Re: Ethics of human space travel

From: Jonathan Clarke (jdac@alphalink.com.au)
Date: Mon Dec 11 2000 - 15:28:42 EST

  • Next message: Jonathan Clarke: "Re: Ethics of human space travel"

    The same can also be said of artificial intelligence, should it ever be
    achieved.

    respectfully

    Graham Richard Pointer wrote:

    > On Sat, 9 Dec 2000, David F Siemens wrote [in part]
    >
    > > There are several questions here. First, can there be intelligent life
    > :
    >
    > >
    > > that is not spiritual? I think the answer has to be a qualified yes. If
    > > the level of intelligence is sufficient, I think that the point of Romans
    > > 1:19f kicks in. But that may end with no more than a vague awareness.
    > > What we know of God is the result of revelation, which does not have to
    > > be given. Certainly our more remote ancestors had much less awareness
    > > than we, some because they were not evangelized, others because
    > > revelation was progressive. Abraham knew enough to trust God. Did he know
    > > the protevangelium? If he did, it is certainly less explicit than Isaiah
    > > and the gospels.
    > >
    > > The second question involves the relevance of Jesus Christ to a nonhuman
    > > person. My understanding is that the Second Adam entered human life
    > > specifically to redeem the children of the First Adam. Consequently,
    > > those who are not of Adam's race are not covered by Jesus' atonement. If
    > > these nonhuman persons are fallen, there is nothing that seems reasonable
    > > that would preclude a redemption by divine act. But they do not have to
    > > be fallen. C. S. Lewis, in his space trilogy, suggested some
    > > possibilities, including multiple intelligent species on a single planet
    > > and a primordial couple who were obedient to the divine command. Only
    > > earth was "the silent planet." Additionally, there is no necessity that I
    > > see that an intelligent being have an eternal soul. Indeed, there are
    > > those who claim that only the souls of the redeemed are eternal. I think
    > > they're mistaken, but the view is not incoherent.
    >
    > Angels are intelligent, spiritual beings, but the fallen angels cannot be
    > redeemed and are not covered by Christ's atonement.
    >
    > Also, if we do prove that other primates are intelligent, we can assume
    > they do not have souls?
    >
    > Graham
    >
    >
    > Graham Richard Pointer
    > Dept of Physics and Astronomy
    > North Haugh
    > St Andrews
    > Fife
    > KY16 9SS
    > Scotland
    >
    > http://star-www.st-and.ac.uk/~grp1



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 15:22:55 EST