EP193: Article of Faith

[Russell Nash]

EP193: Article of Faith

By Mike Resnick.
Read by Stephen Eley.
First appeared in Baen’s Universe, October 2008.

“I’m sure,” I said. “Somehow, lunch seems pretty trivial after you’ve been thinking about God all morning.”

“God, sir?”

“The Creator of all things,” I explained.

“My creator is Stanley Kalinovsky, sir,” said Jackson. “I was not aware that he created everything in the world, nor that his preferred name was God.”

I couldn’t repress a smile.

Rated PG. Contains religious themes and some violence.



Listen to this week’s Escape Pod!

[Listener]

Oh, goody. Mike Resnick. I can look forward to heavy-handedness and a robot.

Yep, that's exactly what I got. A heavy-handed message, a robot who somehow transcends his programming and makes the narrator think, some other people who just don't understand why the robot "feels" the way he does, and in the end, a little coda that is supposed to make you sad or make you think.

This was better than some of Resnick's other robot stories, but it was still a Resnick robot story. Whoever nominates for the Hugos must really like his style and the way he writes human-robot interaction, but as good as this story was -- and if I'd never read a Resnick robot story, I probably would've loved it -- it was still a Resnick robot story.

The only EP I ever skipped was the Doctorow economic story where the accent and audio were too hard to understand and I gave up after five minutes. But this was the first EP that I actually considered skipping altogether. I knew there would be no ground covered by this author that he had not covered before.

So, in sum... the story was good from a technical/storytelling/production standpoint, but I've heard it before so many times that I just didn't care about Jackson, the Reverend, or the world they inhabited.

[Hatton]

Yep, that's exactly what I got. A heavy-handed message, a robot who somehow transcends his programming and makes the narrator think, some other people who just don't understand why the robot "feels" the way he does, and in the end, a little coda that is supposed to make you sad or make you think.

That's what I got as well - but for me, as someone who preaches on occasion, it did exactly what it was supposed to do - make me think.  I think that's important in a story regardless of the genre.  At some level, it has to make the reader/listener truly step back and think.  What they do after they think depends on the genre.

On a technical note, the "he said" and "it said" always gnaws at me - I can understand it in reading but not in explaining a conversation.

The concept of a robot transcending it's programming and becoming just a bit more human is not new.  We've heard it on this very podcast so many times before.  What I think made this one different was the direct aspect of a robot trying to grok God.

The good news is that I'm not going to start preaching to my pets after this one - the fish is already baptized and I don't want to try do do that with the cats... and we're having enough problems getting the dog to do her business outside, I'd hate to have to teach her to pray before eating!

[MacArthurBug]

Heavy handed, but overall I was pleased. It did what it set out to do. The reading was good

[Wilson Fowlie]

I was extremely disappointed by this story.

I thought authors are supposed to "write what you know."  It's fairly clear that Resnick doesn't know the first thing about the Christian bible.  If he did, then having a robot that was capable of picking up 'logical inconsistencies' in a sermon would have blown off its head trying to read the Bible's well-documented myriad of internal contradictions (never mind contradictions with actual reality, which Resnick neatly - if cliché-edly (?) - sidestepped).

Why didn't the robot, having read the Bible*, say [the equivalent of] "Hey, I don't get it: it says this one thing here and it says this opposite thing here. How do you know which to believe?"

Whatever the answer was to that and the places that it led the author and  the reader [listener], could have made a deeply thoughtful story - maybe even one worthy of a Hugo nomination.


*And while we're at it, why does it have to read a paper copy rather than just downloading the text into its memory? It's like this story was written by Asimov in 1958 and, furthermore, set in a quaintly-imagined 1978, except that 1958's Asimov would have done it better.

[DKT]

Yay for the Hugos, Yay for Steve's vacation, and Congrats to Mr. Resnick on yet another Hugo nomination.

