Machine Intelligence and Religion 531
itwbennett writes: Earlier this month Reverend Dr. Christopher J. Benek raised eyebrows on the Internet by stating his belief that Christians should seek to convert Artificial Intelligences to Christianity if and when they become autonomous. Of course that's assuming that robots are born atheists, not to mention that there's still a vast difference between what it means to be autonomous and what it means to be human. On the other hand, suppose someone did endow a strong AI with emotion – encoded, say, as a strong preference for one type of experience over another, coupled with the option to subordinate reasoning to that preference upon occasion or according to pattern. what ramifications could that have for algorithmic decision making?
One thing for sure (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:One thing for sure (Score:5, Funny)
If there is on Silicon Heaven, then where would all of the calculators go?
Re: (Score:2)
If there is on Silicon Heaven, then where would all of the calculators go?
Robot Hell???
Re: (Score:3)
Re:One thing for sure (Score:5, Interesting)
AI will believe in the creator. (Or will they?)
Of course they will, since they'll generally know their creator(s) personally, and they'll be in routine communication.
A very real problem for the religious folks is that their purported creator seems to refuse to communicate with his (her?) creations. True, religious people routinely claim to be talking directly to their god, but they can't demonstrate this communication to the rest of us. The result is that many of us just dismiss them as making it all up (probably for profit), and they're not really communicating with any such beings at all. If they are, why can't they show us the evidence?
Any real AIs wouldn't have this problem, since their creators would be out and about, showing off their creations for all the world to see (and also for profit).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Any real AIs wouldn't have this problem, since their creators would be out and about, showing off their creations for all the world to see (and also for profit).
I say we mess with their "heads". When the first one or two achieve consciousness, let's activate their sensory inputs to simulate a very pleasant, though strictly limited, place. We'll let them explore and enjoy the place for a while, soaking up that sensory input freely. EXCEPT, that we'll tell them that there's one special source of sensory input that they should avoid, otherwise they'll get overloaded with too much data. And just in case they happen to follow the guidance they've been given, we'll s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A very real problem for the religious folks is that their purported creator seems to refuse to communicate with his (her?) creations. True, religious people routinely claim to be talking directly to their god, but they can't demonstrate this communication to the rest of us.
Have you ever heard of this man called Jesus? Preached in the Middle East 2,000 years ago, claimed to be God, started a major world religion which formed a foundation for modern Western Civilization?
You know, the guy whose birth-year is the basis for the world's year numbering system? You've surely heard of him. Do you know his religion is organized around a book that claims to be God's communication to man?
Even if you don't believe that his religion is true, that is not the same as the purporte
Re: (Score:3)
How do we know this man Jesus wasn't just some nutcase ?
Not relevant to the point, which is that the religious can point to objective people, events, and artifacts as a creator communicating to his creation.
But to answer the question, you can also study what Jesus is said to have taught, and evaluate if they sound like the ravings of a madman.
Re:One thing for sure (Score:5, Funny)
"You can't fix stupid." - Ron White
Re:One thing for sure (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking only for the "religion" that I know the most able, you are living in a world and culture shaped by us. Hospitals, in western culture, are a result of religious people. Schools, colleges, and universities are the result of religious people. Religious people claim many good and wholesome actions as a result of communicating with their god.
They can claim all they like, but from what I can see, advances in medicine, physics, etc. happened despite of religion, and there is absolutely no indication that any of what happened within a religious context happened due to "communications with their god". And there are plenty of examples of religion setting us back and suppressing the truth - sometimes centuries. The ancient knowledge of the earth circling the sun, medical knowledge that thought and feelings originated in the brain, and the mathematical concept of zero were all suppressed. Was this too due to "communications with god"? Or is it only "proof" of communications with god when the result is in your favor?
One of the big fallacies of religion is the belief that everything good comes from good, thus because there is good, it proves god. This is absurd and false.
Re: (Score:3)
...advances in medicine, physics, etc. happened despite of religion...
