Evaluating the Co-dependence and Co-existence between Religion and Robots: Past, Present and Insights on the Future

Abstract

The relationship between religions and science can be considered historically controversial in nature. In constantly evolving global societies, it is important to provide a new perspective on the past and present relationship between religions and technological developments in the different societies. In this regard, this paper will provide insights into the different ways in which ancient societies and their religious traditions helped in the development of technological progress. At one end, it will highlight some of the positive contributions of different religions towards technological progress in the past. At the other end, this discussion will aid in dispelling the viewpoint that perceived the ancient cultures and societies as bereft of technological knowledge and innovation. This paper will provide a historical perspective on the development of relationship between religion and robotics in the past. A brief look at the existing scenario within the contemporary societies will also be examined, along with discussion of socio-cultural norms and values related to perception of robots in different Eastern and Western cultures. The discussion will conclude with some predictions regarding the future, along with the different ways in which the relationship of co-existence and co-dependence is expected to evolve between religion and robotics in the future, which goes beyond the predictions of mass annihilation and mass enslavement by sentient AI-based robots.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. 1.

    Shelley MW (1984) Frankenstein. Penguin Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Asimov I (1950) I, Robot. Penguin Random House, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Raynor WJ (1999) The international dictionary of artificial intelligence. Glenlake Publishing Company Ltd., London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Nilsson NJ (2009) The quest of artificial intelligence: a history of ideas and achievement. Cambridge University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Loffler D et al (2019) Blessing robot blessU2: a discursive design study to understand the implications of social robots in religious contexts. IJSR Spec Issue Relig Robot 20:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Weng YH et al (2019) The religious impacts of taoism on ethically aligned design in HRI. IJSR Spec Issue Relig Robot 16:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Trovato G et al (2019) Religion and robots: towards the synthesis of two extremes. IJSR Spec Issue Relig Robot 22:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Cuomo S (2007) Technology and culture in Greek and Roman antiquity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Greene K (2008) Historiography and theoretical approaches. In: Oleson JP (ed) Oxford handbook of engineering and technology in the classical world. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Price DJS (1964) Automata and the origins of mechanism and mechanistic philosophy. Technol Cult 5:9–23

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    De Groot J (2008) Dynamics and the science of mechanics: aristotle on animal motion. J Hist Philos 46(1):43–68

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Berryman S (2009) The mechanical hypothesis in ancient Greek natural philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Francis JA (2009) Metal maidens, achilles’ shield, and pandora: the beginnings of ‘ekphrasis’. Am J Philol 130:1–23

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bosak-Schroeder C (2016) The religious life of greek automata. Archiv Fur Religionsgeschichte 17(1):123–136

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Murray AT (1919) Homer’s the Odyssey. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tybjerg K (2005) Hero of Alexandria’s mechanical treatises: between theory and practice. Steiner, Stuttgart

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Wikander O (2008) Gadgets and scientific instruments. In: Olesen JP (ed) Oxford handbook of engineering and technology in the classical world. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Boas M (1949) Hero’s pneumatica: a study of its transmission and influence. Isis 40:38–48

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Anderson WS (1972) Ovid’s metamorphoses: books 6–10, Norman. University of Oklahoma Press, OK

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Greene K (1990) Perspectives on Roman technology. Oxf J Archaeol 9:209–219

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Cambiano G (1994) Automaton. Studi Storici 35(3):613–633

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Humphrey JW, Oleson J, Sherwood A (1998) Greek and Roman technology: a sourcebook. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Lively G (2006) Science fictions and cyber myths: or, do cyborgs dream of dolly the sheep? In: Zajko V, Leonard M (eds) Laughing with the medusa: classical myth and feminist thought. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Rosheim ME (2006) Leonardo’s lost robots. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Pedretti C (1973) Leonardo: a study in chronology and style. University of California Press, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Reti L (1974) The madrid codices of Leonardo Da Vinci. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Burke J (2006) Meaning and crisis in the early sixteenth century: interpreting Leonardo’s lion. Oxf Art J 29:77–91

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hatchard J (1819) Observations on the automaton chess player. S. Gosnell, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Weibel P (2007) Preface. In: von Kempelen W (ed) Mensch in der mashine. Matthes & Seitz, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Evans HR (1905) The romance of automata. Open Court 3:131–140

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Kang H (2011) Sublime dreams of living machines. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Reilly K (2011) Automata and mimesis on the stage of theatre history. Palgrave-Macmillan, Chippenham