I tend to enjoy hearing Resnick stories - even if I don't dig the story I feel like there's a ton I can learn because he's a master of the craft. And this one was about faith and God and robots and souls! So many things that fascinate me and I was completely primed for it.

Unfortunately, I had a hard time with parts of it.

A preacher a) asks the robot to check his sermons for inconsistencies, b) gives the robot a Bible to read to better understand the faith, c) sees the robot comprehend and put his faith in God which leads the preacher to d) wonder what a robot's sermon would sound like.

And then when the robot asks only to sit in the congregation, the preacher gets pissed off? I just didn't understand that part. What did he expect, other than a long argument about the contradictions of the Bible (as Wilson Fowlie pointed out). And I'm really not sure how much the preacher's refusal changed the story. The outcome of it all - the hateful parishoners, etc. could have worked just as well if Morris had supported the robot's acceptance of faith earlier. How the character made it from a to b (or in this case, a to e) made me feel like I missed a couple scenes, and Morris' reaction was something my little Born Again heart just couldn't quite buy.

The rest of the story was okay - interesting even in the fact that I thought it was going to go a couple of different ways than it actually did. But even the ending didn't hit me right - it was one of the few Resnick stories that left me completely dry-eyed at the end.

Ah, well. I look forward to the next Resnick story and the rest of the Hugo nominations.

[Talia]

I enjoyed this tremendously, although I kinda figured where it would end.

"and if I'd never read a Resnick robot story, I probably would've loved it -- it was still a Resnick robot story."

Wait, so its suddenly bad because it too much reminds you of his other stories? o.O You would have enjoyed it if the "mike resnick" part hadn't been revealed until the end or something? That's unfortunate.

[Listener]

"and if I'd never read a Resnick robot story, I probably would've loved it -- it was still a Resnick robot story."

Wait, so its suddenly bad because it too much reminds you of his other stories? o.O You would have enjoyed it if the "mike resnick" part hadn't been revealed until the end or something? That's unfortunate.

I think the problem was that it was TOO predictable. If it hadn't had Resnick's name on it, I probably would have said "this sounds an awful lot like a Mike Resnick robot story, and I've read too many of those lately" or somesuch.

It's not so much WHO is writing it -- it's that there's been SO MUCH of his writing in this periodical that I need a break. (At least, it feels like it... I'm sure someone will be glad to go back, count the episodes in the past year, and prove me wrong.)

[Praxis]

Lordy, lordy but WHAT a lot of talking there was in this story.

It didn't grab me.  I listened, I mulled it over for some days and.....nope, I'm not sure what part of the story was meant to be remarkable or memorable.  On the 'talky talky' point - it was maybe just me, but it didn't sound like the way people would have a conversation, even if one of them is a robot.
(caveat: yes I am aware that I have not won *any* awards for writing, let alone as many as Mr Resnick, so as to allow me to criticise, I am but a humble listener....)

I think the topic would have been better written as an article or a blog page or a book chapter, etc. about "what would it be like if a robot contemplated God (and other assorted spiritual matters)?"
That way, Mr Resnick would be able to discuss all the issues in the story straight out, without having to place them in a story setting and having them take place as character-character exposition.

I mean, it's a very interesting subject and worth talking about, but this story wouldn't prompt me to do so anymore than I have already, sorry.

[Swamp]

It's not so much WHO is writing it -- it's that there's been SO MUCH of his writing in this periodical that I need a break. (At least, it feels like it... I'm sure someone will be glad to go back, count the episodes in the past year, and prove me wrong.)

I'm not going to go back and count, but I will say that the reason this Mike Resnick story was added to EscapePod is because it is a Hugo nominee, as I beleive is the case for at least one other story.  It wasn't part of the normal selection process.

I would say more so than not, I enjoy Mr. Resnick's writing.  I like the fact that he consistantly includes an emotional element to his stories.  It's nice to see that.  And it's nice to see that he is successful at it. 