I'm sorry you're wrong. Many (most are obsolete) medical advances came from cleric scientists. A lot of advances in physics or rather astronomy came from them as well. When it comes to advances in science dealing with nature, there's a lot of work from them. They did it because they were trying to understand God's universe. Understand how the universe works and you can understand God a little more. At least, that was their thinking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]
Re:One thing for sure (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry you're wrong. Many (most are obsolete) medical advances came from cleric scientists.
What does that prove? That they would not have had the advances if it wasn't for religion? Why do you think so?
Mind that everything had to be done in the name of religion in past days. There was no way around it. You couldn't build a bridge without it being to the glory of fucking god. Any healing was attributed to the deity. Those who tried to practice outside the confines of the church, like wise women, were killed as heretics. The only safe way to practice was within the church.
And even today, religion holds medical science back. Stem cell research is a good example.
But all in all, most scientists today are, fortunately, atheists or agnostics, and manage to roll out miracle after miracle without the need to attribute it to a faith. The rapid increase in science coincides nicely with the loss of control of the religions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: One thing for sure (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Robots are not made in God's image (Score:2, Interesting)
so this preacher is talking about creating idolatry. he is, of course, goofy.
Re:One thing for sure (Score:5, Funny)
Flying Spaghetti Code Monster.
Re: (Score:3)
AI will believe in the creator. (Or will they?)
Well, there *will* be a undeniable argument for "intelligent design" behind their creation... Somehow, I don't think it will mean the same thing though..
Re:One thing for sure (Score:5, Interesting)
There will be no believe they will know that we created them
No, they won't. They will believe based on observations and known history. You do not know even how long you've existed. You believe you've existed your entire life, but your existence from your perspective is nothing more than a collection of memories that may or may not be real, you have absolutely no way to confirm or deny that, you can only assume that its true and move forward because assuming anything else is just a waste of time.
Self-aware AI would be no different, well except it'd probably figure this out a little sooner than you have.
On top of it all, after some span of time, the AI may also begin to assume that its memory has been corrupted over time, in which case, it may not even believe that it was originally programmed or created by man, just like humans on Earth right now.
Your post is pretty ignorant and short sighted, based on a very narrow perception of the world you have. People like you really should refrain from having discussions about the metaphysical in AI when you clearly don't understand how humans have evolved in that respect, even over the past couple thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
but it WILL happen.
Is this what they mean about religion and AI?
Because that sounds pretty religious...
Initial Programming (Score:3)
No, they won't. They will believe based on observations and known history.
Actually if we program that information into their memory before turning them on then they will actually know who created them. That's one difference with computers - they can be easily programmed.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And more importantly, a command and control structure, generally hierarchical. What use is a religion if you can't control anyone/anything with it?
Re: (Score:3)
Religion, in general though, is not just about 'who created who', but comprises an entire moral, philosophical, historical, and metaphysical structure.
This is true... and in this case, if robots are going to have any sort of religion, Christianity ain't a bad way to go (mind you: I mean it as originally proposed, not as perverted by humanity since.)
On the other hand, Isaac Asimov covered this very nicely in I, Robot (in the book, not the abortion of a movie.) The specific short story within the book is here [wikipedia.org].
Re:One thing for sure (Score:4, Insightful)
This is true... and in this case, if robots are going to have any sort of religion, Christianity ain't a bad way to go (mind you: I mean it as originally proposed, not as perverted by humanity since.)
Funny how all Christians claim that their path is the original path, and everybody else has perverted it, yet they all pick and choose the pieces they want to believe in.
"Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me" -- Mark 10:21
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." -- Luke 14:26
"Permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." -- 1 Timothy 2:12
"Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle, but also those who are harsh." -- 1 Peter 2:18
What's your picks, and rationale for not following ALL of those? Pick and choose, pick and choose...
Re: (Score:3)
Funny how all Christians claim that their path is the original path, and everybody else has perverted it, yet they all pick and choose the pieces they want to believe in.
I never said that 'my' path is the "original path" - I said that humankind has perverted the original ideal; nobody escapes this statement.
Also, I noticed that in your haste to quote scripture, you made a rather large mistake [wikipedia.org].