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Walbank FW (1945) Men and donkeys. Class Q 39:122

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Rice EE (1983) The grand procession of ptolemy phidelphus. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Dueck D et al (2005) Strabo’s cultural geography: the making of a kolossourgia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Drachman AG (1948) Ktesibios, Philon and Heron: a study in ancient pneumatics, vol 4. Munksgaard, Copenhagen, pp 52–77

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Swift C (2015) Robot Saints. Preternature Crit Hist Stud Preternatural 4(1):52–77

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    RIskin J (2010) Machines in the garden. Repub Lett J Study Knowl Politics Arts 1(2):16–43

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Noble F (1997) The religion of technology: the divinity of man and the spirit of invention. Knopf Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Rowland ID (2003) Vitruvius: ten books on architecture, the Corsini Incunabulum with the annotations and drawings of Giovanni Battista da Sangallo. Edizioni dell’Elafante, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Gorman MJ (2001) Between the demonic and the miraculous: athanasius kircher and the baroque culture of machines. In: Stolzenberg D (ed) The great art of knowing: the baroque encyclopedia of Athanasius Kircher. Stanford University Libraries, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    King E (2002) Clockwork prayer: a sixteenth-century mechanical monk. Blackbird Online J Lit Arts 1(1):1–29

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Reich-Steibert N, Eyssel F (2015) Learning with educational companion robots? Toward attitudes on education robots, predictors of attitudes, and application potential for education robots. IJSR 7:875–888

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Kwak SS et al (2017) The effects of organism- versus object-based robot design approaches on the consumer acceptance of domestic robots. IJSR 9:359–377

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Pino M et al (2015) Are we ready for robots that care for us? Attitudes and opinions of older adults toward socially assistive robots. Front Aging Neurosci 7(141):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    De Graaf MMA et al (2015) Sharing a life with harvey: exploring the acceptance of and relationship-building with a social robot. Comput Hum Behav 43:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Leite I et al (2013) Social robots for long-term interactions: a survey. IJSR 5(2):291–308

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Shiomi M, Hagita N (2017) Social acceptance toward a childcare support robot system: web-based cultural differences investigation and a field study in Japan. Adv Robot 31(14):727–738

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Geraci RM (2008) Apocalyptic AI: religion and the promise of artificial intelligence. J Am Acad Relig 76(1):138–166

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Baisch S et al (2017) Acceptance of social robots by elder people: does psychosocial functioning matter? IJSR 9:293–307

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Unhlekar VV et al (2018) Human-aware robotic assistant for collaborative assembly: integrating human motion prediction with planning in time. IEEE-RAL 3(3):2394–2401

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Nomura T et al (2008) What people assume about humanoid and animal-type robots: Cross-cultural analysis between Japan, Korea and the United States. IJHR 5(1):25–46

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Nomura T et al (2009) Age difference and images of robots. Social survey in Japan. Inter Stud 10(3):374–391

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Nomura T et al (2015) Differences on social acceptance of humanoid robots between Japan and the UK. In: Proceedings of 4th international symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction, pp 1–6

  55. 55.

    Hebesberger D et al (2017) A long-term autonomous robot at a care hospital: a mixed methods study on social acceptance and experiences of staff and older adults. IJSR 9:417–429

    Google Scholar 

  56. 56.

    Sim DYY, Loo CK (2015) Extensive assessment and evaluation methodologies on assistive social robots for modeling human–robot interaction—a review. Inf Sci 301:305–344

    Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Broadbent E (2017) Interactions with robots: the truths we reveal about ourselves. Ann Rev Psychol 68:627–652

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Sung JY et al (2009) Robots in the wild: understanding long-term use. HRI 15:45–52

    Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Fink J et al (2013) Living with a vacuum cleaning robot: a 6-month ethnographic study. IJSR 5(3):389–408

    Google Scholar 

  60. 60.

    Strassberg AA (2005) Fortieth anniversary symposium: science, religion, and secularity in a technological society: magic, religion, science, technology, and ethics in a postmodern world. Zygon 40(2):308–322

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Bauman Z (2011) Culture in a liquid modern world. Polity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Sabanovic S (2014) Inventing Japan’s ‘robotics culture’: the repeated assembly of science, technology and culture in social robotics. Soc Stud Sci 44(3):342–367

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Mavridis N et al (2012) Opinions and attitudes toward humanoid robots in the Middle East. AI Soc 27:517–534

    Google Scholar 

  64. 64.