I also like robots, but that doesn't always make a great story.  Take this one for example.  I liked some of the elements, but it was kind of mediocre for me.

[Listener]

It's not so much WHO is writing it -- it's that there's been SO MUCH of his writing in this periodical that I need a break. (At least, it feels like it... I'm sure someone will be glad to go back, count the episodes in the past year, and prove me wrong.)

I'm not going to go back and count, but I will say that the reason this Mike Resnick story was added to EscapePod is because it is a Hugo nominee, as I beleive is the case for at least one other story.  It wasn't part of the normal selection process.

I understand that. I know I'm not the editor, and I don't have any say in story choice or the decision to run all the Hugo nominees. If I wanted to have said choice, I would have start my own magazine or podcast. I'm just expressing an opinion.

[Swamp]

I'm not going to go back and count, but I will say that the reason this Mike Resnick story was added to EscapePod is because it is a Hugo nominee, as I beleive is the case for at least one other story.  It wasn't part of the normal selection process.

I understand that. I know I'm not the editor, and I don't have any say in story choice or the decision to run all the Hugo nominees. If I wanted to have said choice, I would have start my own magazine or podcast. I'm just expressing an opinion.

Which is entirely valid.  Mike Resnic would be the most repeated author on EscapePod, that;s for sure.  And he's been showing up in other podcasts as well.  "The Last Dog", which recently played on the Drabblecast is actually one of my new favorite Resnic stories.

[DKT]

"The Last Dog", which recently played on the Drabblecast is actually one of my new favorite Resnic stories.

That story was fantastic. I was really floored by it.

[contra]

While I agree with come of what is being said here; I loved this story.  It moved me emotionally.  I expected not to; the setting seened insane.  But listening to it on the way to work, I found myself standing in the middle of Glasgow in tears.

Maybe I just feel for an underdog, or someone who is a single person against everyone.

[mike-resnick]

Just to set the record straight: this story did -not- originally appear in Jim Baen's Universe, which I co-edit, nor did I buy it from myself. It first appeared in the Brithish magazine, Postscripts, last summer. I thought it was good enough to make the Hugo ballot if enough voters saw it, so I then submitted it to my co-editor, Eric Flint, as a reprint, and he bought it and ran it in late 2008, about 4 months after its initial appearance. (Anything of mine that appears in Jim Baen's Universe was bought by Eric, just as any story of his that appears there was bought by me. We are also free to reject each other's stories, though -- knock wood -- it hasn't happened yet.)

A few people have said, usually while moaning in agony, "...-another- Resnick robot story?" My response to that is that Steve Eley likes my robot stories, which gives an impression that that's all I write, Actually, I have written 7 robot stories out of more than 250 science fiction stories that I've sold...but three have appeared here very recently, two back-to-back, one just a few months ago. (They were sold in 1979, 2003 and 2008.)

There's another podcast where the editor likes my grim, downbeat stories, so of course a couple of listeners have accused me of being morbid and having no sense of humor...;but I have sold over 90 funny stories in this field, more than just about any writer in history except Bob Sheckley; they just haven't appeared -- and almost certainly won't appear -- on that particular podcast. Which is to say, if all you do is listen and not read, then your notion of what a writer does and doesn't write is certain to be skewed by the podcast editor's taste.

-- Mike Resnick

[Swamp]

...Steve Eley likes my robot stories, which gives an impression that that's all I write, Actually, I have written 7 robot stories out of more than 250 science fiction stories that I've sold...but three have appeared here very recently, two back-to-back, one just a few months ago. (They were sold in 1979, 2003 and 2008.)

There's another podcast where the editor likes my grim, downbeat stories, so of course a couple of listeners have accused me of being morbid and having no sense of humor...;but I have sold over 90 funny stories in this field, more than just about any writer in history except Bob Sheckley; they just haven't appeared -- and almost certainly won't appear -- on that particular podcast. Which is to say, if all you do is listen and not read, then your notion of what a writer does and doesn't write is certain to be skewed by the podcast editor's taste.