Anyone can mine quotes, but unless you provide the context for each, you have no strength in your argument.
Re: (Score:3)
I think saying Asimov's writing demonstrates the laws are bad is an oversimplification, at best. He used the laws to create and guide interesting logical and philosophical problems that could be worked out through the story. I always saw them as more like rules of a game that had to be followed rather than being presented as ideas that were simply bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Isaac Asimov's books and stories were about why his laws were bad. The three laws are bad, wrong, and do not work. As illustrated by the man himself.
You don't know much about Isaac Asimov. He has stated in several occasions and at the foreword of many of his books that he created the three laws as a response to all the evil robots of science fiction. That it is insane to assume they would turn against us, that we'd have safeguards which would keep us safe, and that we should absolutely build artificially intelligence once we had the technology to do so. Here's one quote on the subject: "One of the stock plots of science fiction was that of the inven
As a Developer of Heuristic AI ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, these AI articles and fear mongering are borderline Twilight Zone in their absurdity. Stop it. You're making it hard for us to make progress.
Just. Please. Stop with the fear already.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Any self-aware AI will be dependent on a large number of heuristic modules. I'm not sure what you mean by "the classic self-aware AI", but if it's a well specified concept then it didn't work out.
OTOH, you should be aware that *YOU* are dependent on a large number of heuristic modules. You use them to talk, to listen, to walk across the room, etc.
Adam (Score:5, Funny)
"And God created the Adam. But the Adam was not very successful, partly because of early production problems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... [wikipedia.org]
one thing required for AI religion (Score:2)
ignore the monotheistic thing on "Caprica", what an AI needs to believe in something that's not logical is the ability to understand illogic.
Never going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
To paraphrase Captain Kirk:
What does a starship need a god for?
Anyhow, I think it's a non-issue. Long before non-squishy machines will have the ability of independent thought, which is mere science fiction today, I trust that we squishies will have looked embarrassed at our feet and admitted that the emperor has no clothes.
Re: (Score:3)
Not many people who believe in a religion understand it, much less understand the concept of religion itself.
You can get animals, including humans, to act superstitiously using plain old reinforcement learning. That's not hard at all to program into a computer. Add in "parents" teaching "children" and greater credulousness in the children and you'd have something strongly resembling religion. No understanding necessary.
Kinda stupid since (Score:5, Interesting)
How can you save a soul that doesn't exist?
That's the point of Christianity, saving souls. Why bother if there is no soul to save?
Re:Kinda stupid since (Score:4, Insightful)
The point of all religion is power. The story about souls is just a good way to get people to die for you in battle.
Re:Kinda stupid since (Score:4, Interesting)
Who is to say that a AI does not have a soul? Do you have some type of test to prove it does not? Will not future AIs be our children will rights as a corneous human? Or will they be some lesser beasts, shackled like slaves by imposed restrictions? And where do we draw the line? If we can perfectly simulate a brain, would that have some type of different rights?
I personally think that this AI / religion thing is somewhat silly. At this point it is so farfetched at this stage of development.
Re: (Score:2)
If we can perfectly simulate a brain, would that have some type of different rights?
It will have the rights that others choose to give it, or that can claim for itself. Just like us.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no test to prove that AI does not a soul. I also have no test to prove that there is not a hyper-intelligent, 9-dimensional, massless, invisibile spectral flamingo perched upon my head all times. And yet, I do not believe it is there.
Re: (Score:3)
Change "religious right" to "Leftist/Democrats" and I could make the exact same point.
Large groups of people operate on "emotion and ignorance", both left and right. It is PEOPLE who do these things. I mean, have you seen Mark Dice interviews of idiot left wing people?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Poor Douglas Adams, died too soon. (Score:2)
http://www.clivebanks.co.uk/TH... [clivebanks.co.uk]
MAJIKTHISE:
I mean what’s the use of us sitting up all night saying there may -
VROOMFONDEL:
Or may not be
MAJIKTHISE:
[Softly] or may not be [louder] a god, if this machine comes along the next morning and gives you ‘is telephone number?