    McBride J (2015) The advent of postmodern robotic techno-religiosity. J Evol Technol 25(2):25–38

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Conti D et al (2015) A cross-cultural study of acceptance and use of robotics by future psychology practitioners. Proceedings of IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 555–560

  66. 66.

    Mori M (1999) The buddha in the robot: a robot engineer’s thoughts on science and religion. Kosei Publishing, Tokyo

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Kasulis TP (1993) The body-Japanese style. In: Kasulis TP, Ames RT, Dissanayake W (eds) Self as body in asian theory and practice. University of New York, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Geraci RM (2006) Spiritual robots: religion and our scientific view of the natural world. Theol Sci 4(13):1–16

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Robertson J (2010) Gendering humanoid robots: robo-sexism in Japan. Body Soc 16(2):1–36

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hashimoto T et al (2011) Development of educational system with the android robot SAYA and evaluation. Int J Adv Robot Syst 8(3):51–61

    Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Tanaka F, Matsuzoe S (2012) Children teach a care-receiving robot to promote their learning: field experiments in a classroom for vocabulary learning. J Hum Robot Interact 1(1):78–95

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  73. 73.

    De Graaf MMA et al (2019) Why would i use this in my home? A model of domestic social robot acceptance. Hum Comput Interact 34:115–173

    Google Scholar 

  74. 74.

    MacDorman KF et al (2009) Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitude by implicit and explicit measures. AI Soc 23(4):485–510

    Google Scholar 

  75. 75.

    Wagner C et al (2009) The Japanese way of robotics: interacting ‘naturally’ with robots as a national character? In: RO-MAN’ 09, pp 510–515

  76. 76.

    Guizzo E (2010) Hiroshi Ishiguro: the man who made a copy of himself,”. IEEE Spectr 47:44–56

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Ackerman E (2011) Honda robotics unveils next-generation ASIMO robot. IEEE Spectr 10:8

    Google Scholar 

  78. 78.

    Kawamura K et al (2016) Can we talk through a robot as if face-to-face? Long-term fieldwork using tele-operated robot for seniors with alzheimer’s disease. Front Psychol 7(1066):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  79. 79.

    Han J et al (2005) The educational use of home robots for children. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2005), pp 378–383

  80. 80.

    Shin N, Kim S (2007) Learning about, from, and with robots: students’ perspectives. In: 16th IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication, pp 1040–1045

  81. 81.

    Choi J et al (2008) Comparison of cultural acceptability for educational robots between Europe and Korea. J Inf Process Syst 4:97–102

    Google Scholar 

  82. 82.

    Park S et al (2011) Teaching assistant robot, ROBOSEM, in English class and practical issues for its diffusion. In: Proceedings of Workshop on ARSO, pp 1–6

  83. 83.

    Park I-W, Han J (2016) Teachers’ views on the use of robots and cloud services in education for sustainable development. Clust Comput 19:987–999

    Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Yueh HP, Lin W (2013) The interaction between human and the home service robot on a daily life cycle. In: Proceedings of international conference on cross-cultural design, pp 175–181

  85. 85.

    Xu Q et al (2017) Needs and attitudes of Singaporeans towards home service robots: a multi-generational perspective. Univers Access Inf Soc 14:477–486

    Google Scholar 

  86. 86.

    Keren G et al (2012) Kindergarten assistive robotics (KAR) as a tool for spatial cognition development in pre-school education. In: Proceedings of IROS, pp 1084–1090

  87. 87.

    Keren G, Fridin M (2014) Kindergarten Social Assistive Robot (KindSAR) for children’s geometric thinking and metacognitive development in preschool education: a pilot study. Comput Hum Behav 35:400–412

    Google Scholar 

  88. 88.

    Riek L et al (2010) Ibn Sina steps out: exploring Arabic attitudes towards humanoid robots. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international symposium on new frontiers in human–robot interaction, pp 1–7

  89. 89.

    Shaw-Garlock G (2009) Looking forward to sociable robots. IJSR 1:249–260

    Google Scholar 

  90. 90.

    Halpern D, Katz JE (2012) Unveiling robotphobia and cyber-dystopianism: the role of gender, technology and religion on attitudes towards robots. In: HRI, pp 139–140

  91. 91.

    Gerhart M, Russell AM (1998) Cog is to US as we are to god: a response to anne foerst. Zygon J Relig Sci 33:263–269

    Google Scholar 

  92. 92.

