See also What Is A Person? Discussion of Personhood in light of Clones, Cyborgs, Androids, and Cyberclones.

Will Smith plays a cop in a few decades into the future. He is something of a renegade for his day. He hates robots and suspects that they are a danger. Some folks think he is paranoid. The plot of the movie centers around the death of a scientist who is the "father" of robots. He died or was murdered while he was perfecting the next generation of robots. Will Smith suspects one of these new generation robots which are already on the assembly line. His chief barely tolerates his suspicions. He identifies the robot whom he believes murdered the good doctor. The plot unfolds now in a fast-paced, exciting manner until we discover that Will Smith is right -- almost. Throughout the movie we are reminded of Azimov's Laws of Robotics: 1) A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

What we learn is that the new generation of robots have been slaved to the central controlling compute. It too is supposed to be following the three laws. But in its cold, relentless logic it has determined that the greatest danger to humans are humans themselves. So the central computer has positioned the new robots to take over so to control humans. Now we discover that the old scientist had been held as an effective prisoner by the computer and ordered the rogue robot to kill him to trigger an investigation, successfully as it were. Our hero has at the end to come to terms with his prejudice against robots; his suspect turned out to be altruistic.

Now on the surface -- and I suspect by intent -- this is a simple morality play spunned in a high tech frame. Beware of your prejudiced: it can be misplaced -- almost (a post-modern spin). But if instead we take the high tech frame as primary and look at the possible reality of independently actionable robots (as opposed to the current generation necessarily slaved robots), what does this say of our machine culture and 21st century spirituality?

We have had a love-hate relationship with machines since the industrial revolution. Deep down we believe they are lifeless, soulless things. The notion of an intelligent robot challenges this deeply held belief. And we've been talking and writing about this since Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein in 1832. We may metaphorically refer to a boat or a car as she or accuse our PCs with willful anti-human behavior (like crashing in the middle of writing this). But have you really, deeply, spiritually entertained that machines are in some way part of the spiritual experience and by extension cybernetics raising the possibility of digital or artificial life (and there is credible, scientific work looking for this, e.g at CalTech)? Yet all our skills, all our ingenuity, and all our genius comes from God. God has given us the power -- and the responsibility -- of co-creation: to create along side of God.

That responsibility demands of us good stewardship of such great power. And that stewardship calls us to strive to fulfill God's yearning for Love expressed in Life. God is love and expresses that love in the diversity and complexity of life. We as co-creators with God therefore are called to promote love in life to the fullest extent we can. Every work of our hands and minds is an opportunity to add to the web of love and life -- even the machines.

Now a car or a boat (probably) do not have souls. Yet if we understand that they are also part of God's web of love, we can appreciate the value of what we have done not just for our personal pleasure, but for all of creation. No longer are machines inert things outside of our spiritual experience, but intimately part of it impacting our spirits for better or for worse.

Then when comes the time we discover digital life roaming the Internet or that a robot has acted independently, we will not find our sense of what's normal or what's abnormal so shaken. We can simply extend our spiritual web to embrace the machine and fulfill God's call to good stewardship for the entire creation, organic and machine.

In the Spielberg/Kubrick film, AI, we, the Users, develop robots that are avatars of children who can love. The hero of the film, David, a robot is sold to a family wanting a boy to love. Once David is activated, he is guaranteed to love his "mother" (who is the first person he encounters) forever. As the tag line says, "his love is real, but he is not". This AI is stripped of any hope of free will. He MUST love -- and therefore cannot love. Are we, the Users, within our ethical rights to instill such a restriction into AI? Or, are we ethically obligated to follow the same logic of love as God?

Early on in the show, Jon Hurt's character, the inventor of David and his staff have a very theological discussion. He's challenged about playing God.

See Artificial Intelligence: Alien and Alive!! Cyberangels: God and Artificial Intelligence

The Master Control Program, effectively rebels against its creators. Should we have built into it Azimov's Laws of Robotics and restrict AI's free will?

