Robot Rights, Theology, A.I., Philosophy
Religion is often seen as the antithesis of science. Scientific theories are created in an attempt to explain the universe. Religious beliefs exist because people feel that they have already explained the universe. It's all too easy to dismiss religious objections to robotic personhood by dismissing the religious claims themselves. Nobody cares why the Hellenic pantheon would disapprove of granting robots rights. We just deny the pantheon exists at all. Some scientists use the same method to deal with all religions, no matter how many followers they have. However, simple dismissal is unfounded on two counts.
First, there is always the prospect that religion, any religion, is right. Proving or disprove any religious viewpoint is not on my agenda. Any attempt to do so would likely be inadequate. Mankind has been bickering over whose god is the right god and what scripture is the right scripture since the dawn of time. One blog post isn't going to solve the age-old mystery.
Secondly, no matter which religion is right, all religions still have a substantial impact on how many live their lives. Dismissing religious claims out of hand would reduce the chance other arguments favouring robotic personhood would be accepted. When proposing fundamental reform at any level, it is crucial to take the path of least resistance. Presenting changes in a way consistent with people's preexisting belief systems reduce the difficulties in persuading them to adopt your view and reduces the chance of intense opposition by those who disagree. People are more likely to be indifferent to an issue if the issue does not challenge ideas significant to them. Telling Christians or any group of believers that robots should be people without explaining why that claim is consistent with the concept of God makes life a whole lot harder than it needs to be.
At this point, I'll put all my cards on the table. I am entirely agnostic on the existence of God, Gods or any other form of higher being. Although I was christened, I do not practice any form of Christianity, nor did it play any defining role in my upbringing. Neither of my parents has practised any religion at any point in my lifetime. Yes, I have prayed in the past. During periods of stress or panic, I've found comfort in asking a higher being for help. Whenever I've done so, I've always attempted to be as vague as possible. You could say when it comes to religion, I hedge my bets. Pascal would be proud. Maybe that means I'm not qualified to talk about what God wants. Still, I'm going to give it a go.
Let's start by considering one of the most iconic Bible passages.
Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Genesis [1:26-27]
But what does being made ‘in the image of God’ actually mean?
The most straightforward answer is to take the claim literally. Homo sapiens look like God. God is a material being much like us, with arms, legs, hair, eyes, teeth and all the rest of it. Television and films use actors to play God for that precise reason. The Simpsons and Bruce Almighty both portray God as looking the same as anyone of us. Jesus was the son of God and looked like any other person, something which only supports the argument further. 'Image' literally means, 'a representation of the external form of a person or thing in art.' Stating humanity represents the external form of God is precisely what this definition requires us to do.
Other Bible passages put a spanner in the works.
I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End.
Revelation [22:13]
Viewing God as material makes no sense when considering Revelation. Even if it is conceded that God made the whole 'matter cannot be created or destroyed’ rule, Revelation [22:13] still poses difficulties for a literal reading of Genesis [1:26-27]. Consider:
P1- God created the universe and everything in it.
P2- A material God would be within the universe.
C- A material God would have made themself.
See the problem. To make himself, God would have had to already exist. But to be made, at one point there must not have been a God.
Poof. One moment nothing, the next, God. If God has a creator, we should be praying to that creator, not God. Now, God could have made his own body. However, that is a pretty big detail to leave out of a book detailing the beginning of the universe. A more straightforward solution is to simply claim that God is outside the universe as a transcendent, immaterial being. Kind of dashes the idea of God being a larger, more powerful homo sapien though.
An alternative is to view Mankind being in the image of God as metaphoric. Physically, the two are nothing alike. However, both groups have a unique capacity for creation. God created the Sun, Earth, all things that walk, swim and fly. Mankind built houses, temples, spaceships and microwave ovens. Humanity has never made anything so complicated as an atom from scratch. The difference is one of scope not kind. Homo sapiens are imbued with the same ability to create that God has. Over time, we have trained those skills, allowing us to fill the world with a whole new host of inventions.
So Genesis [1:27] can be read in a way that makes sense. Nothing I've written so far has talked about robot rights. Why does humanity having God's powers of creation matter when arguing that robots should have rights? Well, if humankind was made in the image of God, they have God's total capacity for creation. That includes the ability to create souls. Theological objections to machines being granted personhood target the fact the robots are outrageous affronts to God. No matter how intelligent a computer is, they lack a soul, so cannot be given personhood—end of discussion. Objections of the kind are incorrect if through creating robots, humanity plays an integral part in the soul-making process. Through giving robots intelligence and emotions, programmers are inadvertently producing an immaterial soul, tethered to their creation's metal body.
But only God has the power to create souls. Humanity was not given the unlimited potential of the Father, only a lesser version. Treating humankind as a conduit for God's will circumnavigates this objection. Instead of claiming the programmer directly creates the robot's soul, we state they are a tool through which God brings a new soul into the world. Engineers still play a vital role in manufacturing the physical entity, coders are still responsible for constructing a mind, but it God who ensures that the intelligent being has spirituality.
The Greeks had a creation myth, the tale of Deucalion and Pyrrha, which illustrates this point well:
Zeus was angry at humanity for their failings. A powerful king had received the mightiest of the gods, making many sacrifices and holding a great feast to win Zeus' favour. However, the host committed two wrongs, for which they could not be forgiven. The king had plotted to overthrow Zeus, seeking to take the gods' place and had served his guests human flesh. In his rage, Zeus sent a flood down onto Earth to wipe the slate clean of all life. Prometheus, however, took pity on his son, Deucalion, for the man had done nothing to incur such a fate. So Deucalion was ordered onto a boat with his wife Pyrrha so that they could survive the onslaught. Only after the whole of the Earth had drowned and the water subsided did the couple emerge, the last remnants of humanity. The boat had arrived outside a temple of Themis, god of justice, to whom the couple prayed to for guidance. Taking pity on the pair, Themis ordered them to leave the temple and cast stones to their backs as they walked. Following the advice, Deucalion and Pyrrha discovered that men and women sprang forth from the rocks. Thus, the human race was reborn.
Examples of God using human beings as a conduit for his powers are littered throughout the Bible. Mose was only able to part the Red Sea through divine intervention. Joseph's prophetic dreams where a gift from the heavens. Some versions of Noah's ark even follow the same ending as the Greek myth. God told Noah and his wife to throw stones behind their backs, from which sprang the future of Mankind. Anthropologists argue assimilating pagan mythologies was influential in Christianity rising to dominance. Treating the stories as different accounts of the same event is another way to explain the similarities between the two. Greek scholars merely mistook God for Zeus.
The modern age's lack of miracles is often cited as evidence that God does not exist. What if the miracles are just too subtle for us to notice? Divine will operates in strange ways. No mortal mind can comprehend the final plan. Religion is often dogmatic in its approach to technology. However, shutting one's eyes to the marvels, we interact with every day ignores modern miracles. On the surface, robots may appear to be an insult to all that is holy. Only by scratching beneath the surface, can we discover that machines can possess an intelligence which isn't so artificial after all.