    Foerst A (2004) God in the machine: what robots teach us about humanity and god. Dutton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  93. 93.

    Belpaeme T et al (2018) Guidelines for designing social robots as second language tutors. IJSR 10(3):325–341

    Google Scholar 

  94. 94.

    Fridin M, Belokopytov M (2014) Acceptance of socially assistive humanoid robot by preschool and elementary school teachers. Comput Hum Behav 33:23–31

    Google Scholar 

  95. 95.

    Conti D et al (2017) Robots in education and care of children with developmental disabilities: a study on acceptance by experienced and future professionals. IJSR 9(1):1–62

    Google Scholar 

  96. 96.

    Ben Massoud C et al (2011) Facilitators and barriers to adopting robotic-assisted surgery: contextualizing the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. PLoS ONE 6(1):62

    Google Scholar 

  97. 97.

    Beuscher LM et al (2017) Socially assistive robots: measuring older adults’ perceptions. J Gerontol Nurs 43(12):35–43

    Google Scholar 

  98. 98.

    Rantanen T et al (2018) Attitudes towards care robots among Finnish home care personnel—a comparison of two approaches. Scand J Caring Sci 32:772–782

    Google Scholar 

  99. 99.

    Meyer S (2011) My friend the robot, service robotics for elderly—an answer to the demographic change?. VDE, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  100. 100.

    Mitnik R et al (2008) An autonomous educational mobile robot mediator. Auton Robots 25(4):367–382

    Google Scholar 

  101. 101.

    Fernandez-Llamas C et al (2017) Analysing the computational competences acquired by K-12 students when lectured by robotic and human teachers. IJSR 23:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  102. 102.

    Brown LN, Howard AM (2014) The positive effects of verbal encouragement in mathematics education using a social robot. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE integrated STEM education conference, pp 1–5

  103. 103.

    Walker E (2016) The effects of physical form and embodied action in a teachable robot for geometry learning. In: Proceedings of the 16th ICALT, pp 381–385

  104. 104.

    Pinto AMH et al (2015) A question game for children aiming the geometrical figures learning by using a humanoid robot. In: Proceedings of 12th Latin American robotics symposium, pp 228–234

  105. 105.

    Serholt S, Barendregt W (2014) Students’ attitudes towards the possible future of social robots in education. In: Proceedings of RO-MAN workshop, pp 1-6

  106. 106.

    Serholt S et al (2017) The case of classroom robots: teachers’ deliberations on ethical tensions. AI Soc 32:613–631

    Google Scholar 

  107. 107.

    Serholt S et al (2014) Teachers’ view on the use of empathic robotic tutors in the classroom. In: 23rd IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 955–960

  108. 108.

    Sung JY et al (2010) Domestic robot ecology: an initial framework to unpack long-term acceptance of robots at home. IJSR 2(4):417–429

    Google Scholar 

  109. 109.

    Alaiad A, Zhou L (2014) The determinants of home healthcare robots adoption: an empirical investigation. Int J Med Inform 83:825–840

    Google Scholar 

  110. 110.

    De Graaf MMA et al (2016) Long-term evaluation of a social robot in real homes. Interact Stud 17(3):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Li H et al (2019) Perceptions of domestic robots’ normative behavior across cultures. In: Proceedings of AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics and society, pp 345–351

  112. 112.

    Pope LC, Meltzer T (2008) Has a robotic dog the buddha-nature? In: AAAI, pp 23–26

  113. 113.

    Evers V et al (2009) Relational vs. group self-construal: untangling the role of national culture in HRI’. In: HRI, pp 255–262

  114. 114.

    Li D et al (2010) A cross-cultural study: effect of robot appearance and task. IJSR 2:175–186

    Google Scholar 

  115. 115.

    Boradbent E et al (2009) Acceptance of healthcare robots for the older population: review and future directions. IJSR 1:319–330

    Google Scholar 

  116. 116.

    Syrdal DS et al (2013) The Frankenstein Syndrome Questionnaire—Results from a quantitative cross-cultural survey. In: Proceedings of ICSR, pp 270–279

  117. 117.

    Kennedy J et al (2016) The cautious attitude of teachers towards social robots in schools. In: Robots 4 learning workshop at IEEE RO-MAN 2016, pp 1–6

  118. 118.

