Robots and Religion or can a Robot have a Soul?

I was going to title this: Commander Data gets his due, but alas the author of this piece from Sightings, Robert Geraci doesn't mention our hero from Star Trek: The Next Generation. But he does raise the questions raised by the Data story line-- is data merely an android, or is he a person. In the course of the show it was determined that he was a person with rights and not merely property of Star Fleet.

So the question is, could robots become sentient and would they be welcomed into society -- we've seen this question played out in movies like AI and elsewhere. The questions Geraci asks concern whether robots might get religion and whether a robot might get a a soul. Of course, as Richard Beck has written at his Experimental Theology Blog -- living as we do in a post-Cartesian world, can we even speak of a soul. I'd be interested to see what he might say in response to this post from Robert Geraci of Manhattan College -- not to be confused with Manhattan Christian College -- which is where I taught briefly. One is in the Big Apple and the other in the "Little Apple"

*******************************

Sightings 6/14/07

Religion for the Robots-- Robert M. Geraci

Robots are getting smarter. Some optimists in artificial intelligence (AI) think that within just another decade or two they will be smarter than human beings. They will increasingly take over our most complicated work, from surgery to teaching to running our economy. Meanwhile, AI researcher Ray Kurzweil and others believe that eventually robots will tell us they are conscious and, having no good reason to deny their claims, we will believe them.
If robots become conscious, they may desire entrance into our society. This notion was championed by the well-known science fiction author Isaac Asimov, who named such a culture a C-Fe society because it would be made up of human beings (carbon life-forms) and robots (iron life-forms). Asimov held C-Fe society to be both a moral good and beneficial toward our long-term survival in the universe.
But will robots ever be religious? If you asked Richard Dawkins, the current champion of militant atheism, surely he would tell you that if robots get smart enough to hold a conversation, their very intelligence will preclude religious faith. But British AI researcher David Levy asserts exactly the opposite: he expects robots will be Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and more. And Kurzweil -- (in)famous for his faith that we will very soon be able to download our minds into machines and thereby live forever -- holds a middle ground: robots will be "spiritual" because "being -- experiencing, being conscious -- is spiritual." However, he makes no mention of gods. Kurzweil's spiritual machines will practice a New Agey kind of Buddhism: they will meditate but they won't become Buddhas, they will have "transcendence" but it won't be Nirvana. Kurzweil's notion of robot spirituality is too whitewashed to count for much among "real" religious folks, who will only shake their heads at the thought that "experiencing" equals spirituality.
Is it possible that robots will practice an authentic form of religion? This past spring, one of my students vehemently opposed the suggestion that a robot might one day attend his church. "It won't have a soul!" he shouted. "How do you know?" I asked. I reminded my students that throughout history people have denied that other people had souls or any real religion, and that those denials excused barbarous behavior on the part of the conquerors. This (admittedly unfair) comparison failed to sway many, but led other students to change their minds. The students admitted that their gods could, if they wanted to, grant souls to robots.
Of course, I don't know whether robots will have souls, or whether they will meditate, or sin, or pray, or carve idols, or sacrifice, or keep the Sabbath, or build temples, or believe in gods, or go to heaven, or reach enlightenment. But I do know one thing: mere intelligence will not suffice to gain them legal or ethical standing in our culture.
Only if we see robots as persons will they join our society, and here the border between science and science fiction has become rather blurry. Preemptively, legal scholars and governments have already begun debating the personhood of the hypothetically conscious future robots. As robots become more intelligent and more interactive, we will need to decide what legal standing they possess (can they sue for their freedom? can they possess property?) and whether they are real persons. Researchers and ethicists in Japan and South Korea have already begun worrying about what happens when people like their robots better than their human companions. Some people have difficulty throwing away old teddy bears, which neither speak to their owners nor help them with their homework. A cuddly robot might be a great deal more than just a toy.
I wonder, however, if we could really believe that robots are conscious if none of them practices any religion. Emile Durkheim long ago argued that religion is constitutive of social relationships. More recently Bruce Lincoln has shown that religious discourses create social groups, both dividing and uniting us. If no robots can enter into our religious lives, then I suspect we will deny them all equal and near-equal status in our culture. Naturally, if robots do become conscious, some may well be atheists (assuming for the moment that atheists are not, in some meaningful fashion, themselves religious). But robots needn't all be religious any more than all human beings are religious. To qualify as "persons," however, and thus enjoy equal status in our society, some of them need to be religious -- and by choice, not deliberate programming.

