Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA (09/10/85)
From: Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA Speaking as a one-time Seminary student and current "intellectual" (Hey, I'm going to grad school, ain't I?) the whole issue of logic as applied to religion is fascinating. The history of religion is paralleled by a history of religious thinkers and writers who attempt to rationalize their faith. Plato is a good example. In the Christian tradition, Paul was probably the first real intellectual defender of the faith, the middle ages produced a whole school of philosophy based on this question (which pretty much peaked in Thomas Aquinas) Calvin and Luther were hot on logical defense, and the tradition flourishes today with Kierkagaard (sp?) and Francis Schaeffer. All these writers tend to be attempting to find and defend LOGICAL reasons for believing what they believe. In general, they succeed, IF you grant them their presuppositions. Okay, fine, but that just moves the argument back a step-- what you need is a reason for accepting the presuppositions. The whole field of apologetics is devoted to providing those reasons to skeptics-- in a rational fashion. Do they work? (i.e. do they get converts?) Well, yes and no. Every apologist I've talked with has told me something that I already know-- that religion is based on faith. Those who believe can use the arguments provided by the apologists to bolster their faith; to those who disbelieve, the arguments are simply not conclusive enough to chage their minds. It seems that the arguments make the difference in cases where people want to believe, but want to see that the religion can work rationally. Now, what about a "sentient, rational" computer? First, there is a LONG tradition of formal argument using the Talmud as a base. This forms a kind of logic and I imagine that it would be a relatively simple task to get a computer to reason in accordance with it. This is, of course, not the same as believing it. It seems basically that the question is an old one: would a COMPLETELY impartial, objective person be convinced by the arguments for Juda- (or whatever) -ism? The arguments are there, and they are good, but are they good enough? Who knows? Two other points: First-- I'm not sure that such a computer could be COMPLETELY impartial and objective. After all, it has been programmed by and is working in close contact with a ship full of Jews-- is its situation any different from that in which any sentient, rational (albeit, human) person would find himself or herself in? Second, even assuming a machine (or a person) with complete objectivity, why would a decision, a leap of faith, if you will, be made at all? Essentially, we're dealing with a situation in which there is insufficient data. If I accept that I have an immortal soul (one of those presuppositions) then I have a pressing need to make a decision (or so the doctrine of heaven and hell tells me,) but would a computer have the same problem? Does a sentient, rational computer have a soul? What is a soul? What is sentience? OVERLOAD!! OVERLOAD!!! etc. My guess is we'd have a lot of agnostic computers, but what do I know. Interesting question!! By the way, I seem to remember a story running around out there about a priest in a post-holocaust world who is sent (on a mechanical mule) to investigate rumours of a saintly (and potentially saintable) old father who has died but whose body has not decayed. SPOILER WARNNG-- He finds the body only to discover that the old priest was in fact the greatest robot ever created. A sentient survivor of the holocaust. His mechanical beast (which has been tormenting him throughout the trip) attempts to get him to hush the fact up because 'the people need a miracle' but the priest says no, we must tell them, because the fact that the most powerful thinking machine ever created believed in God is a strong argument for faith. Great story. Anybody remember it's title? Ahh, just what I love, a rousing theological debate before lunch. -Chris Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA
arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) (09/14/85)
> From: Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA > > Speaking as a one-time Seminary student and current "intellectual" (Hey, > I'm going to grad school, ain't I?) the whole issue of logic as applied > to religion is fascinating. The history of religion is paralleled by a > history of religious thinkers and writers who attempt to rationalize > their faith. Plato is a good example. In the Christian tradition, Paul > was probably the first real intellectual defender of the faith, the > middle ages produced a whole school of philosophy based on this question > (which pretty much peaked in Thomas Aquinas) Calvin and Luther were hot > on logical defense, and the tradition flourishes today with Kierkagaard > (sp?) and Francis Schaeffer. > > All these writers tend to be attempting to find and defend LOGICAL > reasons for believing what they