Thread: BlessU-2 Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020198
Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on
:
Guardian article, and video (which should be watched for full effect)
Just heard this on the World Service.
Gimmick, clearly. But what about "[considering] if it is possible to be blessed by a machine, or if a human being is needed"?
The interviewee [I think it was the priest...sorry it was 5:25am here when it was on and I was a bit drowsy...] said younger people, and non-church goers, were interacting with it more, and one young person even led their grandmother to use it.
Thoughts? Potential uses?
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Yes, a gimmick, but if it stimulates interest in the Church, then a good one. Nice clear diction, perhaps better than some 'real' people one could think of...
It rather reminded me of the virtual church we had on SoF some years back (Church of Fools? St. Pixels?).
IJ
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Yes, a gimmick, but if it stimulates interest in the Church, then a good one. Nice clear diction, perhaps better than some 'real' people one could think of...
It rather reminded me of the virtual church we had on SoF some years back (Church of Fools? St. Pixels?).
IJ
Yebbut. It may go through the motions of blessing, but does it confer a blessing? And if it doesn't, should a church, any church, be doing something it knows to be a lie?
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
It also evokes the discussion held some years back about Online Sacraments. Although I am shocked that that goes back to 2012. I could have sworn it was a more recent discussion than that. How time flies!
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
An ATM with a face and glowing hands isn't a someone, let alone someone who could have the authority to impart a blessing. I'm with Enoch on this one.
There's nothing wrong with pressing a button and hearing a prayer spoken, any more than there is something wrong with listening to a morning prayer podcast or psalms chanted on CD. Those are all fine things - but they are different from receiving a blessing.
This "robot" seems to be the kind of gimcrack gimmickry that I would expect to find satirizing the church rather than representing it.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
A chess master was on the radio yesterday saying that although computers can beat him any time they will never replace people - and the difference is passion. No robot will ever have passion.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
But there quite are a few clergy who manage ok without passion. So why not just have a robot instead?
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
On a slightly more serious note, there's a great shortage of clergy in some denominations, and some way will have to be found to deal with that.
It doesn't have to be a robot, of course. Some new church plants start by having services led by a minister on a video link from another church. But what's the difference between that and having a remote-controlled android delivering the same sermon and prayers? (Hopefully in a more lifelike way than the robot in the video, though....)
In terms of blessing the elements for Communion, could this be done at a central point by a bishop or some other ordained person, and then distributed by the robot and his/her assistants?
We're told that in future, more and more of the work that humans currently do will be done by robots. In Japan, there are even robots that look after the elderly. It may be that at some point humans will become quite used to interacting with humanoid robots, and no longer creeped out by them.
[ 31. May 2017, 11:47: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Looking at the picture and the filmlet, I can't help being reminded of King Nebuchadnezzar's giant statue. I'm sure if he'd had the technology to make it speak, it would have done. Perhaps when the 'cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer, and all kinds of musick' struck up, it could have sung along with them.
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on
:
Perhaps if one could choose from a variety of holographic images (Percy Dearmer or Georg Ganswein spring to mind but whatever your taste) would be more appealing and thus more effective
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
SvitlanaV2 said:
In Japan, there are even robots that look after the elderly.
That, to me, is a nightmare scenario. I know care of the elderly is a difficult problem in some countries, but.... ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
As for robot priests, forget it. Just licence suitable lay people to say Morning Prayer, or lead Communion by Extension!
IJ
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In terms of blessing the elements for Communion, could this be done at a central point by a bishop or some other ordained person, and then distributed by the robot and his/her assistants?
Why is that helpful? Lay humans are perfectly capable of distributing the elements - the robot doesn't add anything. If you don't have lay humans, you don't need communion, and if you do have them, you don't need the robot.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Exactly - and Communion by Extension is becoming more common these days in the C of E, I think. There is now a separate booklet for just such a service.
IJ
Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In terms of blessing the elements for Communion, could this be done at a central point by a bishop or some other ordained person, and then distributed by the robot and his/her assistants?
