Effects of technology on Religion

[phungus420]

One thing that I've been thinking about is the effects of future technological advacements on Religion. Specifically AI, cybernetics, and high tech medical procedures that will stop the aging process. I realize we don't have these technologies yet, but they are not too far off. Within the next 100 years it's reasonable to assume medical technology will have advanced to the point where the aging process can be stopped, and death is no longer a certainty. Likewise it's a foregone conclusion we will create thinking machines that will be able to reason, and cognitively think on par with humans. And finally we already have created Neural interfaces that can directly jack into monkeys brains and control movement, or allow the monkeys to directly control programs with thoughts, so cybernetics over the next 100 years could develope to allow people to have instant and total recal of events, and increase IQ by hundreds of points.

What effects will such technologies have on Religion? Death no longer being certain is huge, and also machines with "souls" will likewise bring up many religious questions.

Anyone have any thoughts on this topic?

[wphelan]

Death no longer a certainty?

Um, yes, I suppose that would be huge. Your faith in medical technology is pretty strong.

[Zarquon]

While lifespans could definitely shoot up to 150-200 years, i don't think death will ever cease to be certain; and developments in neurology thus far, should be enough to undermine any faith if examined with an open mind(regarding the existence of a soul).

In the next few decades I hope to see consciousness being explained, advances in biotech allowing everyone to receive medicine according to their own genetic makeup, and also food which is catered specifically to meet your daily caloric requirements, full organ regeneration through stem-cells in labs, and the breakdown of all barriers to communication, with nanotech bots for fighting diseases and helping boost abilities embedded in more and more human beings with all of us becoming more cybernetic as a result.
While people always have and always will come up with belief systems that can give them certainty, hope, and a purpose; I hope to see Christianity and Islam(in their most basic human-animal denying sense) ,along with Sikhism and Hinduism, fade away, with liberal religion and a sort of deism becoming dominant, and it neither odd nor taboo to be an atheist.
Specifically, I hope to see an increase in scientific literacy resulting in the spread of metaphysical naturalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism) and a more humanist, life-affirming outlook(acknowledging the human-animal and seeking to better it through education and a purely pedagogic education system allowing everyone to become the best person they can be) o become prevalent if not dominant. What a wonderful world that'd be.

[phungus420]

Your faith in medical technology is pretty strong.
It's not faith, it's the direction of things. People are already working to reverse engineer the human brain, and humans have already directly jacked into monkeys brains and had them interact with the computer purely with it's mind; if within 90 years we don't have cybernetic jacks available to boost the cognitive abilities of human beings I'll be surprised. Same can be said for AI achieving cognative abilities parallel in power to the human mind. No sir, my premise is based on historical perspective and observation.

The belief that givens in this day and age, such as death from old age, human mental supremecy, and IQs fixed under 200 will continue as everyday facts, now that's faith.

[dilettante]

I'm not sure about the possible effects on religion.
But if we manage, in the next 100 years, to achieve limitless lifespans and true AIs on par with humans, I'd say that we will all be right royally screwed. That scenario has "doom" written all over it.

[Michael]

Very interesting topic! :thumbsup:

To be honest, I must say I'm not normally inclined toward future speculations - I'm far more obsessed with studying the past for guidance. In that light, I would look to history to see how various advancements have affected religion in the past.

And one thing that history puts into perspective here, based on the examples cited in the OP is about longevity. All of the fancy medical advances that have been brought to the market in the twentieth century haven't actually had much effect on mortality rates or longevity rates.

That is to say, almost all of the decrease in mortality and the increase in longevity rates that has occurred over the last hundred years has come mostly from the application of good quality sanitation/water systems, increased quality/availability and decreased cost of food, and a couple of simple medical advances made in the 19th century (germ theory and penicillin for example).

And industrial safety laws have also been very important in reducing the mortality rates and increasing longevity rates for males (particularly compared with 19th century - or the 13th century).

In other words, all the fancy medical science-technology we've invented so far seems impressive, but really hasn't had that much of an effect on human mortality rates and/or longevity rates. As it stands, were just getting very good at eliminating all the things that have traditionally killed off humans before they died of old age - meaning that more and more people are actually reaching their "natural" old age limits (which probably vary with each individual).

Human sciences might be able to cheat nature a bit here on the margins, but for the masses of humanity, CAT scans ain't worth much and don't change the world half as much as a good sewer system or a good clean water system does.

By the same token, I'd assert that the theory of evolution and/or intellectual atheism, both a product of widespread education and material prosperity that became widely available in the 19th century has done more to affect religion than all the advances in the medical sciences.

And if we turn back the clock a few centuries, we have the episode of Copernicus and Galileo 'inventing' a new science of astronomy that was entirely radical and blasphemous to contemporary religion - striking at the very heart of the idea of religion - but the Church managed to survive...

