Imagine a time in the not too distant future. Trying to compensate for a declining population, scientists use advanced technology to build a “race” of robots, giving then not only human appearance and abilities, but also increasing amounts of “artificial intelligence.” Things work smoothly in the short run, as the robots’ nearly limitless energy for work transforms Earth into a near paradise. But the scientists, never satisfied with their product, and seeking to give them a chance at true relationship with their human masters, give the robots freedom of will, grafting it on to the ability to the think independently that they already have. Chaos soon ensues, as the robots rebel and rise up against the human population….This is standard fare, of course, in science fiction circles. Shows like “Battlestar Galactica” explore the philosophic issue surrounding this scenario, and play out possible expected, and some unexpected, outcomes. Let’s do the same from an apologetic's standpoint.
A major stumbling block for non-believers – and for many Christians as well – is the doctrine of Hell. How, they ask, can an “all-good” God consign his creation to a place of torment? Don’t we have a right to continued life, as we want it to be? Rights talk such as this flows readily from the American mind and temperament. As beneficiaries of a system of ordered liberty, with resort to the courts to settle our grievances, we seem to easily slip into thinking that man is autonomous, a force onto himself, with rights that spring from his desire for control.
But though we resist thinking about this notion, we are in fact created beings. We did nothing to bring ourselves into existence and the basic equipment with which we encounter the world was given to us at birth. However much we wish it to be otherwise, we cannot for long escape the realization – especially as our bodies age against our will and betray us – that we are on a journey in which this good Earth is simply a way-station. However much we assert our independence, utilize our intelligence, and demand our “rights” to do what we want, we must, if we are honest with ourselves, realize – perhaps with a bit of alarm – that whatever left us behind may intend to reckon with us for what we have done while here. He may, we must acknowledge, require an accounting.
Most people who think through the implications of our contingent nature eventually realize that whatever did create us and leave us here retains the right to do what he will with the fruit of his labor. After all, no one condemns the potter when he smashes the pot that does not meet his wishes, or the painter that slashes a painting if he so chooses. In the scenario painted above, we realize that the scientists would be within their rights when they “unplug” or otherwise disable their creation. Having made them, the scientists retain the right to do what they will – even by putting them to forced labor or by dismantling them for parts. There is no moral outcry when, for example, the Air Force cannibalizes broken planes for parts that keep other planes flying.
But when we move to the arena of man and his Creator, our bias leads us to a totally different conclusion. But we are different, aren’t we? We think, and reason, and have free will that allows us to plan, to dream, to set goals. We form relationships that are meaningful to us. And most importantly, we feel. Pain is a constant threat and common companion. Does this not give us the right to “do what we want?” Especially if we mean well and don’t want to “hurt” anyone? To be “good,” God must simply get out of our way and let us … what, be God?
Actually, He doesn’t. Nothing changes in this analysis when the creatures under consideration are us. Having formed us – and everything for that matter – from nothing, God can do what he wants with us. In fact, it appears that in the natural order of things, God has established rules that we violate at our peril, so that what He wants for us can be seen not only in his Revelation, but in the natural law. What changed is our perspective. Our bias in wanting our way is what leads us to cry foul when God’s created order bumps up against our plans and desires. As in the Garden of Eden, modern man insists on not serving God, but on replacing him… or displacing him, at the very least. Insistent on having our way, we see God as a nuisance, or for many of us, the enemy. We shake our fist at him, insisting that He move out of our way, and that he justify Himself to us.
Unlike the robot analogy, God does not fear us or where our freedom may take us. We present no threat to him. But that does not mean that He must accept us into His fellowship, for to do so would be inconsistent with His holy nature. So, He reveals Himself to us, in a way that is substantial but not overwhelming, so that He does not overcome our freedom to choose. And most importantly, He provides a way for us to reunite with Him, but on His terms. That many people will use this freedom to remain in rebellion is not something for which He must explain.