How many robots must live religious lives for the realization of Asimov's C-Fe society? Again, I have no idea. But if all robots are atheists, I doubt we will believe that they "chose" to be so. The ability to make moral choices regarding whether and how to participate in religious practices and hold religious beliefs seems to me necessary, if not sufficient, for entry into our society.
References:
"Robotic Age Poses Ethical Dilemma" (BBC News, March 3, 2007) can be read online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/technology/6425927.stm.
"Robo-rights: Utopian Dream or Rise of the Machines?" (Ipsos MORI, 2006) can be read online at: http://www.sigmascan.org//ViewIssue.aspx?IssueId=53.
Ray Kurzweil, The Age of Spiritual Machines (Viking, 1999).
David Levy, Robots Unlimited: Life in a Virtual Age (A.K. Peters, Ltd., 2006).

Robert M Geraci is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Manhattan College. His primary research explores how religious categories inform scientific paradigms in robotics, AI, and virtual reality. His homepage is: http://home.manhattan.edu/~robert.geraci/.

----------
The current Religion and Culture Web Forum features "Christian Responses to Vietnam: The Organization of Dissent," by Mark Toulouse. To read this article, please visit: http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/index.shtml.
----------
Sightings comes from the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

Comments

Jasper John R. said…
And when talking about "manhattan college", don't forget about Borough of Manhattan Community College (http://www.bmcc.cuny.edu/),
Manhattan School of Music (http://www.msmnyc.edu/) which is often referred to as Manhattan Music College, Manhattan Area Technical College (http://www.matc.net/) in Manhattan, Kansas, and a slew of others. I wrote a Manhattan Cology - ology web page to explain to wayward reporters who mess up. I "do" a Jasper alumni ezine and a web search often returns stories that aren't about alumni. :-)

The page is at http://home.comcast.net/~jxymxu7sn5ho9d/Manhattan_College_ology.htm
http://tinyurl.com/22gh2h for anyone that has had enough "manhattan colleges" yet.

:-)

Ferdinand J. Reinke
Kendall Park, NJ 08824

Webform that creates an urgent email => http://2idi.com/contact/=reinkefj
Web page => http://www.reinke.cc/
My blog => http://www.reinkefaceslife.com/
LinkedIn url => http://www.linkedin.com/in/reinkefj
D.Bheemeswar said…
We human beings have so many religions, within which there are sects and sb-sects and so on. In reality a fellow who does not have brain can be called as robot, specially who are educated slaves. Spiritually speaking entire human biengs belong to on cast, that is human sect. Humans can not be replaced for economy. As everybody requires some thing to eat and a shelter to live. Nobody is going take their wealth and materials along with them when they die. If a person can not enjoy his life without disturbing others or other life on this earth, and works for the society, the peace, harmony and serenity prevails on this earth.
jonathan said…
Simply they aren't made in the image of God. They aren't under the penalty of sin, and require no salavation and therefore would not be saved.
Anonymous said…
This is a very interesting article asking a question which may be relevant sooner than many think. As an orthodox Jew, this question would be viewed from the perspective of traditional biblical sources. Some of the conclusions lead to unusual places.

Whether or not "artificial intelligence" can have a soul depends on what ones definition of a soul is.

In Judaism this is not such a simple idea. In Hebrew, there are several terms used to refer to the English word soul. Examples are "nefesh", "ruach", "neshama", "chaya" and "yechida". There are others too.

Nefesh is generally referring to the most basic conception of soul and relates more to physical, material existense. It is in this sense that G-d gave "living souls" or "nefesh chaya" to all creatures in the book of Genesis. As it states there explicitly, these souls arose from the words and breath of the ten utterances of the creation.

Within the Torah, it explains that in the same way all of existence (even inanimate objects) came into being and they are maintained every moment of every day through these "words" and "letters". These words and letters of G-d's speech are the "soul", so to speak and very existence of everything. Were those words and letters to cease, everyting would revert to nothingness like before the creation.

From this perspective, everything has a soul on some level albeit different from the soul of man.

Another question to ponder is the ultimate purpose and function of religion. Beyond side issues relating to reward and punishment, repentance and refinement, the Torah it is ultimately to "know" G-d. This is in the sense of Adam "knew" Eve. In other words in a general sense to perceive G-d's presence in all of existence, to recognize our connection and to facilitate or improve that wherever possible. This is the ultimate reward, cleaving to G-d. This attachment relates to all levels of existence, including intellect. Evidence of this is seen in the idea that certain classes of angels are referred to inn the Hebrew original as "distinct intelligences".