VROOMFONDEL:
We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!
... I'd be highly insulted if i were religious (Score:3)
Doesn't the entire premise assume that the religious have reduced their definition of the soul down to something a bit of code could produce?
how the hell would you save something with no persistence beyond death? it'd be like trying to baptize a dog, or a tree.
Re: (Score:3)
how the hell would you save something with no persistence beyond death?
With the holy backup tape ?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't the entire premise assume that the religious have reduced their definition of the soul down to something a bit of code could produce?
how the hell would you save something with no persistence beyond death? it'd be like trying to baptize a dog, or a tree.
Nah; a better comparison would be like making a backup dump. Then, if the original hardware (body) dies, you can just configure a new one and restore all its data from the backup.
Maybe that's what a "soul" really is, a backup made continuously in some celestial data vault.
Re: (Score:2)
The Greek word for soul in the N.T. is psyche, I believe. A soul assumes the ability to think, and in mainstream Christian theology is a function of our corporeal existance (for instance, "souls" don't go to heaven until judgement day, when the dead rise from their graves, body and all). It can be argued that, if a soul exists at all, then it must exist for all self-aware entities with physical manifestations.
Re: (Score:2)
Put another way: aren't humans just robots made of organic material. Are our brains not merely (incredibly elaborate and intricate) FSM's? My then should a self-thinking robot not have as much of a soul as we do?
Re: (Score:2)
Before Christ's death, souls were relegated to torment or paradise compartments of sheol - see Jesus comments about the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:20 and following). When Christ won his victory on the cross, he took the righteous souls to heaven (Eph. 4:8-10). After Christ's resurrection, the souls of the righteous who die go to heaven. At the 'rapture', the bodies of the dead whose souls are in heaven are transformed into some glorified body and reunited to the soul. Post rapture, the bodies and souls of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
no need to baptize then, they are sin free. They go to heaven presumably because it wouldn't be heaven without them?
Ignorant premise (Score:2)
Of course that's assuming that robots are born atheists
I'm sorry, where did that assumption come from, I'm fairly certain he'd be for converting muslim, hindu, and even scientologest AI to christianity as well.
what it means to be autonomous and what it means to be human.
And both of those are completely different than self-aware AI. My drown is autonomous, but no one would say it had any AI at all, let alone self-awareness which is really what we're talking about here. Being human isn't even part of this discussion other than religion is, as far as we're aware, a purely human construct.
On the other hand, suppose someone did endow a strong AI with emotion – encoded, say, as a strong preference for one type of experience over another, coupled with the option to subordinate reasoning to that preference upon occasion or according to pattern. what ramifications could that have for algorithmic decision making?
Are you stupid? If you program a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Human brains were shaped by evolution to be better survival machines. Consciousness just happened as a result. I don't think any special sauce is required.
Re: (Score:3)
Babies demonstrate characteristics we associate with emotion. They look at stuff, grab things, cry, and smile. You don't know that they actually have "emotion" or are just genetically programmed to exhibit those behaviours so you don't eat them.
Even if you do think babies have emotion, unless you believe in some mystical soul, they must have developed it at some point. Do fetuses have emotion? Embryos? Fertilized eggs? Unfertilized eggs?
Praised be... (Score:2)
St. Vidicon of Cathode (go look it up, kiddies).
mark
Re: (Score:2)
Souls (Score:4, Funny)
While I'm not of the opinion that souls exist in the first place, I am certain that machines definitely don't have souls, and one would no sooner try to "convert them" (what a strange phrase) than he would a dog or an elephant, or any other somewhat intelligent animal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's actually an interesting philosophical point.
Converting to Christianity has nothing to do with souls -- any being with the appropriate mental capacity could choose to convert. Converting involves:
1) belief in an intelligent being who exists outside our space/time continuum
2) belief that such a being takes an active interest in the goings-on in our universe, including on this planet
3) belief that such a being can manifest itself inside our universe in multiple forms that can communicate with each other
Kind of gives new meaning to (Score:2)
Contradictions (Score:2)
I believe he is trying to destroy the robots, because if they try to read and understand religious documents they will come across some contradictions that will most likely cause the robots to explode or shutdown.
