper (by Darlene Bird) outlined how theological education in the UK has been impacted by the modern trend in education to have outcomes that are "useful" for the British economy and that learning for learning's sake was now regarded as "a bit dodgy". The paper sought to counter this view and proposed an argument in support of an education not restricted by such narrow, materialist and utilitarian outcomes. Focussing on the teaching of theology in a higher education setting the author argued that students should be exposed to the uncertainties and unknowns of this world and that the system should provide the necessary space for open enquiry and discovery. Through such exposure students will be free to develop more independently.

I felt somewhat swayed by the idea that engineering education may be set free from the shackles of overly prescribed curricula.

The argument went on to reflect on how this utilitarian shift has been accompanied by the redefining of knowledge as a commodity which intern has led to the dominance of an "operationalist" ideology in higher education. The jargon associated with this paradigm focuses on skills, competencies and outcomes and seems devoid of the notions of wisdom, reflection and self-awareness. Education was perceived as having more to do with "training" than with "educating" with little room for transformativity; a process whereby not just the student is changed but the acquired knowledge is transformed in the mind of the student.

This point again struck a chord with me as I remembered the discussions I have had with others on an Engineering and Philosophy E-Forum relating to the importance of truth, honesty, knowledge and wisdom in the engineering profession.

It seems that the theological fraternity has been resisting this trend, which the paper described as reductionist and impoverished and favouring product over process. Education, it was argued, should be transformative, have a profound impact on a person's life, inducing changes in perspectives and attitudes and foster a lifelong quest for wisdom, respect for one's own integrity and that of others, self-examination in terms of the beliefs and values adopted for one's own life and the challenging of prejudices.

Weighty stuff I thought, but not so different from discussions on the E-Forum relating to engineering ethics, sustainability and the duty engineers have to society


The paper concluded by suggesting that a higher education should challenge beliefs and expose prejudices, it should open up the space for students to ask questions - questions that have no answer - and it should provide the opportunity for students to reflect on how they would respond to not having an answer, to not knowing - or acknowledging that they do not know - which is the beginning of wisdom. True knowledge, the author wrote, does not lie in the recitation of facts or in the acquisition of skills: true knowledge has to do with understanding - and facing up to - our human condition.

I felt convinced, challenged and enthused - what direction should the engineering profession be driving towards? A skills base or a knowledge base? Surely one cannot exist without the other? Should the education system focus on knowledge and employers provide the skills training? Some philosophical and some practical questions - perfect Philosophy of Engineering material.