Why is that helpful? Lay humans are perfectly capable of distributing the elements - the robot doesn't add anything. If you don't have lay humans, you don't need communion, and if you do have them, you don't need the robot.
I'm picturing Eucharistic Drones delivering the sacrament to people's doors, but no no no. What's missing from that is the human connection that ill or shut-in congregants need.
Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on
:
Absolutely, and, as one who takes the Sacrament to ill or housebound folk from time to time, the personal contact works both ways.
The concept of a central church, with deacons or whatever serving smaller churches, is by no means new. The Saxons worked this way prior to the Norman invasion, and it is beginning to appear again in the C of E, with churches being designated as Minsters in various parts of the country.
That's another subject, of course, as distinct from robots!
IJ
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In terms of blessing the elements for Communion, could this be done at a central point by a bishop or some other ordained person, and then distributed by the robot and his/her assistants?
Why is that helpful? Lay humans are perfectly capable of distributing the elements - the robot doesn't add anything. If you don't have lay humans, you don't need communion, and if you do have them, you don't need the robot.
You're assuming that there's always someone in a congregation who's willing, able and permitted to preach. If so, great. If not, you could have robot that's programmed to preach, or a robot who'd just serve as a transmitting device, broadcasting a sermon that was being preached by a human being somewhere else.
You're right that a robot wouldn't be required to preside over Communion if the elements had already been blessed elsewhere. I think the advantage in this case would be psychological. Among congregations who are used to having clergy, or whose theology leads them to see clergy as different from the laity in some ontological way, having a robot in the pulpit rather than just one of their own number might be appealing rather than horrifying.
I'm not saying that robots would be better than human beings in any way, but rather trying to envisage futuristic scenarios in which some Christians might accept a ministry that made use of robots. The undersupply of clergy in the West is an obvious scenario. Human touch is important, but Christian pastoral care is likely to become a huge challenge as congregations continue to age and the number of younger Christian laity and clergy able to minister to them continues to drop. I only have to look around me to see that this will be a significant problem in my own lifetime. Friendly robots would be better than nothing.
[ 02. June 2017, 01:51: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Sorry, but I'm simply unable to imagine any scenario where a robot in the pulpit—or at the Table—is anything other than horrifying and frankly bordering on blasphemous. If a friendly robot is better than nothing for a church, then I would fear that church has completely lost its way and may have ceased to be church—the Body of Christ—in any meaningful sense.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You're assuming that there's always someone in a congregation who's willing, able and permitted to preach. If so, great. If not, you could have robot that's programmed to preach, or a robot who'd just serve as a transmitting device, broadcasting a sermon that was being preached by a human being somewhere else.
What on earth is the point of the robot here? Just hit play on the podcasted sermon that your priest recorded earlier that day, if what you have is a number of small congregations and a priest that can visit each in person once every couple of months.
quote:
Among congregations who are used to having clergy, or whose theology leads them to see clergy as different from the laity in some ontological way, having a robot in the pulpit rather than just one of their own number might be appealing rather than horrifying.
Please tell me you're making this up.
My theology tells me that a priest is ontologically different from a layman, but do you know what else it tells me? It tells me that both are very different indeed from a robot! I can assure you that the idea of a robot mimicking the role of a person is anything but appealing.
There are plenty of ways of dealing with a clergy shortage. Robots playing dress-up is not one of them.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
These are simply scenarios that seem possible to me, not predictions or preferences.
It's quite obvious that other outcomes are possible. For example, some groups of worshippers might abandon the ordained priesthood entirely.
The most sophisticated Christians will no doubt do as much as possible to maintain their traditions. But with so few specialists around to enforce orthodoxy, I can certainly imagine that some rather strange practices will spring up.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Yesterday's Guardian Best Photos of the Day shows a robot policeman in Dubai.
How would you like to receive the "blessing" of a tin voice coming from a fibreglass figure to accompany the ticket (or arrest)?
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
erm....incarnation anyone?
En-fleshed-ness - requires flesh.
Robot cannot be incarnate, therefore cannot represent God incarnate.