From this perspective, artificial intelligences may have advantages and perspectives that are even better suited than man in some contexts toward service to the Creator.

In the end, it is always worthwhile to look to the words of the prophets for direction. In this case, the prayer of Joshua which is know as Aleinu comes to mind. It states, "All the inhabitants of the world will discern and know that to You every knee must bend and every tongue swear". It doesn't say every human being but rather all inhabitants. Webster's defines inhabitants as a person animal or group that occupies a place or environment. That is a very broad domain. Similarly, discerning and knowing would vary depending the unique capabilities of each entity.
Anonymous said…
There's no reason to believe that inorganic intelligence would resemble organic intelligence at all - they might be free from the monkey-drives which we politely rename and which underpin human society, and might be free also from the psychological imperatives which drive empty, unhappy or unstable people people towards irrational belief - robotic brains being rational engines, there might be no particular requirement for them to either embrace or decline to embrace religion of any kind, because it lies outside the realm of what can be measured, codified, and understood. One can be conscious, and highly intelligent, without sympathising with others' need to throw themselves into the arms of an imaginary protector to assuage their fear of the End. Indeed, if there is any truth to the generally-held idea outside religious circles that Faith is inspired, at its most instinctive level, by fear of death, robots may be intrinsically immune to this fear - they can be repaired, rebuilt, even copied. They have no immediate need of a saviour.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with Richard Dawkins that if robots are smart enough, their intelligence will preclude religious faith. Why do humans need religious believes? It is because they have unsolvable questions and fear such as why humans are present and when will the world end. They cannot live with all these worries so they need something or someone to rely on. But do robots need this kind of comfort? Robots are not supposed to have any fear because they do not possess with consciousness. Human programs all their actions and behaviors so that they will never have the awareness to themselves nor the surroundings. They can only execute the commands given by human and that’s it. If robots can feel fear, I doubt they will still protect human when there is a danger. Even though the advance technology in the future may be able make a “conscious robot” theoretically, I don’t think that human will take the risk to make it comes to realize. Who can ensure the robot won’t come to harm humans one day? Who can control the robot if it is intelligent enough to develop its brain to a level that humans can never understand?
On the other hand, human brains are different from robots’ programs. There is a book called “The God Gene”, in which it says that human brains are easily influenced by living environment, other’s opinions, and advertising. However, the level of influence depends on how people think and how strong they are against such pressures. This is how one’s personalities and spirits are formed, for example, having religious faith or not. There are no two people the same, so, how could you program this in to robots? In order to create a robot, will it be possible to program each robot differently?
People create robots because they want someone to completely follow their orders without any complaints and to help them. So, if a robot has “human soul”, following his rules and not listening to humans again, then will the robot be useful? Do we need these kinds of robots? For me, I say no. Can you even program “human soul” in a robot? For me, I say no.
For different people, the definition of God is different. Can we see God? Can we know who is God? Can we tell where God lives? No, we can’t. We can feel God; we can feel the meaning of God, so there are no absolute things about god. How can we translate these in to program and translate a subjective thing into an objective thing. How can you program God into a robot when there is no single definition of God?
Humans are aware that robots will slowly start to outsmart us. This is why we must make ourselves aware of the mess that we are setting up for ourselves. If we are creating machines just as smart as us, what will happen when those machines create other machines that will outsmart each other? It will be a fight for survival of the fittest. Any robot that posses the ability to portray a consciousness, will strive to become more and more like human beings. They will want to follow our faith, believe in whatever we believe in, and hope for similar things that we do. Robots will take over our workforce, because they will simply get things done much faster and more economically. We already see factory workers being replaced with machinery. I found the point that Dawkins mentioned in the blog very interesting. He mentioned that if robots become capable of carrying on a conversation, they could quite possibly believe in a faith and study and practice a certain religion. I think that this could quite possibly become a very controversial topic because robots are already capable of carrying on conversations, but having the maturity to deal with faith and preaching is a whole different story. You must believe what you practice or it doesn’t make sense, and I believe that robots will have a very hard time with this. It would be a whole other scene if people believed that God has the power to grant the robots with souls, although I doubt many religious people would believe this way. It will be tough when humans befriend robots, and in my opinion that is when things will really start to fall apart.

Popular Posts