Denyse points to an interesting experiment with AI preachers.
The researchers took advantage of an existing android preacher robot in a Japanese shrine. They surveyed believers who had experienced a real human sermon vs the robot sermon. The robot was seen as “less credible”, and more importantly the robot got less donations than the human.
The researchers focused on credibility, which seems like the wrong variable.
= = = = = START QUOTE:
A robot, Jackson stated, “cannot authentically believe in supernatural agents if they do not have the capacity to believe, and they cannot engage in potentially costly behavior such as celibacy if they are not able to feel the cost. Unlike human religious elites, who profess a deep commitment to their faith which leads them to sacrifice time and material goods, robots are simply programmed to give sermons or blessings without an authentic understanding of, commitment to, or suffering for their religious group.”
= = = = = END QUOTE.
Credibility and belief are unimportant for preachers. Not just the obvious cases like Jimmy and Tammy Faye. Cult leaders gain credibility when their apocalypse fails. Cognitive dissonance is supreme.
Also, Rome specifically excludes the personality of the priest from the question of obedience. You’re supposed to obey the priest because of his CREDENTIALS, not his human qualities. By this standard a program written by the Vatican should be the best pastor of all. No human qualities at all.
Donations are more relevant to the church, and also more relevant to the question of judgment. Why would you donate to support an abstraction and distraction developed by Satan to dissolve human purpose?
When I donate to a writer or artist, I’m attempting to encourage ONE LIVING PERSON. There’s no point in donating to a program operated by Altman or Bezos. My donation doesn’t add anything to their near-infinite resources.
Polistra's Mill 