Have all major faiths come to an end by Laurinda Ashcroft's time? On the one hand, we are probably supposed to infer this from the defunct church that Laurinda visits. On the other hand, there are plenty of defunct churches even now. Without inconsistency, an additional chapter of Genesis could be written showing how some faiths survive and also how they respond to the changed social conditions. But the faiths would change as well. Nothing stands still. Conservatives conserve their idea of a tradition but in very different circumstances. When I was a student in Manchester, a building still in use as a church on Sundays was mainly a Centre for the Study of Religion in the Urban Environment. Instead of waging war against Saracens, it provided a printing service for local mosques. A member of the Centre staff took some students, including me, on a walking tour of local synagogues. Some nineteenth century Christian missionary propaganda was available for study but was not on public display because it might be offensive.
I expect that something that we would recognize as religion will survive through almost any social changes but it might or might not have buildings:
"Neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem..."
Will powerful conscious AIs be benign? We don't know what they would be like. But their benignity is a reasonable fictional premise. Created by human beings, they might be programmed with a version of Asimov's Three Laws. And why should they have any interests in conflict with ours? To take the most extreme example of a superior intelligence, an omnipotent creator could not possibly create us in order to exploit us for his benefit because anything that we could make for him he could effortlessly make better for himself so his only possible motive for creation would be benevolence.
Poul Anderson begins Chapter VI by informing us that a lot of change has happened because we do not recognize the names of any of the Festivals mentioned.
11 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
For Christians to proclaim the truths of their faith, esp. as summarized in the Nicene Creed, is not propaganda. I would protest against that cowardly, Politically Correct hiding of Christian literature at that Center. Christians have as much right as Hindus and Muslims to display the signs, symbols, literature, etc., of their faith.
I see no reason for expecting AIs to be benign. Just recall the autocratic computer/AI we see in Anderson's "Goat Song."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Propaganda" just means propagating a belief. I did not see the material in question but I suspect that it was offensive in the sense that it contained derogatory descriptions of other beliefs. No one would object to a mere statement of Christian belief or to a display of signs and symbols. Indeed, the Centre was located in a church.
Benign AIs are one sf premise. Autocratic AIs are another.
In Canterbury Cathedral, it is carved in stone that a British Christian was killed by "a Mohammadan fanatic."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but "propaganda" still has irritating and offensive connotations.
I don't Christian literature critiquing ideas and beliefs reasonably orthodox Christians have to consider wrong needs to be derogatory in tone, manner, intention. Abbot John Chapman, in his book responding to the Anglican Charles Gore's work criticizing the Catholic Church, was always courteous and patient in rebutting Gore.
And we BOTH there are PLENTY of Muslim fanatics! Christians and other non-Muslims are persecuted and oppressed in practically all Muslim ruled countries.
The real world being what it is, I strongly suspect autocratic AIs are at lesat as likely as benign ones. So I would remain wary and distrustful of them.
Ad astra! Sean
Paul: that's what the word propaganda -used- to mean. The meaning has changed.
Poul once noted that when Charles II saw Wren's planned cathedral of St. Pauls, he called it "Pompous, awful and artificial" -- and that every one of those words was a complement, meaning roughly "Majestic, awe-inspiring and a work of art".
NB: that guy probably was killed by a "Mohammedan fanatic". If that hurts some people's feelings, tough -- their feelings, their problem.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely, what you said about Charles II and Sir Christopher!
Again, I agree, I see no reason to be particularly deferential (aside from ordinary politeness) to the dainty, delicate sensibilities of Muslims!
Ad astra! Sean
Of course the word "Muhammadan" was wrong but that was a misunderstanding at the time.
Also of course, PA quoted Charles II in "A Tragedy of Errors."
Sean,
The point was that the nineteenth century Christian missionary literature (I think) contained offensive remarks about other religions. It was not kept out of sight merely because it was thought that literature propagating Christianity would in itself be seen as offensive to anyone else! How could that be done in a building that was still in use as a church? The policy decision not to display such material - but to make it accessible to students on request - was neither cowardly nor politically correct.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree. I got the impression those books were removed from bookshelves and hidden. How could, say, a Muslim be offended unless he pored over those shelves and sought out such books? It still left a bad impression with me!
And I don't know if those books even had anything unfairly derogatory of Islam or Hinduism in them. For all we know the authors could have been tough and hard hitting, but scrupulously fair and accurate in what they said. Removing those books still raises the ugly stench of PCness.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Some of this is a matter of facts, not just of opinions. We would have to go and see these books to be able to discuss it any further. My inference from what I was told was that the books contained contemptuous and inaccurate accounts of African or Asian religions. (This is certainly possible.) We were immediately told that the books were there and that we could see them but I had not reason to do so at the time. To say any more at this stage is only to speculate. Certainly nothing was put out of sight merely because it proclaimed Christianity!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still disagree on the removing of those books, whether they were bad or good. Leave them there for anybody who wishes to see and read. If anyone is offended by what he perceives to be inaccurate or contemptuous in those books he is free to criticize them.
The works of the explorer and adventurer Sir Richard Burton might be one of those controversial 19th century authors. He wrote a good deal about what he had seen in Africa and the Mid East. One of the books I have is a selection from his translation of THE 1001 NIGHTS.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
As it happens, I have no strong opinion on it. The policy might have changed since. But it was not suppression of anything merely because it was Christian.
It was Christian missionary literature, not Burton.
Paul.
Post a Comment