Great points.  Exposure definately effects perception.  Sorry I spelt your name wrong in my last post.  I got it right the first time.

[eytanz]

There's a comfort in familiarity. I know Mike Resnick's writing well enough to know that sometimes, I really really like it. And I also know it well enough to know that, if the first five minutes tell me it's going to be a story about a robot finding religion, there's no point in listening to the 30 minutes that follow it, since I just won't be interested. Based on the comments above - include Resnick's own - I think I made the right decision here. I'd love to hear and read many more Resnick stories, but not if they involve a human narrator's crisis because a robot acts somewhat human.

[jalan]

"The Last Dog", which recently played on the Drabblecast is actually one of my new favorite Resnic stories.

That story was fantastic. I was really floored by it.

Great story this week.
I was kinda Renick'd out until "Blue" on the Drabblecast, which I thought was a great story and wonderfully told with music by Norm.  I thought The Last Dog was great there too, but both of these show that Resnick's work is pretty diverse.  I agree with everything he said, EP's perception of Resnick is skewed by the stories they buy from him, read him elsewhere and listen to him on Drabblecast to see that (oh and don't forget Malish over, again, very different.)  I've enjoyed EP's Resnick stories but agree that the majority have been in a similar vein and we know what to expect now.

[birdless]

I'm with DKT on this one. For the pastor to seem so willing to discuss things of a spiritual nature with a robot then suddenly deny him the right to merely attend a service seemed like an incongruity of character. And the fact that the pastor who seemed willing to try to be open minded while his entire congregation seemed so hell-bent on being close minded (choice of words intentional) seemed unlikely, too. A pastor is going to—generally speaking—reflect the attitude of his congregation, simply because if they don't like what he's saying, they'll either relieve him of his position or go to another church. This pastor didn't seem like the type that a lynch-mob-prone church would keep around.

[RobinR]

I came here to find that much of what I wanted to say has been said by others. However, I will mention two things:

1. There are actual commercial robots on the market now. I have two, a Roomba and a Litter Maid. Neither one has a desire to be human, nor have they taken up philosophy or religion. The humanoid all-purpose robot seems a little old fashioned now. A robot is best when it's designed for a specific task, and that would mean it will not look human, it will look the way it needs to look for its job. I suspect floor cleaning and serving tea would be done by two different robots.

1A. Okay, this is a third thing that I just thought of. Most churches could afford a human custodian much more than a robot.

2. I expected the robot, when it realized that Stanley Kalinowski created it and God created Stanley Kalinowski, to follow the logic chain straight up and ask, just like most intelligent Sunday School students, "Then who created God?"

[slic]

In regards to point 1 - you should consider that a community might only get one all purpose robot.  A humanoid shape is would be best suited to many jobs since the equipment would already designed for humans.  A custodian needs to stack supplies, clean a kitchen, maybe not just mop floors.

I do agree that robots as machines, as autonomous tools for a specific job, is definitely a major direction.  However, the idea of a robot made in our image is far too appealling to too many people ever to not happen.

[Loz]

I don't have much to say that others haven't said already,

It was very much like an Asimov robot story, the original short version of 'Bicentennial Man' perhaps,

the unexplained and sudden prejudice of the pastor when the robot expressed a desire to worship, I can accept him not expecting that to happen but by being willing to discuss issues with the robot to start with in order to sustain the first half of the story his about face for the purposes of the second half of the story was difficult to accept,

the laboured robot-as-mechanical-Christ finale. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

[Talia]

I thought the ending was one of the best parts, myself.

[stePH]

Loved this story, warts and all. Of course, from my own perception, I just saw the robot as believing whatever it's told, and getting infected with a virus as a result (thank you, Richard Dawkins .  Then the Christian church people, supposed to be tolerant "love your neighbor" followers of "The Prince of Peace", get pissed off and trash it when it starts getting uppity and putting on airs.