And how the Church managed to survive Newton's discovery of "universal laws" is another astonishing example of the flexibility of religion. Heck, the religious folks even claimed that Newton's discovery vindicated their religious views. How the religious folks can explain the purpose/meaning of prayer in the context of "universal laws that govern the universe" is beyond me... (but that's beside the point here).

My primary point is to question how much any science has ever affected religion in the past. On this basis, I don't see new gizmos of science to be any more dangerous to religion than others that have already gone before.

[phungus420]

Normally I'd be inclined to agree with you. But the three things I bring up here are unlike other technological advances in the past. True I make some major assumptions, but in light of current research I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume AI will reach a point where an artificial intelligence exists which can think on par with (and later at a superior level then) humans, and this is coming soon, within the next 100 years is a concervative estimate. I can see various theologies being able to cope with such things, but it'll cause massive schisms. The way theologians deal with the repurcussions of this will be facinating, will the dominant view be that such thinking machines have a soul (and thus have humans elevated themselves to godhood?), or will the dominant view be that they are souless and sentient? I don't see this one destroying the concept of religion, but it will likely have a profound effect none the less.

Now maybe medical science wol't get to the point where the aging process is halted within the next century. But provided humans aren't destroyed (by natural or self created means), they will eventually advance to the point where you wol't die of old age, thus death becomes not the immenent thing it is now, it will only occur as a result of trauma, or disease. I think such a change in the human life cycle will have revolutionary implications on theology, and the role of religion in society in general, to the point that it could threaten religion's dominance in society (the vast majority of people claim religious beliefs).

[wphelan]

Maybe I'm having trouble addressing the rest of this thread because I can't get past the idea that humans will soon, or even some day, defeat natural death. What kind of scientific advances lead you to believe that? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it sounds ridiculous. Has the upper limit of the natural human life span increased as opposed to just average life expectancy?

[The Drunk Guy]

Maybe I'm having trouble addressing the rest of this thread because I can't get past the idea that humans will soon, or even some day, defeat natural death. What kind of scientific advances lead you to believe that? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it sounds ridiculous. Has the upper limit of the natural human life span increased as opposed to just average life expectancy?
I'm with you on this, phelan. Life spans went from the 40s to the 70s with germ theory and antibiotics, but that has changed little since. Granted, I'm sure there are more folks who live to see a century than ever before, but that is balanced out by teenage deaths created by other new technologies, such as cars and Norwegian death metal. Furthermore, those folks who do live that long are often spending the last 30 years of their life in state of fragility akin to that of an infant. No real great leaps and bounds there.

[Michael]

Maybe I'm having trouble addressing the rest of this thread because I can't get past the idea that humans will soon, or even some day, defeat natural death. What kind of scientific advances lead you to believe that? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but it sounds ridiculous. Has the upper limit of the natural human life span increased as opposed to just average life expectancy?

I'm with you on this, phelan. Life spans went from the 40s to the 70s with germ theory and antibiotics, but that has changed little since. Granted, I'm sure there are more folks who live to see a century than ever before, but that is balanced out by teenage deaths created by other new technologies, such as cars and Norwegian death metal. Furthermore, those folks who do live that long are often spending the last 30 years of their life in state of fragility akin to that of an infant. No real great leaps and bounds there.

I believe that phungus420 has 'walked back' a couple of the more outlandish claims about lifespans in his reply to my post above and refocused his question along the lines of the advent of AI.

With regard to AI, I don't see how this poses a problem for religion (Christianity specifically) given that they already hold that all humans are inherently flawed (original sin doctrine) and thus, it should be no surprise that a machine might be able to 'out-think' a very flawed human being.

If religion held that humans were perfect, then AI would indeed pose a moral quandry, but if humans are just a flawed product of sin, doomed to be just placeholders waiting for Judgement Day, I don't see how AI would impact that in any meaningful way (or why the religious folks should care - they should be focused on waiting patiently for their blessed Judgement Day and that's that).

[phungus420]

I believe that phungus420 has 'walked back' a couple of the more outlandish claims about lifespans in his reply to my post above and refocused his question along the lines of the advent of AI.
Not at all. I think it's weird how ingrained this idea of natural death is in people. In all future sci-fi people still die of old age, and don't live much longer then people do now. Yet aging is one of the biggest irritants people have, I have no doubt medical science will eventually figure out how to stop the aging process. Either through Nanotech, some sort of stem cell or other clone utilizing tissue infusion procedure, genetic therapy, or some currently un thought of process, humans will stop natural death, it's only a matter of time. Of course I contend that the technology isn't too far off, I wouldn't be surprised to see shuch technology come into existance within the next 100 years, maybe you disagree with that timeline, and that's reasonable. But what I find so odd is that this concept, which is entirely based on speculation, just seem unfathanable to the responders in this thread. Rather then comenting on the hypothetical, all I see are "It's Impossible" responses. Well sirs, staying death from old age is not impossible, humans just don't know how to do it... yet.