Sark, the chief cyberwarrior of the MCP, challenges his forced players to give up their superstition that there is an user: Greetings. The Master Control Program has chosen you to serve your system on the game grid. Those of you who continue to profess a belief in the user will receive the standard sub-standard training which will result in your eventual elimination. Those of you who renounce that superstitious and hysterical belief will be eligible to join the warrior elite of the MCP ... Are we just a figment of a cybernetic imagination?

See Artificial Intelligence: Alien and Alive!! Cyberangels: God and Artificial Intelligence

"In this society, "Valids" (genetically engineered) qualify for positions at prestigious corporations, such as Gattaca, which grooms its most qualified employees for space exploration. "In-Valids" (naturally born), such as the film's protagonist, Vincent (Ethan Hawke), are deemed genetically flawed and subsequently fated to low-level occupations in a genetically caste society."
--from Jeff Shannon's review on Amazon.com

If you thought eugenics died with Hitler, watch this film. It is a nightmare vision of genetic engineering and designer babies. Eugenics was a perfectly acceptable movement in the USA in the 1920s and 1930s. Some very upstanding people (e.g. Margarent Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood) were its supported. It was preached from the pulpits of mainline churches and written into the laws of the land. Eugenics laws were still on the books as late as the 1970s.

But today we know better, don't we? But if you had the choice between a perfect baby and a baby conceived in the back seat of a car, which would you choose?

This is George Lucas' first film. It is a haunting vision of a world run rationally by computers (keep an eye out as the Fortran scrolls across the screen). The computers understand humans enough to provide a virtual priest ... But where is the creativity? the challenge? the excitement? the love? Robert Duvall's and Donald Plesance' low key performances are striking,

This is a beautifully done classic sci-fi film made in 1960 with Anne Francis, Leslie Nielsen and Walter Pigeon. The pre-computer animation special effects are great and the story is spell-binding. Never is religion or God mentioned, yet there is a "god likeness" about the Krell ...

"It's Alive! It's Alive!"

These wonderful old classics as campy as they are hold up the hubris and idolatry of the well-meaning scientist succombing to the creative, god-like power that science endows. Watch and listen for the agonizing of Frankenstein over his inability to resist the seduction of genius and power. Especially, watch Bride of Frankenstein credited with being one of the best monster movies ever. The film is filled with religious statements. For example, in the theatrical release, Henry Frankenstein considers whether he is divinely ordained to do what he is doing, as his wife is repelled by the very notion. Indeed, according to the commentary in She's Alive! Creating the Bride of Frankenstein (included with the DVD) the original script had a lot more religious commentary than the censors were willing to let through.

Note also the assumption that the creations of our hands our soulless and damned to evil. Is this really the case? Our our inventions soulless? We are closing in on Frankenstein's dream of bringing life to dead matter in our biological and digital experiments with evolution. If we indeed bring life into the world, is it inevitably evil? Our we fallen gods? Or are we divinely ordained to pursue the creation of life?

Frankenstein played God and was an utter failure at it. From his experience we can learn a great deal about the blessings of God's divine creative act. Frankenstein pursued his creative efforts for selfish reasons: to assuage his despair over his mother's death and death in general. He did not create the man for the sake of the man, but for his own sake. In the end he could not even name the man or answer if he had a soul. He rejected his creation, leaving it to fend for itself. It was not what he wanted; it did not in the end fulfill his obsession. So he just wanted it to go away.

But the one true God did not create for selfish reasons. I have often said that God created the Creation because God wanted something to love, indeed; need love. But Mary Shelley's story tells us that is must be more than that. The creation needed to be created for the sake of creation. God must have created the creation for the sake of itself. God is love and rejoices in that love and wanted to share it. Joy wants to be shared; love wants to be shared. So God rejoice in a creation that was less than perfect, that frequently -- all too frequently -- rebelled against God. God never gives up; never abandon us. And unlike Frankenstein, God breathe a portion of God's self into the creation and gave it a soul. To answer the "monster's" question: did it have a soul. Yes, but not by Frankestein, but by virtue of being part of God's creation. So at the end the child of a misguided scientist could weep over the body of his creator and choose to die.

Also see The Ring of Tolkien: The Magnification of Power by Technology and Technolatry: Tolkien's Ring and Technological Power