End of discussion. Flesh is still needed.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
erm....incarnation anyone?
En-fleshed-ness - requires flesh.
Robot cannot be incarnate, therefore cannot represent God incarnate.
End of discussion. Flesh is still needed.
This + image of God
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
So I think it raises the important issue here of what makes blessings or sacrament valid. This is an increasing issue with the increasing lack of clergy in all sorts of places.
If it is the words, the actions, the sense that a person has of being blessed, then it is perfectly reasonable to have a robot do this.
If, as seems to be the case, it is the human intervention, then the answer seems to be having lay presidency, having more people who can offer these services.
Personally, I think more people involved in ministering to others is always a positive. If the choice is between a robot and a lay person, I would always go for the lay person.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
However, it's not just about a lack of clergy, but also a lack of laypeople.
Should I be granted a long life, I can see already that there will be very few younger Christians to provide pastoral care to me. Those who remain in the church will probably be overwhelmed by workload in front of them. If I stay in the same area and want to worship in mainstream denominations it'll be particularly difficult.
That being so, robot laity might be of more use to me than robot clergy!
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
I wonder if I can program it to preach a homily on transubstantiation for Corpus Christi.
In honour of the Reformation of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
quote:
No robot will ever have passion.
But still the Church of England ordain them ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
The big question is does the robot have a deeper conviction of faith than a human? I suspect the answer is a worrying no in many cases.
On a similar line there is an article web page which talks about reaching your congregation via video on t'interweb. The lack of a human being to judge emotional reaction and to respond to it in a suitable way are highlighted for this as well.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by irreverend tod:
The big question is does the robot have a deeper conviction of faith than a human? I suspect the answer is a worrying no in many cases.
I'm not sure if I've read you correctly. Are you saying it's worrying if a robot doesn't have as much faith as a human?
Some would surely argue the opposite. For example, a robot minister could be programmed to have no doubts whatsoever, which many Christians (perhaps moderate/liberal ones) might find rather more worrying.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Svitlana: quote:
You're assuming that there's always someone in a congregation who's willing, able and permitted to preach.
And you're assuming that preaching and blessing the elements for communion can both be done by any minister. Not in the C of E, they can't.
I don't see any value in programming a robot to believe in God. Richard Dawkins will be along with another that's programmed not to believe in God faster than you can say 'free will', so it doesn't prove anything about the objective existence of God; a robot will do what it's programmed to do. Also, certainty in matters of belief leads to things like the Spanish Inquisition.
If artificial intelligence programs ever became sentient (a theoretical possibility only, AFAIK) and a sentient AIP developed a belief in God... now *that* would raise some interesting questions.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Svitlana: quote:
You're assuming that there's always someone in a congregation who's willing, able and permitted to preach.
And you're assuming that preaching and blessing the elements for communion can both be done by any minister. Not in the C of E, they can't.
You'll see I referred to individuals who are 'willing', 'able' and 'permitted' to do these jobs. If there's no permission then this is all irrelevant, obviously!
Interestingly, although the RCC presumably wouldn't allow robots, it does tolerate the situation of vast populations of RC Africans and Latin Americans being more or less 'priestless'. (The figures are available here.) It's impressive that the RCC has been able to maintain its numbers in continents where there are so few priests. No robots needed! I don't think the various Protestant groups would do as well in that situation.
quote:
I don't see any value in programming a robot to believe in God. Richard Dawkins will be along with another that's programmed not to believe in God faster than you can say 'free will', so it doesn't prove anything about the objective existence of God; a robot will do what it's programmed to do. Also, certainty in matters of belief leads to things like the Spanish Inquisition.
You seem to think I'm proposing robot clergy as an excellent idea! I'm proposing it as an interesting possibility, that's all. I'd probably just do without the clergy altogether. Many self-professed Christians manage it simply by not going to church very often, if at all.
OTOH, as a churchgoer I have a low theology of the ordained clergy, and programmed robot ministers might at least discourage the laity in some churches from putting these people on a pedestal, and from expecting them to work miracles for the church....