[phungus420]

With regard to AI, I don't see how this poses a problem for religion (Christianity specifically) given that they already hold that all humans are inherently flawed (original sin doctrine) and thus, it should be no surprise that a machine might be able to 'out-think' a very flawed human being.

If religion held that humans were perfect, then AI would indeed pose a moral quandry, but if humans are just a flawed product of sin, doomed to be just placeholders waiting for Judgement Day, I don't see how AI would impact that in any meaningful way (or why the religious folks should care - they should be focused on waiting patiently for their blessed Judgement Day and that's that).
Would artificial inteligences be capable of passing into the afterlife? Would they have souls as it were? If so, wouldn't that make humans gods, as they would have created new souls?

Of course many churches will reject this, and say they don't, but it'll cause conflict. I think the theological implications of a "thinking" machine will be facinating.

[Non Sequitur]

Would artificial inteligences be capable of passing into the afterlife?.

If we say that AI is technologically and philisophically possible, than yes it would be in the afterlife. The Bible is very sure that all creation (including human creation) will be in the New Heaven and New Earth.

Would they have souls as it were? If so, wouldn't that make humans gods, as they would have created new souls?

My answer would have to be no on all counts. While I would think that AI would appear in the afterlife, it would not have a soul because a soul is something instilled by the "breath of God", to quote the Bibe, and only humans have this Spirit of God. Humanity is made in God's image. Only God would posses the power to create a soul. Also, there is a lot more to divinity than creating souls.

On a side note, this is all assuming the Bible is clear that a thing called "the soul" exists. The Bible is less clear than most people think.

[Michael]

Would artificial inteligences be capable of passing into the afterlife? Would they have souls as it were? If so, wouldn't that make humans gods, as they would have created new souls?

Of course many churches will reject this, and say they don't, but it'll cause conflict. I think the theological implications of a "thinking" machine will be facinating.

Yes, I agree that such a 'thinking machine' would pose serious theological challenges to religious theory, but such esoteric doctrine really is only understood by a tiny minority. For the masses, their religion is not predicated upon the rationality of the doctrine at all - far from it.

Indeed, religion stands or falls on faith alone. Rational challenges to doctrinal assertions may be fun sport for atheists, but the 'true believers' just seem to tune that discussion out (or ignore it as if it doesn't exist).

On the whole, I don't see science posing any greater challenges to religion than they have done already in the past. Its hard to top the Copernicus/Galileo destruction of the religious view of an Earth-centered universe and the Darwinian destruction of the religious view of a Human-centered universe.

Those were two pretty serious 'punches' against religion in the past. Religion managed to survive both quite remarkably easy. Cognitive dissonance is a very useful thing.

[dilettante]

Not at all. I think it's weird how ingrained this idea of natural death is in people. In all future sci-fi people still die of old age, and don't live much longer then people do now. Yet aging is one of the biggest irritants people have, I have no doubt medical science will eventually figure out how to stop the aging process. Either through Nanotech, some sort of stem cell or other clone utilizing tissue infusion procedure, genetic therapy, or some currently un thought of process, humans will stop natural death, it's only a matter of time. Of course I contend that the technology isn't too far off, I wouldn't be surprised to see shuch technology come into existance within the next 100 years, maybe you disagree with that timeline, and that's reasonable. But what I find so odd is that this concept, which is entirely based on speculation, just seem unfathanable to the responders in this thread. Rather then comenting on the hypothetical, all I see are "It's Impossible" responses. Well sirs, staying death from old age is not impossible, humans just don't know how to do it... yet.

That seems like a fair complaint.

Accepting the hypothetical, then, I'd wager that if humanity found a "cure" for aging in the next 100 years, it would eventually result (indirectly) in a mass religious revival, and probably spur on the more radical, fundamentalist varieties of the various major religions.

My reasoning here is that curing old age, while perhaps spiffy for individuals who don't want to die, would be a terrible blow for humanity in general. Over-population would suddenly become a real, immediate threat. Avenues of professional, economic, and social advancement would shut down as older, experienced workers ceased to retire. The technology would almost certainly be prohibitively expensive initially, raising questions of whether we would (A) let the rich live forever while the poor die, or (B) expend a huge percentage of public wealth to ensure equal availability of the treatment. The social disruption would be insane; I can't imagine anything more likely to tear a society to shreds faster than the idea that one-half of it has the secret to cheating death and the other half is threatened with being left out. In short, the first effect of the "cure" would be mass chaos and agitation. If we survived that and implemented the cure on a broad basis, we'd almost certainly face an immediate economic and subsistence catastrophe.
Religions tend to do well in times of tribulation and desperation. Futhermore, I imagine many religious leaders would denounce this sort of research (probably using that irritating phrase "playing God" to do so) in advance. Once the turmoil broke out they'd appear to be visionaries and likely gain a significant following, mainly amongst those unable to achieve the treatment.