None of this is easy for us to fully comprehend or to accept. Set in our rebellion, without God taking the initiative, all would be lost. But when we insist that God must bend to our will, that our freedom to choose must be accepted by Him despite His contrary view, well, then we are living outside the order which God has created. And in the end, He can – and will – do what He, in His wisdom, deems right.
Better for us to begin to see that clearly than to persist in a notion that we can imagine God out of existence. He may seem largely hidden to us, but He is there.
5 comments:
No one condemns the potter for smashing an undesirable pot because (as far as we know) the pot does not think and feel. I can assure you that a potter who created pots that were sentient and smashed to pots that didn't give him the praise he "deserved" would be condemned. The fact is that once sentience is achieved, the "right" of the creator to do as he pleases goes away.
There has been a great deal of science fiction literature that asks the question "when robots can think for themselves, is it still our right to do what we will with them?" The common answer is a resounding "no." Perhaps it is because we can see ourselves (potentially) in the robot's place. But, really, that is where all morality comes from.
Still an opinion. Being a popular sci fi plot does not make it any more real than having a secret army of aliens infiltrating the government, which also a common theme.
Science Fiction is a description of the views of the authors. The plotline of android rights is often an allegory of human rights, where the android represents a human minority. The assumption is the human minority has rights, so there would be issues if the end point was the android was denied.
the idea of robot rights is relatively new and not conclusive. I cite examples such as. M5, Landru, Collossuss, VIki from I Robot, the original Cylons, V'Ger, RUR, the Matrix, Sid 6.7, the Terminator, etc. Are you saying the Terminator was murdered? Even Asimov's robots had their free will constrained by the three laws.
Pvblivs:
And to whom would the pot appeal? Where would he find grounding for that right? If he used his "sentience" to rebel against his maker, his maker would have no right to separate from him? To immobilize him? Interesting theory. When robots become sentient, the question will be raised by theists, who will ask whether this makes them sufficiently like humans to give them the rights that humans have as children of God.
Trent:
I'm not sure what you're asking. My point is that it would not be murder to deactivate a sentient robot because, not having the image of God that humans have, it does not have human rights.
Pvblivs said, "The fact is that once sentience is achieved, the "right" of the creator to do as he pleases goes away."
The problem with your reasoning here is that man did not "achive" sentience, it was bestowed upon him by his Creator. The creation can not determine what "rights" the creator has, or even what rights they have! The creator is free to "give and take away" anything he has allowed the creation to enjoy. Your line of thinking is what happens when the creation is given free will. The will is strong in humans, but never is stronger than the Creator Himself. One way to look at it is this: If you have children, you have already seen how the will begins to develop an independant spirit in a child. Even at 2, their actions and attitudes seem to say, "I don't need you, Mom and Dad! YOU can't tell ME what to do!" IF you have not seen this in your child, you WILL, oh, you will! They do not yet understand that they DO need you, and you CAN tell them what to do, of course, within limits. Obviously, some idependance is a good thing for a child. But,you, the parent, are taken for granted. Same applies to the hearts of men. Some THINK they don't need God, their very Creator, and they SCREAM by their lifestyles that "YOU can't tell ME what to do!" OH, but HE can! He is the Creator.
You say, "But, really, that is where all morality comes from." I am not totally sure what you mean by that, but really, all morality comes from being created by a moral Creator. We know there is a right and wrong because we were designed that way. Laws tell us WHAT is right or wrong, but can NOT make us moral. Our Creator has given us an absolute moral code, with consequences for "doing our own thing." Free will allows you to choose, but does NOT take away those consequences. The best thing about OUR Creator is that HE provided the payment for OUR wrongdoing, through Jesus. Again, though, it is through free will that we decide to follow HIS way, or our own.
Ascribing sentience to robots, rather than mere mimicing, is a form of anthropomorphizing similar to a two year old believing their teddy bear is sad if left alone.
Terminating a terminator is not murder, or justified homocide. It is property damage.
Post a Comment