1. There are actual commercial robots on the market now. I have two, a Roomba and a Litter Maid. Neither one has a desire to be human, nor have they taken up philosophy or religion. The humanoid all-purpose robot seems a little old fashioned now. A robot is best when it's designed for a specific task, and that would mean it will not look human, it will look the way it needs to look for its job. I suspect floor cleaning and serving tea would be done by two different robots.

I've seen a fembot being developed in Japan, supposedly to perform as a fashion model (last I heard, they were working on its ability to walk.)



I'm sure they're working on animatronic sex dolls, too.

[Wilson Fowlie]

Loved this story, warts and all. Of course, from my own perception, I just saw the robot as believing whatever it's told, and getting infected with a virus as a result (thank you, Richard Dawkins .  Then the Christian church people, supposed to be tolerant "love your neighbor" followers of "The Prince of Peace", get pissed off and trash it when it starts getting uppity and putting on airs.

Oo, I never thought of that interpretation.  That's perfect!

[ChiliFan]

Congratulations, Mike Resnick! I was really touched by this story!! I nearly cried near the end when the robot had written on the floor.

I'm a member of a liberal religious group where lots of traditional doctrines have been rejected. Even so, I don't think anyone in my congregation believes that animals or robots have souls. I must get round to telling them about this story because I think they'll like it.

 

[Anarkey]

In traditional Hugo nominee style: I now require chopsticks stabbed into my eyes so I never have to read again.  Alas, it won't help, since this was the audio version.

Soooooooo tired of preachers who've never thought about the implications of their theology even once and are oh! so! shocked! when someone else parses it for them.  Because, really?  Thinking about this stuff is their job.  Most mainstream denomination Christian preachers have graduate degrees, some of them even have doctorates, including coursework which required extensive navel-gazing and ruminating on theology, not to mention basic homiletics classes. 

This is a caricature of a preacher, not a believable character. 

[DKT]

And the fact that the pastor who seemed willing to try to be open minded while his entire congregation seemed so hell-bent on being close minded (choice of words intentional) seemed unlikely, too. A pastor is going to—generally speaking—reflect the attitude of his congregation, simply because if they don't like what he's saying, they'll either relieve him of his position or go to another church. This pastor didn't seem like the type that a lynch-mob-prone church would keep around.

This is something I hadn't thought of when I initially heard the story but from my experience is generally on the mark. A congregation like this would have a pastor that made Jerry Falwell look like the dude from One Punk Under God.

[stePH]

Soooooooo tired of preachers who've never thought about the implications of their theology even once and are oh! so! shocked! when someone else parses it for them.  Because, really?  Thinking about this stuff is their job.  Most mainstream denomination Christian preachers have graduate degrees, some of them even have doctorates, including coursework which required extensive navel-gazing and ruminating on theology, not to mention basic homiletics classes. 

c.f. Peter 3:15

[DKT]

Soooooooo tired of preachers who've never thought about the implications of their theology even once and are oh! so! shocked! when someone else parses it for them.  Because, really?  Thinking about this stuff is their job.  Most mainstream denomination Christian preachers have graduate degrees, some of them even have doctorates, including coursework which required extensive navel-gazing and ruminating on theology, not to mention basic homiletics classes. 

c.f. Peter 3:15

I Peter 3:15 or II Peter 3:15? Either way, I'm not making the connection...(not saying it's not there, just saying sometimes I need it spelled out)

[stePH]

I Peter 3:15 or II Peter 3:15? Either way, I'm not making the connection...(not saying it's not there, just saying sometimes I need it spelled out)

Sorry, forgot that there were two Books of Peter.

1 Peter 3:15

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

IOW, have an understanding of your faith that you can explain to others, rather than just saying "I believe."  (I know of this passage primarily because Matt Dillahunty, the main host of The Atheist Experience, cites it as the bible passage that ironically led him to atheism.)

