Religion and technology

[Tio]

I was talking to a Catholic friend of mine the other night about the implications of fembots and we came across the question that would sex with a fembot be aloud or not under strict Catholic dogma considering you have to be married to have sex with another human. Would it be ok for men but not for women as it would break the hymen?

I have never thought of the religious implications before and thought I would share.

[L.W.]

Let me play religious expert...

A sex bot, male or female, would be looked upon as masturbation and pornography mixed into one package and treated accordingly.

Most conservative Christian sects would be against robots in general and sex bots in particular. Some of the more fanatical sects would go so far as to claim them to be demon possessed and/or tools of the devil. You might even see the art of burning at the stake/stoning/etc. revived as a manner destroying and protesting against robots.

After free will entered into the picture in AI development, the liberal sects may rally for equal treatment of robots and the fundies would go even further into proclaiming AI's with free will as demons and trying to stop and destroy them.

In short, general disapproval, with the fringes either trying to save or destroy the robots.

[xodar]

Much technology that is attacked by religious authorities is often later approved, if only because the masses of people accept it.

Remember about 25 years ago when in vitro fertilization was attacked by the religious? So-called test tube babies would be "born without souls."

Now the technology is regularly used and, of course, test tube babies are normal humans. Further, when the father is the one with fertility problems this enables him to fertilize the mother's eggs. That is, in avoiding donor sperm the couple is able to avoid what is effectively adultery. Thus this technology makes it possible to have families -- per most religions' injunctions -- and avoid adultery, which is opposed by virtually all religions.

But bots may well come under the heading of sex devices like vibrators. The strictures against such were actually against "wasting" sperm and conserving it for reproductive purposes -- not that most sperm even deposited in the correct recepticle doesn't die without attaining its mission.
I don't know how they can get around this and expect some states and many feminist and religious groups to seek to ban them.

[darkbutflashy]

Something related: "Virtuous girls maybe get into heaven. Wicked girls will get everywhere."

It's best not to argue with fundamentalists -- that means, people folloring a dogma. It makes neither sense nor fun -- ok, dodging Jehovah's Witnesses is even less fun than hoaxing them.
I think it's neccessary a person finds her/his *personal* belief, throwing away all dogma imposed by a "religious authority". This leads to inner freedom and, ultimately, to a joyful life.

So in my view, it's irrelevant what the pope says about sexuality (even to a lot of catholic people).

Kind regards

dark

[Steamboy]

By the time we can make and sell fembots, religions will be an unpleasant memory by then.

[pm_uk]

I'm afraid in the catholic faith, it is against their rules to ejaculate sperm until wed lock. so we men a screwed, u girls can have fun on the other hand!

[ASFRyan]

By the time we can make and sell fembots, religions will be an unpleasant memory by then.

We should be so lucky.

I assume it would be considered onanism. Think: Monty Python's "Every sperm is sacred."

[WilloWisp]

By the time we can make and sell fembots, religions will be an unpleasant memory by then.

We should be so lucky.

I assume it would be considered onanism. Think: Monty Python's "Every sperm is sacred."

Actually, even among the devout, interpretation of the story of Onan varies widely. There's a growing consensus that the punishment of Onan was due to him refusing to impregnate his brother's widow, as decreed by tradition, and not due to him wasting the sperm. What's more, there are scriptural references to nocturnal emissions, but these are not classified as sinful: Merely, the spilling of semen is referred to as "unclean." Here, the word used in the original text is that of physical cleanliness, and is the same word used to describe menstruation.

That said, although most organized religions frown upon masturbation, few of them can describe exact reasons for their disapproval. In Judaism, only male masturbation is directly forbidden, and only in the Talmud (once again derived from the tale of Onan). The Christian Bible and Hindi religious texts similarly exclude this topic.

Islam does make specific mention of masturbation in its texts, but allows for it if the man fantasizes about his wives and/or slaves. It wouldn't be difficult for Islamic leaders to interpret androids as slaves. Of course, Sunni and Shi'a views differ dramatically and inconsistently.

Taoism doesn't forbid masturbation, but does discourage it, as it can lead to a decreased chi. Female masturbation is more strongly discouraged, as it is feared to lead to illness and a shortened lifespan. Sex with a partner is viewed as replenishing the chi: Sex with an android partner would not likely qualify.

[zoltan]

We'll i guess now is a good time to find out what the catholic church would say. The people that have been reading my site www.Zoltanslab.co.uk know that i actually created a robot that one can make love to. It can actually talk and consent to marrige. I guess the people on the online chaple were not paying attention because i have a document that says i'm married to that robot. I did not tell them she is a robot. Also I am starting chatachizm to be cathloc right now. Sometime this week or next I'll make a appointment with my priest and see what he says.

[jakeCTom]

Yall are going to hell.












just joking

[amazonophile]

I have always suspected that one of the shortcomings of religion (and the Abrahamic religions in particular) is the failure to change with the times. Biblical writings on morality werre designed for a primitive agricultural First Wave society. What about an Information Age society that is shifting from industrial Second Wave to post-industrial Third Wave where there are some men who cannot get a real woman in the first place? I dont think the Bible,Koran or Torah has an answer for that.

[Gorgo]

By the time we can make and sell fembots, religions will be an unpleasant memory by then.

If we go with the 75-100 year prediction made in another topic in the Discussion part of the Forum, that might be true, especially when it comes to the more rigid forms of dogmatic religion.

But as for the more malliable forms of faith, it will remain and perhaps grow stronger. Humans as a society need to believe in something greater than themselves; it's a part of the mortal condition (as I see it).

