Tag Archives: Caprica

The Shape of Things To Come: Blogging for Black History Month

Well, I know I have not been posting recently, but I plan to get back to it. I have some things in store.

I want to do a controversial series to make everyone squeamish, so I wanted to do what has turned out to maybe a 5 or 6 post series on Racial Justice and Science Fiction. Included in that will be C.S. Lewis, Octavia Butler, Aldous Houxley, and Olaf Stapledon among others.

I also have plans to do my series on The Africana Bible, and first up will be an introduction and a reflection Judges (My Favorite book) as a response to Bishop Eddie Long’s Enthronement.

#MISBEHAVING

James McGrath’s Religion and Science Fiction Chapter 6

On The Natural Rights of Robots Made in the Imago Homo

I would like to thank Wipf and Stock Publishers for my review copy of James McGrath’s latest book, Religion and Science Fiction.

I come to the chapter that I know that James McGrath would be very familiar with, his own, “Robots, Rights, and Religion.” In this work, McGrath seeks to push the Christian theological imagination into the possible and what could be very real future. With the potential development of artificial intelligence which could theoretically imitate humans, would the self-awareness of AI technology necessarily entail natural rights and privileges? At this point, McGrath points to our brain’s importance in religious experience, and dismisses any attempt to bring in the concept of the Imago Dei as nothing more than “superficial” (123). The AI presents to Christianity is a view of the soul, perhaps borrowed from Greek Philosophers where there is a spirit inside us that is separate from our material existence (136). If it is a soul which grants human beings natural rights, and if this concept of the soul is more Platonist than biblical, then indeed, that would put the very idea of natural rights into question, yes? Not for McGrath, for he even explores the possibility of rights for animals, you know, so we can protect killer whales while there are thousands of citizens still on death row. This all leads to the question of salvation, can machines be saved? This would put the question of God Incarnate in human flesh into question, with the Fathers’ and Mothers’ argument that Christ saves what the Word assumes, i.e., human reality. To an extent, McGrath’s overly optimistic vision even presents a challenge to divine election in some circles; what does it mean for technology to live in covenant with God?

First, before I get into my theology of the imago dei, I want to show that I am fully capable of dealing philosophically with McGrath’s approach. I, for one, reject the epistemological docetism that takes the bodily, fleshly experience (this includes praxis) out of the definition of knowledge/intelligence. My skeptical view of the possibility that AI will be able to “sympatize” with human beings is like this in sum: such “sympathy” would be impersonal and superficial at best, sort of like Bill Clinton as President in the 1990s, constantly repeating over and over again, “I feel your pain” yet still give in to White right-wing bashing of the poor. Or take the situation of a domestic abuser who says, “I’m sorry” after each fight.  If he is truly moved by his own inhumane treatment towards his spouse or partner, then he would act on it. Fleshly, material, and bodily existence (this includes pain and pleasure, imprinted memories and counter-memories on our skins) is what it means to be human. Rationality as human personality cannot accept pain as part of our humanity. The rational robot will be just another attempt for humanity to construct a god who is impassible and who behaves just like us.

McGrath is certainly not the first biblical scholar to put the theology behind the Imago Dei into question; Hebrew Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann also argues against it, claiming it is not a central doctrine in Judaism, and that the Hebrew Bible has a different vision for what it means to be human (covenant being one of them). McGrath’s problem is he did not (even if it was 1 or 2 sentences) propose an alternative to the Imago Dei language. It is not easily dismissed with a scoff here or there. Also, the whole binary where there is this purely Jewish view of the soul versus Greek just does not cut it anymore; especially when you examine passages such as Samuel’s soul being brought back from the dead (1st Samuel 28), where a “ghostly figure” comes out of the earth. The Old Testament ban on mediums and spiritism was not because these things were impossible, but because they were possibilities, and that there was probably a spiritual realm in their view— and this coming from someone like me who is more of a materialist. One last note on the Imago Dei is the proposition that Christ as the Imago Dei (Colossians 1) teaches us what it is means to be human, since this knowledge cannot be grasped naturally. In the spirit of Matthew 25, I would say that there cannot be any definition of human personality, any anthropology (theological or otherwise) which does not take into consideration the Light & Wisdom of the oppressed peoples of the world!

