Love and Robots

[Elessar]

I like the Jung quote: Bidden or unbidden, God is with us. It's a lazy way of thinking about God, but it makes me happy.

I don't see any conflict between science and faith even if they are at two opposite ends of the same continuum of how we make sense of the universe. We can have both methods at once. The problem comes when we believe we can only have one by destroying or ignoring the other.

Well-said!

[Kevin Thomas Riley]

I was only trying to find a way in which theologians (or at least some of them) might come to accept the, albeit hypothetical, notion of artificial sentient intelligent life. In Trek we know that both Data and the EMH struggled to be accepted as persons in their own right. While their struggles didn't show any religious implications (because of Roddenberry and his legacy of shunning, or at least not talk about, religion), the inherent "person-hood" could be seen as the secular version of "having a soul". Personally I haven't really formed an opinion.

[Distracted]

I would have to say that there's a difference between being legally accepted as an individual with rights (like Data, the EMH, and the robot in Bicentennial Man) and having a "soul". The first is a human definition which we, as a society of humans, are capable of granting to any being we find fulfills our criteria for sentience. The second is a question no human being has ever been able to answer, although many have tried. The debate over whether sub-sentient animals have souls... or even whether pre-born infants or severely brain-damaged and functionally non-sentient human beings even have them... is still ongoing in philosphical circles. Obviously, if you use sentience as a requirement for having a soul then a human zygote doesn't qualify. Some use the "potential for sentience" as a guideline. In that case, according to experts in AI, my laptop might someday qualify. It's an interesting debate.

[Linda]

Very interesting! I wasn't aware of the pre-sentience aspect of the debate. A lot to think about. Distracted, do you have links to discussions of this?

[Asso]

Keen . Honestly, maybe a little bit too keen, IMO.

[Distracted]

Very interesting! I wasn't aware of the pre-sentience aspect of the debate. A lot to think about. Distracted, do you have links to discussions of this?

No, but I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Philosophical_views
and this one from a Christian perspective: http://www.spiritheart.org/articles/christ_impulse.htm

If we assume, based on the first article, that what most people mean by "soul" is some ineffable spiritual attribute which persists after death and is unrelated to sentience... sort of like software which hangs around after the hardware is gone... I would have to say that a being created by humans would not have a soul, since in my view only God has the ability to create something like that.

[Elessar]

Very interesting! I wasn't aware of the pre-sentience aspect of the debate. A lot to think about. Distracted, do you have links to discussions of this?

No, but I found this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Philosophical_views
and this one from a Christian perspective: http://www.spiritheart.org/articles/christ_impulse.htm

Anybody see/read The Golden Compass series? Interesting take on souls/spirits. I mean in a world where your soul is a visible creature hangin out right next to you... there sure wouldn't be any debate as to whether they existed or not

[Distracted]

I've been avoiding that series, since the author is an avowed atheist whose clearly and publically stated purpose is to encourage atheism in the kids who read his books. I don't want it in my house. But that's another topic altogether.

Snopes on "The Golden Compass"

[Alelou]

Will trying to exclude your kids from any non-Christian perspectives really keep them Christian? And how profound is that faith if they haven't tested it against other ideas? I have to say I'm deeply suspicious of any enterprise that tries to censor the free exchange of ideas and information. That just seems like it's more about power and control than faith and love. Though obviously, you have to exercise some control -- there's actually a lot of stuff on TV I wouldn't want him to see, but that's usually because it's inappropriately adult.

I was brought up by two agnostic secular humanists and I ended up Episcopalian, much to my parents' chagrin, though I have to admit I'm not currently the Sunday-School-teaching, choir-singing church lady I used to be. My kid will be whatever he will be, and I doubt my efforts will slot him into any particular spiritual mode other than, I hope, the most fundamental one of doing unto others as he would have them do unto him.

Some studies have actually shown that religion tends to wax and wane across the generations of any given family: parents with dogmatic beliefs tend to have children who are less so, and vice versa.

[TPoptarts]

Hmmm that's kinda like saying that making condoms available for teens will make them sexually active.

[Distracted]

I'm of the opinion that when it comes to media exposure and reading matter that garbage in equals garbage out. And some concepts should wait until maturity before they're introduced into impressionable minds.

[TPoptarts]

Yeah totally agreed about the impressionable minds stuff. The media really does promote a lot of garbage. I still wouldn't put religion or lack thereof in the "garbage" category though.

My grandparents on both sides are really religious. My parents and my sisters are religious but secular though, they believe in God and celebrate some holidays because they're holidays but not in a religious aspect, but other than that nothing. And I'm an atheist. And I didn't become an atheist because of like media exposure and/or atheist propaganda or whatever. Actually everything around me has always promoted religion and God and stuff. Even school. Coming to think about it I've never even been exposed to atheism when I became an atheist... and no it's not like to piss someone off or anything. I just realized that I truly didn't believe in God. And no matter how much religious propaganda I've been exposed to it never made me wanna question my lack of faith... maybe it's just me though. Maybe my mind just isn't all that "impressionable".

[Distracted]

But you're an adult. The person who'd be reading "The Golden Compass" if I had it in the house is my 9 year old, and she's not ready to make that decision yet.

[Elessar]

And some concepts should wait until maturity before they're introduced into impressionable minds.

I would agree with that, but there's also something to be said for the claim that blocking certain materials from a household breeds a child who isn't going to have any interest or any thirst for ideas other than that which they're brought up with - namely, that they'll be closedminded. I understand not wanting to expose a rebellious 12 year old to nihilism because they just want an ideology to latch onto, but if they're raised through to adulthood under the rule that anything contrary is incorrect, they're going to develop the general attitude towards life that everything contrary is incorrect, and get locked into a dogmatic belief system, to the threat of becoming intolerant - and really I'm speaking towards all behavior and ideas, not specifically religious beliefs.

The other thing is that people are going to have all kinds of ideas about when that period of impressionabillity is, and when it stops.

Some studies have actually shown that religion tends to wax and wane across the generations of any given family: parents with dogmatic beliefs tend to have children who are less so, and vice versa.

I agree that that's an element in the equation because of what I've seen in my own family. At least, this is true of the modern age. Back in the day one presumes that parents preaching to children just meant the children followed that... at least for the most part.

My grandparents were strong catholics, and my mom was, at least until she got older and, in my opinion, just became a little less dogmatic about it as a result of being an educated woman in a technological society. Certain beliefs just don't survive bold-faced contradiction.

On the other hand, my sister, contrary to my mom's position, has become an absolutely far right evangelical Christian. To the point that I think she's a friggin nutcase, to be honest. But she's not really Catholic anymore, she goes to all ND Christian services and sometimes Pentecostal services.

My dad's parents were somewhat religious - they went to church on Sunday (Baptists, not Catholics) - and my dad was in the choir for many years and I hear that he was a youth minister in his 30's but this idea just baffles my mind. I would describe him as a "spiritual" person but not a church-goer. Apparently now, though, that he's raising my oldest sister's two kids, MY sister (the evangelical) has convinced them they need to start going back to church again so apparently they go twice a week. I think it's good for little kids. Regardless of my opinion of the beliefs, I think it's important for kids to be given a moral structure early on, and it's tough to say there's any better vehicle for that than religion.

[TPoptarts]

if they're raised through to adulthood under the rule that anything contrary is incorrect, they're going to develop the general attitude towards life that everything contrary is incorrect, and get locked into a dogmatic belief system, to the threat of becoming intolerant - and really I'm speaking towards all behavior and ideas, not specifically religious beliefs.

I was raised like that