believe. In general, they succeed, IF > you grant them their presuppositions. Okay, fine, but that just moves > the argument back a step-- what you need is a reason for accepting the > presuppositions. The whole field of apologetics is devoted to providing > those reasons to skeptics-- in a rational fashion. Do they work? (i.e. > do they get converts?) Well, yes and no. Every apologist I've talked > with has told me something that I already know-- that religion is based > on faith. Those who believe can use the arguments provided by the > apologists to bolster their faith; to those who disbelieve, the > arguments are simply not conclusive enough to chage their minds. It > seems that the arguments make the difference in cases where people want > to believe, but want to see that the religion can work rationally. > > Now, what about a "sentient, rational" computer? First, there is a LONG > tradition of formal argument using the Talmud as a base. This forms a > kind of logic and I imagine that it would be a relatively simple task to > get a computer to reason in accordance with it. This is, of course, not > the same as believing it. It seems basically that the question is an > old one: would a COMPLETELY impartial, objective person be convinced by > the arguments for Juda- (or whatever) -ism? The arguments are there, > and they are good, but are they good enough? > Who knows? > > Two other points: > First-- I'm not sure that such a computer could be COMPLETELY impartial > and objective. After all, it has been programmed by and is working in > close contact with a ship full of Jews-- is its situation any different > from that in which any sentient, rational (albeit, human) person would > find himself or herself in? > > Second, even assuming a machine (or a person) with complete objectivity, > why would a decision, a leap of faith, if you will, be made at all? > Essentially, we're dealing with a situation in which there is > insufficient data. If I accept that I have an immortal soul (one of > those presuppositions) then I have a pressing need to make a decision > (or so the doctrine of heaven and hell tells me,) but would a computer > have the same problem? Does a sentient, rational computer have a soul? > What is a soul? What is sentience? OVERLOAD!! OVERLOAD!!! etc. > > My guess is we'd have a lot of agnostic computers, but what do I know. > Interesting question!! > > By the way, I seem to remember a story running around out there about a > priest in a post-holocaust world who is sent (on a mechanical mule) to > investigate rumours of a saintly (and potentially saintable) old father > who has died but whose body has not decayed. SPOILER WARNNG-- He > finds the body only to discover that the old priest was in fact the > greatest robot ever created. A sentient survivor of the holocaust. His > mechanical beast (which has been tormenting him throughout the trip) > attempts to get him to hush the fact up because 'the people need a > miracle' but the priest says no, we must tell them, because the fact > that the most powerful thinking machine ever created believed in God is > a strong argument for faith. > > Great story. Anybody remember it's title? > > > Ahh, just what I love, a rousing theological debate before lunch. > > -Chris > Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** The story is question, I believe, is something like "Ex Machina", in NEW TALES OF SPACE AND TIME by Boucher & McComas, and I must have read it in 1953 or so. A great tale, from one of the best SF short collections ever put together--and a candidate for 'best SF book for beginners'. --arlan andrews Analog irregular
jimb@ISM780B.UUCP (09/14/85)
>From: Miller.pasa@Xerox.ARPA >... >By the way, I seem to remember a story running around out there about a >priest in a post-holocaust world who is sent (on a mechanical mule) to >investigate rumours of a saintly (and potentially saintable) old father >who has died but whose body has not decayed. SPOILER WARNNG-- He >finds the body only to discover that the old priest was in fact the >greatest robot ever created. A sentient survivor of the holocaust. His >mechanical beast (which has been tormenting him throughout the trip) >attempts to get him to hush the fact up because 'the people need a >miracle' but the priest says no, we must tell them, because the fact >that the most powerful thinking machine ever created believed in God is >a strong argument for faith. >Great story. Anybody remember it's title? The story is THE QUEST OF SAINT ALQUIN, by Anthony Boucher. One place to find it is in the anthology THE SCIENCE FICTION HALL OF FAME, first volume, edited by Robert Silverberg. (The first volume is not labeled as such; subsequent volumes were labeled IIA, IIB, and III. IIB or not IIB... Hmmm.) This is a fairly decent story. In my opinion, it's overall effect isn't as powerful as Arthur Clarke's THE STAR, but it's definitely richer. -- from the bewildered musings of Jim Brunet decvax!cca!ima!jimb ucbvax!ucla-cs!ism780!jimb ihnp4!vortex!ism780!jimb