[Anarkey]

1 Peter 3:15

But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,

IOW, have an understanding of your faith that you can explain to others, rather than just saying "I believe."  (I know of this passage primarily because Matt Dillahunty, the main host of The Atheist Experience, cites it as the bible passage that ironically led him to atheism.)

And that's a directive for a general believer, not for one who considers himself the leader of a flock.  The onus on those who would instruct others is, naturally, much greater than on the rest of us. 

Although I feel like I should clarify that this peeve of mine is not limited to common depictions of incompetent preachers.  I'm tired of fiction that glorifies the newbie, the 'fresh eyes' of the inexpert.  It's anti-intellectual and disingenuous.  People who have genuine areas of expertise know more than you do.  Every person on this forum knows more than I do about something, probably several somethings, which they have spent time and energy learning.

You're not going to find the supernova that the astrophysicist missed the first time you look, or prove the Riemann hypothesis without years of math training, or discover a virus that the entire medical community was too over-educated to notice.    Likewise, unless the robot had consumed volumes of commentary by Barclay and read Bonhoeffer and Niebuhr and Spinoza along with the (presumably English, presumably King James) Bible, he knows and understands less about theology and the nature of God than the preacher. 

Training and practice and study have value.  There are no instant experts.

Now I'll need to decontaminate with some Nancy Kress, who always plays this subtext fairly.  Her experts are real experts, not characters sketched out in order to be brought low by the man on the street.  Or robot on the street.

[birdless]

This is a caricature of a preacher, not a believable character. 

I just wanted to say "well-said." As well as your follow-up post directly preceding mine here.

[Hysteria]

You know, what gets me outside of this story (other than a few people carping that of course the Bible makes no sense and of course any robot would realize this, you guys are as high-and-mighty as any fundamentalist preacher I've heard), is that Mr. Resnick seemed to overlook the fairly obvious point about robots being able to have free will. I think he touched on it a little bit with the robot showing up in church dressed as a human, but I thought the big thing was that throughout this story a strong case could be made for the robot simply following orders. It finds a new concept, deduces that this new concept is integral to the people in this establishment, and tries to learn all about it before going too far. The robot can't choose to be good or evil, it could pretty much do what it was programmed to. Like I said, I'll give points for the robot showing up in church unannounced, but that was simply a logical solution to a problem without thought of the social ramifications, which was in itself kind of unusual, seeing as how much thought it had given to the preacher's schedule and concern with doing a good job overall.

[Planish]

The part I found most interesting about the story was that it reminded me yet again of the notion of the "uncanny valley", a term I had first heard of just a few months ago.

The robot didn't upset people much until it tried to pursue interests that the humans believe are exclusively the domain of humans. It wasn't so much its appearance, which failed to fool anybody.

[slic]

The part I found most interesting about the story was that it reminded me yet again of the notion of the "uncanny valley", a term I had first heard of just a few months ago.

Interesting article,thanks for the link.  Not to make light because the article is really quite intriguing, but I on the graph it has a mark for zombie - that make me guffaw - I wouldn't think the fact that zombie looks humanish is why people find them revolting, it's because they won't stop trying to eat my brains ;-)

[DKT]

The part I found most interesting about the story was that it reminded me yet again of the notion of the "uncanny valley", a term I had first heard of just a few months ago.

The robot didn't upset people much until it tried to pursue interests that the humans believe are exclusively the domain of humans. It wasn't so much its appearance, which failed to fool anybody.

Plainish, speakling of Uncanny Valleys. Well worth the three minute listen!

[Planish]

Plainish, speakling of Uncanny Valleys. Well worth the three minute listen!

Woah! I totally forgot that I had already heard that one. I must be having a senior year.

I wouldn't think the fact that zombie looks humanish is why people find them revolting, it's because they won't stop trying to eat my brains ;-)

Neither will a hungry tiger or a hyena, but still they maintain their charisma.