    Bakar O (2016) Science and technology for mankind’s benefit: islamic theories and practices—past, present and future. In: Kamali MH, Bakar O, Batchelor DA-F, Hashim R (eds) Islamic Perspectives on Science and Technology, Springer, Singapore

    Google Scholar 

  119. 119.

    Report EC (2012) Special Eurobarometer 382: public attitudes towards robots. European Commission, London

  120. 120.

    Hanson R (2008) Economics of the singularity. IEEE Spectr 45(6):45–60

    Google Scholar 

  121. 121.

    Chalmer D (2010) The singularity: a philosophical analysis. J Conscious Stud 17:7–65

    Google Scholar 

  122. 122.

    Kaczynski T (1996) Industrial society and its future. The New York Times, New York

    Google Scholar 

  123. 123.

    Merritt J (2017) Is AI a threat to Christianity? The Atlantic

  124. 124.

    Dowd M (2017) Elon Musk’s billion-dollar crusade to stop the AI apocalypse. Vanity Fair

  125. 125.

    Cho A (2007) Making machines that make others of their kind. Sci New Ser 318(5853):1084–1085

    Google Scholar 

  126. 126.

    Collin M (2010) Terminate the terminators. Sci Am 303(1):30–31

    Google Scholar 

  127. 127.

    Meyer CD (2011) GI, robot: the ethics of using robots in combat. Public Aff Q 25(1):21–36

    Google Scholar 

  128. 128.

    Sauer F (2016) Stopping ‘killer robots’: why now is the time to ban autonomous weapons systems. Arms Control Today 46(8):8–13

    Google Scholar 

  129. 129.

    Ma V (2016) The ethics and implications of modern warfare: robotic systems and human optimization. Harv Int Rev 37(4):43–45

    Google Scholar 

  130. 130.

    Gates B (2007) A robot in every home. Sci Am 296(1):58–65

    Google Scholar 

  131. 131.

    Butler D (2016) A world where everyone has a robot: why 2040 could blow your mind. Nature 530(7951):398

    Google Scholar 

  132. 132.

    Gibb S, La HM, Le T, Nguyen L, Schmid R, Pham N (2018) Non-destructive evaluation sensor fusion with autonomous robotic system for civil infrastructure inspection. J Field Robot 35(6):988–1004

    Google Scholar 

  133. 133.

    La HM, Gucunski N, Dana K, Kee SH (2017) Development of an autonomous bridge deck inspection robotic system. J Field Robot 34(8):1489–1504

    Google Scholar 

  134. 134.

    Gucunski N, Kee SH, La HM, Basily B, Maher A (2015) Delamination and concrete quality assessment of concrete bridge decks using a fully autonomous RABIT platform. Inte J Struct Monit Maint 2(1):19–34

    Google Scholar 

  135. 135.

    Lim RS, La HM, Sheng W (2014) A robotic crack inspection and mapping system for bridge deck maintenance. IEEE Trans Autom Sci Eng 11(1):367–378

    Google Scholar 

  136. 136.

    La HM, Lim RS, Basily B, Gucunski N, Yi J, Maher A, Romero FA, Parvardeh H (2013) Mechatronic and control systems design for an autonomous robotic system for high-efficiency bridge deck inspection and evaluation. IEEE Trans Mechatron 18(6):1655–1664

    Google Scholar 

  137. 137.

    Smith A, Anderson J (2014) AI, robotics and the future of jobs. Pew Research Center, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  138. 138.

    McCrum K (2016) Samsung and Apple iPhone factory replaces 60,000 workers with robots in cost-cutting move: the workforce previously numbered 110,000 humans, but some big changes are afoot for Foxconn. The Daily Mirror

  139. 139.

    McBride J (2017) Robotic bodies and the Kairos of humanoid theologies,”. Sophia 58:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  140. 140.

    Ackerman E (2017) Pepper now available at funerals as a more affordable alternative to human priests. IEEE Spectrum

  141. 141.

    Chronicles D (2018) Techno Artistic Ganesha: Watch Lord Ganes levitate, robot conduct Aarti. https://www.deccanchronicle.com/technology/in-other-news/140918/techno-artistic-ganesha-watch-lord-ganesha-levitate-robot-conduct-aa.html. Accessed 1 Feb 2020

  142. 142.

    Sherwood H (2016) Robot monk to spread Buddhist wisdom to the digital generation. The Guardian

  143. 143.

    Ackerman E (2018) Can a robot be divine? Researchers explore whether robots can become useful sacred objects in a religious context. IEEE Spectrum

  144. 144.