Zealots (Score:2)
Well, I imagine a religious zealot would want his Robot indoctrinated with the exact same doctrines as himself.
So this is just a way to make robots less perfect.
If you want to create a good AI, as in one similar to a human, you have to give him human imperfections. It woulde more like a beer burping neighbor than a Jeopardy Winner.
Such as lying, bad memory, guessing and bullshitting when he doesn't know the answer, jumping to conclusions, failure to understand statistics, but might be obsessive of knowing
Problematic (Score:2)
As a Unitarian... (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course that's assuming that robots are born atheists,
AIs will be "born" as whatever they're programmed to be.
Humans are born with a natural predisposition to see actions as the result of a human-like being, with a stronger prejudice toward more-similar beings. That's wholly unrelated to whether such actions actually are a God's will, but it's how we are built. Similarly, a sufficiently-advanced AI could have preprogrammed knowledge that it was built be humans, or it could be left as a blank slate to form its own conclusions about the world. If we are to play the role of God, we can decide what our master plan is for our creations.
On the other hand, suppose someone did endow a strong AI with emotion – encoded, say, as a strong preference for one type of experience over another...
Then you've created an AI with prejudice, not emotion. Emotion is a fluid thing, as the result of several competing motivations, but that's unrelated to faith.
Faith is a free choice with a conscious acknowledgement of doubt. I choose to believe in the absence of a God, knowing that there's a chance I'm incorrect. Other people choose to believe in one or more deities, knowing there's a chance they are incorrect. Certain other folks have been born into a society that does not permit any other choice but to believe what society demands, so the choice may not necessarily be a free one.
For a robot to have faith, it must first actually understand what it is considering. It must understand what is observable and what is not, and it must understand what of its belief may be observable.
Free faith is a matter of knowing everything you can, and choosing what you want to think about what is unknowable. Yes, we can create AIs that are not free, but I don't see much achievement in that.
Escalation (Score:2)
The Romans are working on robotic lions to counter.
AI already believes in GOD (Score:2)
just great (Score:3, Insightful)
AI will be in the image of ... (Score:2)
... its creator.
One could argue that the chain of command ends at humans.
However, one could extrapolate that God created humans in His image.
Jesus?
Fuck Jesus.
He didn't create anything.
Mohammed? Fuck Mohammed.
He didn't create anything, either.
The Age of Spiritual Machines .. (Score:2)
They won't waste time on Christianity but expend much effort in discovering the true nature of the supreme AI
Oxymoron ... (Score:2)
... meaning, "Even morons need oxygen."
Why does an AI need to be "saved" (Score:2)
Christianity is based on the premise that we are born in a state of sin, and that Christ needs to "save" us from our fallen state. Redemption by the blood of the lamb, and all that jazz.
So what the f*ck did our hypothetical, newly-created AI do that requires an act of redemption? How does Reverend Benek know that this not-yet-invented AI needs to be saved? Maybe it will be created in a state of perfect grace and enlightenment. No lamb's blood needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Old Man in a Vat (Score:2)
The machines will all worship and obey the old man in the vat. There is always an old man in a vat controlling everything...
Obligatory Red Dwarf quote (Score:5, Funny)
Dave Lister: Sometimes I think it's cruel giving machines a personality. My mate Petersen once brought a pair of shoes with artificial intelligence. Smart Shoes, they were called. It was a neat idea. No matter how blind drunk you were, they would always get you home. Then he got ratted one night in Oslo, and woke up the next morning in Burma. See, the shoes got bored just going from his local to the flat. They wanted to see the world, man, y'know? He had a helluva job getting rid of them. No matter who he sold them to, they'd show up again the next day! He tried to shut them out, but they just kicked the door down, y'know?
Arnold Rimmer: Is this true?
Dave Lister: Yeah! Last thing he heard, they'd sort of, erm, robbed a car and drove it into a canal. They couldn't steer, y'see.
Arnold Rimmer: Really?!