[JoeFitz]

This story had some ups and downs for me. A little too precious to be a favourite, but it was certainly notable. And although its theological complexity is toned down for a television audience (no offense intended to anyone, that's just reality of the format; we can all read Spinoza, but we can't expect more than Christianity for Dummies in a short story).

On the plus side, if you took robot and replaced it with any number of historically disadvantaged group, you would find the narrative would fit. From the preacher finding out that "hey, this [insert group name] can have a conversation with me" to "[insert group name] takes jobs away from people" and the dismemberment. Add to that the Robot name versus the name humans use.

On the down side, the robot scratching Luke 23:34 was a little over the top. But then again, maybe only because the passage is so familiar and goes straight to the big scene. On the other hand, as was said above, the robot acted a lot like a precocious child, rather than a scholar - and went straight for the big passages, rather than wading through Matthew or egads the Old Testament something.

Maybe I'm reading too much into the author's intention, but I rather think that it works for the robot not to raise specific questions about all of the internal inconsistencies of the Bible. (Plus, been there, done that; boring). We are to accept that this was, after all, a faithful robot. I do not think it was an oversight, but an intentional choice to indicate to the reader that this robot was different.

I did not find the preacher's reaction to refuse to let the robot sit in the congregation odd - only jarring. It revealed to the reader, and it seems also to the preacher, that there was a deep-rooted prejudice that he thought was obvious and beyond question. It was clear to me that he was angriest at himself, and the guilt flowed from that. I did not think that the preacher was surprised to find the robot engendered a crisis in his faith - as stated earlier religious leaders usually go through some extended training/introspection. But that doesn't make them immune to being shaken, or having doubts. Given the statement that before the robot came along, his sermons were difficult to write, it seems it was brewing for some time.

For me, being raised in a non-congregationalist tradition, the preacher having a debate with the congregation without any explicit signal that this was such a religion was a little disorientating. Was this unusual to have a debate? Plus I found it odd that the preacher marched down during the service, rather than finish up. Perhaps I would have had the robot pass during the service and be found-out by the preacher later.

Was it not very surprising to have the robot defy the preacher on so many occasions? Another signal?

How interesting that the hypothesis that the robot was damaged by a virus causing it to believe what it was told raised above. What does that make the congregation?

We certainly don't like uppity robots these days on EP: http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=2498.0

[izzardfan]

We certainly don't like uppity robots these days on EP: http://forum.escapeartists.net/index.php?topic=2498.0

Interesting that both stories were written by Mike Resnick.

[Paranatural]

I liked it. Yeah, it had big flaws in it (The new robot arrived and since the Preacher is the only human there, who signed for it? The old one? Could robots sign for their replacements? Why was he surprised about a new one? Wouldn't they be expensive and wouldn't he have to have a rather big hand in getting a new one? Why didn't the robot have any idea who he was working for? How did he know who is boss was if he didn't even have a name for his boss? Just go in and start taking orders from just anyone who comes on in?), which is the main reason I myself can never really write stories. Anyway, yeah, it was heavy-handed. It didn't go the exact way I assumed at first, but it did alright.

[Thaurismunths]

I was caught off guard by this one. It got me thinking about where we draw the line for what has souls and what doesn't.
Whether the robot was sentient and free-willed, or was a convincing facsimile, I don't see the harm in giving it the benefit of the doubt. Who are we to judge what does and does not have a soul?

I see where previous posters are coming from when they say it's 'just another heavy-handed robot story', but lets face it, not all the fans of SF are as astute as we are.

1A. Okay, this is a third thing that I just thought of. Most churches could afford a human custodian much more than a robot.

I think that depends on how you look at 'afford'. Robots, and machines in general, have a high purchase price but much lower operating costs.
What throws me is that a parish so devastated by robotic labor would allow one in their church in the first place.

2. I expected the robot, when it realized that Stanley Kalinowski created it and God created Stanley Kalinowski, to follow the logic chain straight up and ask, just like most intelligent Sunday School students, "Then who created God?"

