Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site inuxm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan
From: arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: Theologic
Message-ID: <281@inuxm.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 17:49:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: inuxm.281
Posted: Fri Sep 13 17:49:07 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 07:27:17 EDT
References: <3598@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis
Lines: 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