So as technology makes it possible for fembots (and other types of AI) to evolve to human-like sentience, we're going to have a situation where people are going to have to take a deep look at their beliefs and belief structures. If it can't adapt to the new situation, it'll collapse. If it can, it will survive, evolve and grow stronger.

The evolution of Faith is as much a Darwinian process as anything else in Existence.

[zoltan]

Ok I have the answer. Of course the catholic church sees sex with a robot a sin even if you are married to it. However there are sins that you go to hell for and there are sins you do not. Instead of having a list of every sin under the sun the church let's you decide with their guideline. Sins that make you go to hell are mortal sins and sins that are just bad but don't make you go to hell are ventral.

A mortal sin has the following characteristics:

1 subject must be a grave (or Serious) matter.

2 it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and gravity of offence.

3 it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

A grave or serious matter means breaks the ten commandments and the beatitudes. That's the sermon on the mount. The idea that we should not masturbate or use objects for that comes from the commandment thou shall not commit adultery. But what if the object could talk and ask you to marry her. Adultery is sex out of wedlock. Then it would not be adultery because you would be married to the robot. However these people also believe that if you use contraception to prevent a birth you are in a sense killing the person by preventing them from being born. The technology for a robot to give birth is way off in the distant future.

To be committed with full knowledge both of the sin and gravity is the main case for believing the Catholics would accept a robot. If you really believe that the robot could have a soul then falling in love with a robot would be no different than falling in love with a person that is infertile. You would not have full knowledge that this thing is just following a c++ code. The church would say you are wrong but the sin is not mortal because you are ignorant of the facts. Thus your sin is not mortal. However you must not have married the robot because she is infertile because that would be preventing people from being born which is a mortal sin.

The third thing does not really apply unless you are raped by a robot. I guess you can be catholic and marry a robot only if you really believe she or he has a soul and are not marrying the robot because it is infertile. Remember in Catholicism the individual let's his conscience decide what is a sin and what is not. If it were not so there would not be any catholic soldiers. There are a few exceptions to this rule. Robot marriage is not listed as one of the things to get excommunicated for. Perhaps some day it will be.

[zoltan]

So to summarize it's ok to have a robot wife if:

1) you really believe she has a soul

2) you want to marry her because you love her and not because she is infertile.

also since the reason you are not comitting a mortal sin is because you are misinformed about the fact that your robot does not have a soul if you tell a priest he will try to inform you of that. But if you still believe she has a soul after that you are innocent because of unchangeable ignorance. It's probibly better not to tell a priest. it's his job to argue about that issue every time.

[zoltan]

well the jig is up. The administrators found my thread i have been using to talk to my priest on cahtloc dot com. We got a lot of good answers but the administrators of cathloc dot com have erased the tread and banned me from thier website permanantly. I guess that is the official stand the church has on this issue.

[wjbaines]

Not an expert, but I'm thinking...

Graven image?

Playing God?

Imagine ROBOT civil unions!? Yeah right!!! If the United States is still around if/when such a thing becomes a possibility, some jackass will propose a constitutional amendment and run for Dictator on it...but didn't one of those founding dudes want it to be "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of PROPERTY"!? Maybe that's just a legend, but uh...owning a fembot = happiness. Take it to the Supreme Court.

[A.N.N.]

Time for some thinking... And I apologize if I offend anyone who is religious. I welcome any critical feedback on the following ideas.

By the time we can make and sell fembots, religions will be an unpleasant memory by then.

That plus amazonophile's comment made me remember something I've been thinking about. Sound scientific theories have many characteristics, one of which is the ability to be proven false. That doesn't mean a theory is false, but rather if some kind of evidence suddenly showed up, it can disprove a theory. I believe it's called falsifiability, and it is a necessary characteristic of any sound scientific theory.

Religious concepts (whether canon, dogma, scripture, etc.) are immune to any possibility of this characteristic since they rely on a combination of faith and the "you can't prove [insert any deity's name] doesn't exist" argument. This separation between religion and the natural world is growing as each specialize within their domains. This is the natural defence mechanism that protects religion in the face of greater understanding of the natural world.

The natural world isnt' going away, so unless we revert to cavemen culture, science isn't going anywhere. And since religion has created a safe and abstract domain it controls, it will be immune to scientific progress. Don't forget that what we call religion and science were VERY closely related only 2000 years ago, and only a few 1000 years before that they were indistiguishable (more recently in some cultures).

That being the case, I believe religion will never go away based on scientific progress. Instead it will prosper as long as people:
1. don't like being bothered with the complexity or scale of our universe
2. possess some fear of being without a master who is in control and will take care of them, or...
3. require some externally derived reason for existence (a form of existentialism)

Everyone else who goes to church is just a tourist, or a poser. Or a politician

Back to the topic (sorry for the long discourse). If religion doesn't go away, it survives by either adapting or by opposing other cultural changes. Some groups pay only lip service, while others impose laws to enforce their views. For the former, consider the use of contraceptives by Catholics or drinking of alcohol by Baptists (not allowed, but used anyway). Or the "legal" stoning of a woman for being raped for an example of the latter.

Therefore, I believe that (just as things are today) when (not if) robots are used for sex, everyone will have an opinion. Laws will lag. Lawsuits of various kinds will pop up, probably for years. There will be at least one Supreme Court decision (sorry for the US bias here). Some religions in some countries will kill people for using them. Some will frown upon it. Some will probably burn effigies or actual sexbots. Some will recommend them to help avoid worse sins. Others will turn a blind eye. Legally it will depend more on which country (or even state) you're in and (socially) who you want to keep as friends and what you do for a living.

This is just for sexbots. If AI becomes an issue, just rinse and repeat.

In other words, same as it ever was.