A great point.
Perhaps it was covered by the Reverend's answer that god created all things?

[Doom xombie]

This story reminded my of my people's (indian's) souls. At first we had no christian souls, and then when they wanted to convert us we did. I can see this going to the point that enough robots are intelligent they people attempt to convert them.

[Russell Nash]

This story reminded my of my people's (indian's) souls. At first we had no christian souls, and then when they wanted to convert us we did. I can see this going to the point that enough robots are intelligent they people attempt to convert them.

We'll know that's coming when we see advanced artificial intelligence on the curriculum at Oral Roberts University.

[wakela]

-The story is set in a world where robots have been around long enough to be taken for granted, and yet this minister and this robot are the first ones to ever grapple with the question of whether or not robots have souls.  This seems to the the very first thing people would grapple with --especially professional theologians -- at the dawn of artificial intelligence.

-he is a Christian minister and never mentions Christ.  I found the theological discussions very simplistic, and he biblical references to be the ones that everyone already knows.  It feels like a poorly researched story.

-IMHO, the story is not trying to make me think.  It is trying to make me feel and telling me what I should be thinking.  Battlestar Galactica makes me think about robots and faith.  It raises questions without answering them.  This story raises the question "Do robots have souls?" and answers it with "Yeah, they do, end of discussion."  "Why?" "Because people are bigots.  Buh-bye." 

-Reagarding the outtro.  This is a pet peeve of mine, maybe Steve can clear it up.  If God exists then He is a thing that possesses some attributes and not others.  But we don't get to decide what those attributes are because it's what we want to believe.  To continue the Grand Canyon metaphor, if I've never seen the Grand Canyon and someone tells me that it is the biggest, most beautiful thing he's ever seen, I do not get to decide that it must be gold with black stripes because that's my idea of beauty.  And I do not get to decide that it's not dangerous because how could it be so beautiful if it can hurt people.  I can only wonder what it is until I see it.  Likewise we do not get to decide that God is a nice guy who accepts all people.  He may not be. 

[Russell Nash]

We haven't split a topic in quite a while, so I did it here.  Maybe it was a little early, but I want to see what comes of it.

The discussion on the nature of God's attitude has been moved here.

[jjtraw]

Reminds me of Connie Willis' "Samaritan." Only with a robot instead of an orangutan.

[Unblinking]

Most everything that I'd like to say has already been said. 

By Wakela in particular, pointing out that the minister never talks about Christ and the theological discussions are so simplistic that even a non-churchgoer like me knows them, and about the oddity of robots being a commonplace item yet the question of soul is a new one.  I don't think I agree with wakela's pet peeve, but since the theological discussion has been branched away I'll leave it at that for now.

For me the minister didn't come off as a real person.  At first he's excited at this robot's interest in scripture, and he teaches him what he knows, gives him a Bible and tells him it's the absolute truth.  Then he gets upset when the robot believes it's the absolute truth.  His stated reason for not allowing the robot in is that the parishioners are upset about robots stealing their jobs.  Why does he have a robot in the first place then?  His salary, and the funding to buy the robot, are funded by the parishioners generosity.  Did he ask them before buying it?  If I gave donations to a church, and the pastor knew that I was firmly against robot labor, then I would be very upset at the church if he bought a robot with that money.  I'd consider withholding my offerings for a while to make up for the money that he blew on his personal toy.  I'd also consider finding a new church.  If he was so sensitive to this, he could have just hired a member of the congregation to clean.  It sounded like a small church anyway, it shouldn't require a round the clock robot caretaker.

And the congregation's lynch mob was just over the top.  Where the hell did that come from?  Sure, people were upset, but that moved them to commit a crime which was at best vandalism of very valuable property, and at worst was assault and murder?  If they were people that were so prone to acts of organized violence would they have the patience to follow a preacher who condoned robot servants?