# Religion, technology, and the future

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-technology-and-the-future/467217>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [October 9, 2008, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-technology-and-the-future/467217 "2008-10-09T20:05:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/bc8723/32.png) [@Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fish)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2008, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-technology-and-the-future/467217/21 "2008-10-11T15:53:35Z")

</div>

> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> Since when is religion monolithic?

That’s precisely why I put this in Great Debates; I don’t think there _would_ be any one answer, even within a single faith. Schisms would certainly result, but I don’t know enough about specific religious teachings to say where or how.

Regarding virtual reality: the Islamic reaction to the cartoons portraying the prophet Muhammed are very telling, as are the reactions of Christians and Catholics to such artistic wonders as the Virgin Mary painted in elephant dung. Many people seem to consider the _symbol_ of the religious item as holy as the actual item (the cross, the crescent, the prophet, the book).

According to the _hajj_, every Muslim man who can afford it is expected to make the pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in his lifetime. Does this mean Muslims would not be interested in space colonization? Would devout Muslims never leave the earth? I suspect not. Of those who do venture into space, presumably at first the _least_ wealthy who have little to leave behind, they would be more broad-minded about it; they might be satisfied with a _virtual reality_ pilgrimage that takes less time and/or fuel. Barring a _simulation_ of Mecca, they might enjoy a full-sensory recording of someone else’s _actual_ pilgrimage. This would (to me) be consistent with the idea that the symbol of the thing is as powerful as the thing itself.

The Muslim world wouldn’t believe that _now_, of course; they would insist upon the real city, if only because there are no alternatives. (I’m sure Mecca does big business too.) In 500 years’ time, possibly throwing the vast distances between space colonies into the mix, the rule might become more flexible.

> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> What is “virtual immortality”? So long as premature death is possible, & injustice is possible, in this life, a world of perfect justice & perfect life is desirable.

By virtual immortality I mean there is premature death and events of an unfortunate or tragic nature, but so long as you can download a copy of your mind into a clone (or android or cyborg) body, there’s no practical limit to lifespan provided the technology holds out. At first I’m relatively certain that this would only be practiced by the wealthiest people but the technology probably would trickle down to the middle class. This makes me suspect that Heaven becomes _less_ about eternal life and _more_ about justice and perfection.

In particular, I think Buddhists and Hindu would be all _oooovvvver_ the idea that you could download your mind into a new body, when the body became old. Reincarnation made real.

> [@foolsguinea](#):
>
> > [@Fish](#):
> >
> > Does a perfect computer simulation of a human mind also have a soul?
> 
> Um… Yeah, I guess so, if you’re talking about something like the digitized persons (Djinn, Ifrit, & Dybbuk) in Ostrander & Yale’s Suicide Squad series. As long as there’s a reasonably continuous self that can grow & experience things, yeah. (Expect future religious leaders to be all over the map on this.)

See, I’m thinking that Buddhists would like this one too: eventually you could give up the pleasures of the body and live entirely as a digital construct. There would certainly be some societies that would find it terribly convenient to believe that a digitized human mind still has a human soul with full human rights. Some wouldn’t, of course.

> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#):
>
> > [@Fish](#):
> >
> > Is a sin committed in virtual reality still a sin?
> 
> I suspect it’s possible. Basing this on the nature of people, I suspect there may very well be some good business in supplying the ability to “murder” people you don’t like and so forth, and from that I suspect that religions at the time will probably issue proclamations against it and consider it bad. I doubt that it would be considered as sinful, if that makes sense.

Well, I believe certain _things_ would still be sinful, according to certain sects. Coveting your neighbor’s stuff might be one of those, because that appears more to be a crime of mind. Sex for pleasure is a difficult one to answer, however, since although you _think_ you’re having sex, you aren’t actually. You aren’t an onanist — spilling your seed on the ground, so to speak.

> [@Revenant Threshold](#):
>
> > [@Fish](#):
> >
> > When you clone a human being, do you clone his soul? Does the clone’s soul bear the sins of his parent?
> 
> I doubt this will be taken up too much; at least, not at an extent unsimilar to non- or less religious types who may think a clone of Hitler should be killed immediately, to give an extreme example.

I imagine the religions will adjust their philosophy to believe whatever is most convenient at the time. If clone bodies are used to preserve the lives of the already-living — for instance, if you clone only a liver to use as transplant — then they would unquestionably be property. I fully believe the technology to clone a human being will arrive _far_ sooner than the ability to digitize a human mind or surgically transplant a human brain; therefore that question will be answered first, and later questions will depend upon it.

It may be my cynicism, but I tend to think that people, being flawed, tend to interpret dogma that is in their own self-interest and justify it later. “Does this help me live another 50 years? Then it’s okay.”

> [@Revenant Threshold](#):
>
> > [@Fish](#):
> >
> > Does a perfect computer simulation of a human mind also have a soul?
> 
> Here’s a tricky one.
> 
> I’m pretty sure myself that we won’t start recognising the rights of A.I. for at least three or four generations after we actually have sapient ones, and it’ll probably come on the heels of a civil rights movement. I would be concerned that religious groups would be on the wrong side of this one for quite a long time.

Oh, definitely. Once again, I thing pragmatism plays a part. “Can I live forever this way? Then I guess God approves.”

I’m sure this would be the source of a huge schism in the church. Consider it: when you get a digital backup of your brain made, _you still die_. The copy of your brain _thinks_ that it’s you, so it _thinks_ it is immortal. Nevertheless, you still experience death. I foresee the biggest objection to digitally duplicating minds is letting two duplicates run simultaneously.

> [@Revenant Threshold](#):
>
> As a general point, i’d be interested to see what would occur religious-wise if we met aliens at some point. I rather suspect that religion on either side would claim the religion of the other as astoundingly similar and in fact one and the same.

Assuming the aliens had a religion. I rather think that any intelligent race would probably have _some_ baser instincts lodged in the deeper parts of its brain, behaviors that were automatic and inexplicable, that might serve as the source for a religion. It might also have ancient teachings from its prehistory that have evolved into a religious dogma. A great deal would depend on the presentation of the aliens; do they look like anything we can relate to?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-technology-and-the-future/467217.md?page=1)