I wasn't really thinking about using programmed robots to 'prove' anything to atheists, but on reflection, I don't suppose that atheists like Dawkins will have much interest in organised religion in the sci-fi future of our country. Organised religion won't be significant enough to draw their attention.
I do agree that 'certainty' in religion can be problematic. That's what I was hinting at in the last paragraph of that post.
quote:
If artificial intelligence programs ever became sentient (a theoretical possibility only, AFAIK) and a sentient AIP developed a belief in God... now *that* would raise some interesting questions.
This is interesting. If highly developed, sentient, humanoid robots became part of our culture and society, what would we do if they wanted to be baptised? What if they then wanted to enter the ordained ministry?
But sci-fi tends to suggest that the line between programmed and sentient machines can be somewhat blurred once you get to a very advanced stage. I can see Christians entering into a lively disagreement on this!
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
I think you're confusing the idea of a (humanoid) robot with that of an AI. I don't see 'looking like a human' as a necessary condition for sentience. Some animals are sentient, though we might disagree on exactly how many species qualify depending on how we define sentience.
A sentient AI might live in a distributed computer network, and not have anything that a human would recognise as a 'body'.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
True, I did conflate those two things.
My assumption - perhaps incorrect - is that humans would find it easier to relate to a robot that looked and acted as if it were completely human. Would a programmed robot vicar who looked and sounded like a real-life Gyles Brandreth, say, be less or more appealing to the untrained, uninformed elderly lady in the pews than a totally sentient object that still looked like a PC?
What about a robot vicar that looked like a cuddly animal, or R2D2, etc.?
There's the psychological impact of each design to consider, but the design would also depend on what we wanted these robots to do. IME, a shortage of clergy impacts on more than just the blessing and sharing of the bread and wine at communion. It often goes hand in hand with a shortage of lay or ordained workers to participate in tasks such as pastoral care.
Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on
:
Is that great a theological leap from Dad (a CofE Lay Reader) doing communion by extension (i.e. using elements that were done by a proper vicar and reaching other parts of the benefice that would otherwise be reached?
Posted by irreverend tod (# 18773) on
:
sorry should have read yes - I'm marking GCSE transcripts and my brain has leaked out of my ears.
We have way too many clergy who are so overworked they are going about their duties like a robot. We also have too many who have had their personality removed at theological colleges - and quite a few who are clergy for the best of 18th century reasons (nice house, youngest son etc.
I would point out that there are a large number of teenagers who are relying on interactive technology to look at their spirituality and to find out about church. They do this because it's what they are used to and because they lack the confidence to walk into a church to find out. If this impersonal approach works as a starter we should go with it.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Svitlana: quote:
My assumption - perhaps incorrect - is that humans would find it easier to relate to a robot that looked and acted as if it were completely human. Would a programmed robot vicar who looked and sounded like a real-life Gyles Brandreth, say, be less or more appealing to the untrained, uninformed elderly lady in the pews than a totally sentient object that still looked like a PC?
I think you're correct in your assumption that humans would find it easier to relate to something that looked human, but I still think that this is a side-issue to the question of whether a sentient AI that develops a belief in God should be allowed to join the church. I think that's a more interesting question (though, as I said before, theoretical at the moment; perhaps forever) and I personally think the answer to that question should be 'Yes'. And if the sentient AI (still hypothetical) is allowed to join the church and believes it has been called to the ministry, then it should be considered for ministry on the same basis as any other member of the church (ordination by laying on of hands might be a bit of a challenge, if it doesn't have a humanoid body).
Of course, AIs might not feel the need to join the church even if they do develop sentience. Many SF writers have speculated on the question of whether alien species are 'saved'; CS Lewis famously pointed out that we can't assume they need saving by us, because they might never have 'Fallen' in the first place. And if they haven't, then making them do what we need to do to be saved is silly; like deliberately making someone ill so they can be cured, when they were perfectly healthy to begin with.
[ 26. June 2017, 09:28: Message edited by: Jane R ]
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0