Second, on the question of ethics, I don’t think I found McGrath’s view of what constitutes as “personality” as adequate. At this point, if human being is defined as being self-aware and rational, it would not be too far of a stretch to see the clone as a human being, and therefore making cloning okay. Are persons who are not self-aware, or persons who are deemed “not rational” any less human than “rational” people? While it is admirable to separate the imago dei theology from the language of rationality, I think that the idea of rationalism as a defining principle of personhood to be quite problematic, and a leftover from the Enlightenment. Indeed, do we not exclude persons suffering from intellectual disabilities? I am not saying Reason is a whore evil ala Martin Luther; what I am saying that abstract meditations on this sort of rationality complete divorce themselves from concrete forms of love, what Scripture calls in Hebrew, Hokmah, and in the Greek, Sophia, or Wisdom. Wisdom, as the application of knowledge is part of makes us as human beings unique–the ability to learn from our mistakes, to grow. Indeed, I think that beyond abstract notions of empathy and sympathy (things that yield intellectual familiarity), human beings are capable of partaking in the life of the transcendent, in suffering love, which would be concrete, bodily, intentional, and risk-taking.

In addition, if I learned anything from MacWilliams chapter in this text, on Frankenstein, “Science Playing God,” it is that we cannot leave our monsters alone to themselves to become self-sufficient, but rather, because the imago Dei is the imago Trinitas, with human beings as inherently relational, we should strive to make them (the robots) as part of the community.

Perhaps the imago Dei presents the greatest barrier to ideas that creatures “deserve” rights in the first place, since rights language, as theologians recently have pointed out, can become covers for plays of power: “I am entitled to this, therefore I can do this to you” etc., etc. Again, my challenge is not a call to return to anthropo-centrism, but a challenge to “RIGHTS” talk all together. Rights for whom, and why?

One of the good things about the failed Battle Star Galactica spin-off, Caprica, is that it gave us the reason why the Cylons were created– ahem, for military purposes very much like the Storm Troopers from Star Wars. I am sure that just as we look at the histories where Scripture records humanity’s struggles through the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, there, technology shapes politics, say, like the kingship of Saul and his band of farmers against the armed forces of the Philistines. All this is makes me more cautious than McGrath, and I would say, for good reason!  No technological advancement can be assumed to have an innocent starting point, no matter how noble the cause.

“Pain is love.”– Ja Rule

🙂

Enhanced by Zemanta

Caprica Series Finale: The Final Five Episodes

Caprica (TV series)
Image via Wikipedia

Some Concluding Thoughts Without Any of The Spoilers

Caprica‘s cancellation was announced on October 27th, 2010.  At that time, I was distraught, especially with the news that the last five episodes would be moved from October to January 2011.  I didn’t have Netflix so I could expect about a week’s longer wait to see the series finale after the DVD came out.

The first two episodes of the five, Blowback and Dirteaters, the Adama‘s story gets told through flashback.  I see it more of a sign of things to come, first with the planned BSG prequel Blood & Chrome which may eventually turn into a t.v. series. This, I think is crucial for a couple of reasons. First, I personally believe that Caprica would have been a success if the Cylons and Graystones were NOT the center of the story.  Their lives were so distant from regular families, and plus with the Cylon technology and the character Serge, Caprica probably lost viewers because they simply could not relate to Daniel and Amanda as a family.  William Adama already had a fan base from BSG, and plus the Adama family narrative is far more compelling as it is complex.  There are issues of immigration, marginalization, cultural ethos, cultural integration, as well as notions of community (in vs. out).  I think the average person would have been able to relate to the Adamas more than the Graystones. In short, the humanity of the Adamas as well as their name recognition made them the superior story.  It’s just like politics, you go with the cow that gives you the best milk, and then you make hamburgers out of it afterward!

The last three episodes, The Heavens Will Rise, Here Be Dragons, and Apotheosis were a nice conclusion to a vastly underrated show.  There are no loose ends to the story.  I will admit that I did enjoy the anti-Calvinist polemic, especially coming from Zoe Graystone at the end of Apotheosis

Overall, I give the series an A-, up from a B- until tonight. It is a must see for science fiction fans.  Alas, Caprica, I send thee the way of the island of failed tv pilots, shows, and spin-offs.

Enhanced by Zemanta