The Haxtun-Fleming Herald - What can we reason but from what we know? -Alexander Pope

In the early 1990s, a group of researchers helped pioneer an inventive computational model known as distributed computing. In short, it allowed projects that were hampered by lack of computational power, time, and resources to invite public participation in the processing of data. One notable enterprise was the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence. The data gathering capability of the National Science Foundation’s Arecibo Observatory radio telescope in Puerto Rico exceeded available computing power and created a backlog of unprocessed information.

What if the project could enlist the help of idle personal computers to crunch data packets on behalf of SETI? Suddenly, there was extra untapped computing power, especially as many computers were idle during non-business hours, particularly at night. Once the platform was installed, the program would process small data packets and automatically return the completed units before downloading new ones. Within the SETI world, bragging rights were established for those who led the pack in completed packets.

Other distributed data projects included numerous animal and wildlife census and migration models, the piecing together of papyrus fragments from Egypt, and decoding bacterial DNA. Want to help open the door to exoplanets? Current projects can be discovered at zooniverse.com.

How is it that we are so enthused to move forward with distributed computing in areas of science, but have all but neglected similar approaches to faith and religion? One could imagine the possibilities if we were able to allow voice and thoughtful reflection to many who have no opportunity to do so. What if our faith could enlist the help of many different voices from many different walks of life? What might we discover by distributing basic questions of theological inquiries to Christians and non-Christians alike? Would we be surprised or disappointed, shocked, or encouraged? Would we feel an urge to explore even further in seeking out liminal places of understanding?

Isn’t it at least marginally alarming that so many politicians fancy themselves experts in theology, invoking God’s name haphazardly to a degree of carelessness, and irresponsibly? Religion has become victim to the notion that if you repeat unfounded conclusions loud and long enough, that they become real in the perception of others. Checks and balances so desperately needed in most fields of study are provided through peer review. Even the smallest of conclusions are subject to at least marginal scrutiny. That cannot be said for public religion in general.

Why not entertain the possibility of distributed accountability where we are subject to a modicum of review that encourages sharing of the bases for conclusions made, especially when such statements carry incredible potential for harm or for good in today’s culture? Is the nonsense we are willing to climb on the bus for reasonably gathered and collectively and responsibly shared? Can we grasp how small the information packets are that we send out and how critical it is to share that data with others in order to see a broader picture? We can do better than we have done. We can do better than what we are doing.

Jesus never played the God card to his advantage, like today’s politicos are prone to do. A little distributed accountability just might be what is called for.