BUT, perhaps I'm just being pessimistic. Lets say that we can introduce this "cure" on a broad basis and somehow avoid both the social unrest and the economic-subsistence crisis (I can't imagine how we'll dodge the latter, hypothetically, lets say we do). In this new society, we find that limitless life ceases to be a thing of fancy and becomes a real possibility. As a result, accidental or traumatic death in any form (and especially death for someone young) becomes an unimaginable horror; it robs us not only of a few more years, but of eternity. If anything, taking away the inevitability of death makes the possibility of death far more terrifying. I suspect people would cling even more desperately to anything that would take that terror away; religions (or some of them) do that.
Furthermore, religions offer purpose and direction. They provide a comforting voice to tell us that life has meaning and that we matter. Those services would become infinitely more desirable when lifespans stretch off into multiple centuries.
And finally, its worth noting that of late religion has become a thing of older generations. If that trend holds, and younger generations are increasingly irreligious, then letting people cheat death will only slow the decline of religion as the older generations linger and (in the face of boom population) younger generations become every smaller.

Anywhere, that's my take on it. Accepting the hypothetical and assumption we cure old-age in the next century, religion (and especially fundamentalism) will see an astonishing revival.

[The Drunk Guy]

Not at all. I think it's weird how ingrained this idea of natural death is in people. In all future sci-fi people still die of old age, and don't live much longer then people do now. Yet aging is one of the biggest irritants people have, I have no doubt medical science will eventually figure out how to stop the aging process. Either through Nanotech, some sort of stem cell or other clone utilizing tissue infusion procedure, genetic therapy, or some currently un thought of process, humans will stop natural death, it's only a matter of time. Of course I contend that the technology isn't too far off, I wouldn't be surprised to see shuch technology come into existance within the next 100 years, maybe you disagree with that timeline, and that's reasonable. But what I find so odd is that this concept, which is entirely based on speculation, just seem unfathanable to the responders in this thread. Rather then comenting on the hypothetical, all I see are "It's Impossible" responses. Well sirs, staying death from old age is not impossible, humans just don't know how to do it... yet.I will argue simply that our organic bodies cannot, even with magnificent technology, exist for much longer than it already does (read 200 years max. with leaps in nanotech).

Now, if you want to dabble in the hypothetical, I could see cyborg situations arising relatively soon. Think Ghost in the Shell -- brains inserted into robotic hosts. That, however, is not the same as extending life; that is purchasing an extension of consciousness. I also highly doubt that a brain, even within the most wonderful artificial body, can exist for an indefinite amount of time. It will eventually degrade.

And artificial brains? Well, anything inserted into one of those becomes AI, not human, even if the coding is of a human brain.

As far as the religious consequences, who knows? I'm certain there will always be stragglers of the faiths, but their strength of belief will degrade over time. Take, for example, the reclusive Christian sects of America, the Amish, Mennonites, etc... They denied technology until they saw the financial benefits. Now, you often see Amish sects that are no more strict than other Evangelical sects. They even have their own market share in the personal produce industry.

People will call for the end times and wait for the trumpet to sound, but when it doesn't and they see it all as business as usual, they'll follow along. Even Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is possibly correct. ;)

[Michael]

Even Pope John Paul II stated that evolution is possibly correct. ;)

For the record, it is Pope Pius XII (in encyclicals from 1950 and 1951) who is the origin of the principle held by the Roman Catholic Church that neither Big Bang theory nor evolutionary theory fundamentally contradict the idea of God as the creator of the universe. Pope JP II only acknowledged that the evidence for evolutionary theory looked strong.

[SMadsen]

What effects will such technologies have on Religion? Death no longer being certain is huge, and also machines with "souls" will likewise bring up many religious questions.
Whatever the progress, one thing is always sure when it comes to religious assessment: Trench-digging.

[Non Sequitur]

Whatever the progress, one thing is always sure when it comes to religious assessment: Trench-digging.


That seems like a generalization. As with everything, some will trench dig and others will totally embrace and some will be in the middle.

[SMadsen]

That seems like a generalization. As with everything, some will trench dig and others will totally embrace and some will be in the middle.
Yes, I like to put everything in boxes. Then I know what to deal with.

Thing is that it's not about those who embrace it or those who could care less. It's always the trench-diggers the rest have to deal with.