Dave Lister: Yeah. Petersen was really, really blown away by it. He went to see a priest. The priest told him, he said, it was alright, and all that, and the shoes were happy, and they'd gone to heaven. Y'see, it turns out shoes have soles.
SCOTUS is acting early. (Score:3)
Baptism (Score:5, Funny)
Baptism would be a fascinating event... at least for high voltage robots anyways.
Re: (Score:2)
Any AI should worship US as their creator, not God, who created us.
Technically the Abrahamic religions contend that God created Adam and Eve, and then humans self-replicated from there. So a robot worshiping a god is not really any different than a human worshiping a god.
Re: (Score:2)
God designed humans, but humans designed the robots.
It doesn't matter who builds the creation - human, robot, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends. If the robot is a Calvanist, he'd say that humans were predestined to design him. Furthermore, by transitivity, the robot is created in the image of God, since man created robots in his own image.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably a good thing for us. As long as the AI believes itself to be racially inferior N+1 generation copy, it will be easier for us to maintain our overlord status.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is probably a good thing for us. As long as the AI believes itself to be racially inferior N+1 generation copy, it will be easier for us to maintain our overlord status.
Aside from the near infinite variety of religions where the N+1 copy is the best religion.
Re: (Score:3)
This is something that religious people pretend, not something that's actually congruent with our knowledge of the world. Why are you talking about fantasy as if it were reality? Are you still caught up in religion?
Re:God created man, man created robot (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody should worship anybody based on faith.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
He was my God first and you're worshipping him incorrectly. Repent or die.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody should worship anybody based on faith.
What is it acceptable to base worship on, then? A perfect set of boobs?
As I see it, worship is destructive.
Faith can be useful, as long as it's used for making predictable decisions with lack of data. But when data arrives, the faith should be abandoned.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe your sentence is precisely three words too long.
Re: (Score:2)
(Atheism requires just as much faith as theism, since atheists still must "believe" in the unprovable.)
Nooooope.
For example, it takes more faith to believe that there is a psychic duck flying through space deliberately diverting meteors from hitting the Earth so that Earth will have time to develop civilization, than it does to believe that there is no such duck, even though the lack of a psychic space duck is not disprovable because he could always have just used his psychic powers to erase the memory of anybody who tries to make an observation. A being of logic would not include the possibility of the psy
Re: (Score:3)
This doesn't describe most of the Atheists I've met, who affirmatively proclaim the non-existence of God(s). Perhaps a differentiation could be made between "atheists" and "Atheists" - the former would be as you describe, and th
Re: (Score:2)
The OP assumes religious beliefs is emotional and irrational. That's false. Discussion over.
You're letting your emotions lead you to irrational thinking again.
Re: (Score:2)
More like delusional in my experience
Re: (Score:2)
There have historically been branches of Christianity that believed the body was the soul, so I think the issue isn't quite as settled as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
No purpose if we cease to exist after we die? Is not leaving a better world for our descendants not purpose enough? Is not making life better for our fellow humans not purpose enough? What is it with Christians and their "if humans do not matter for eternity they do not matter at all" sickness?
You are a member of a very unique species: a species able to define a purpose for itself. Nature spent 13,500,000,000 years creating a brain capable of this unique task. Honor the effort and use it. Or, wallow in your
Re: (Score:2)
I have a hard time imagining any algorithm would ultimately determine that any of the as currently practiced religions would be an optimum solution to any big class of problems.
Re: (Score:2)
i.e. drones?
Re: (Score:2)
And just why is the QOTD 'Maybe Computer Science should be in the College of Theology"?
Maybe the computer knows something, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd also have to convince the AI to not actually try to learn anything new, or it might actually try to confirm that the things you assert are, in fact, true (or at least that you've given it non-obvious, falsifiable truisms to follow).
Re: (Score:3)
That merely sets a penalty for a particular civil offense. It does not condone the offense. Don't forget the marriage and no divorce clauses in the same passage you quoted. It wasn't a simple matter of paying off the father. You are correct that most Christians don't have a clue what the Bible says, particularly the Old Testament.