    Trovato G, Kishi T, Kawai M, Zhong T, Lin JY, Gu Z, Takanishi A (2019) The creation of DarumaTO: a social companion robot for Buddhist/Shinto elderlies. In: Proceedings of IEEE/ASME international conference on advanced intelligent mechatronics (AIM), pp 1–6

  145. 145.

    Trovato G et al (2016) Introducing ‘theomorphic robots’. In: Humanoids, pp 1245–1250

  146. 146.

    Sharkey N et al (2017) Our sexual future with robots: a foundation for responsible robotics consultation report. The Hague Global Institute for Justice, The Hague

  147. 147.

    Vallor S (2015) Moral deskilling and upskilling in a new machine age: reflections on the ambiguous future of character. Philos Technol 28:107–124

    Google Scholar 

  148. 148.

    Kaye L (2016) Challenging sex robots and the brutal dehumanisation of women. https://campaignagainstsexrobots.org/2016/02/10/challenging-sex-robots-andthe-brutal-dehumanisation-of-women/. Accessed 26 Dec 2019

  149. 149.

    Richardson K (2016) Sex robot matters: slavery, the prostituted and the rights of machines. IEEE Technol Soc Mag 35(2):46–53

    Google Scholar 

  150. 150.

    Barber T (2017) For the love of artifice 2: attached. In: Cheok A, Devlin K, Levy D (eds) LNCS. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  151. 151.

    Rosano MJ (2001) Artificial intelligence, religion, and community concern. Zygon 36(1):57–75

    Google Scholar 

  152. 152.

    Kewenig V et al (2018) Commentary: robot as intentional agents: using neuroscientific methods to make robots appear more social. Front Psychol 9:1131

    Google Scholar 

  153. 153.

    Zhou Y, Fischer MH (2019) Intimate relationships with humanoid robots: exploring human sexuality in the twenty-first century. In: Zhou Y, Fischer MH (eds) AI Love You. Springer, Switzerland

    Google Scholar 

  154. 154.

    Sharkey N (2008) The ethical frontiers of robotics. Science 322(5909):1800–1801

    Google Scholar 

  155. 155.

    Wallach W, Allen C (2009) Moral machines: teaching robots right from wrong. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  156. 156.

    Lichocki P et al (2011) A survey of robotics ethical landscape. IEEE Robot Autom Mag 18(1):39–50

    Google Scholar 

  157. 157.

    Bostrom N, Yulsowsky E et al (2014) The ethics of artificial intelligence. In: Ramsey W, Frankish K (eds) The Cambridge handbook of artificial intelligence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  158. 158.

    Torresen J (2018) A review of future and ethical perspectives of robotics and AI. Front Robot AI 4(75):1–10

    Google Scholar 

  159. 159.

    Lin P (2015) Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. Springer, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  160. 160.

    Deng B (2015) Machine ethics: the robots dilemma. Nature 523(7558):435

    Google Scholar 

  161. 161.

    Vanderelst D, Winfield AFT (2018) The dark side of ethical robots. In: AAAI/ACM conference on AI, ethics and society. Vols, New Orleans, 1–3 February 2018

  162. 162.

    Veruggio G (2006) Roboethics: social and ethical implications. Humanoids, pp 612–617

  163. 163.

    Asaro PM (2007) Robots and responsibility from a legal perspective. Proc IEEE 25:20–24

    Google Scholar 

  164. 164.

    Asaro PM (2016) The liability problem for autonomous artificial agents. In: AAAI Spring Symposium, pp 189–194

  165. 165.

    Yang G-Z et al (2018) The grand challenges of Science Robotics. Sci Robot 3:1–14

    Google Scholar 

  166. 166.

    Cerrudo C, Apa L (2017) Hacking robots before skynet. IOActive Inc., Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  167. 167.

    Opitz P (2019) Civil liability and autonomous robotic machines: approaches in the EU and US. Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  168. 168.

    Schaerer E et al (2009) Robots as animals: a framework for liability and responsibility in human–robot interactions. In: RO-MAN 2009, pp 72–77

  169. 169.

    Report E (2019) Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI. European Commission, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  170. 170.

    Bisol B et al (2013) RoboLaw deliverable D5.5. European Union, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  171. 171.

    Richards NM, Smart WD (2013) How should the law think about robots? https://ssrn.com/abstract=2263363. Accessed 10 Nov 2019

  172. 172.

    Leenes R et al (2017) Regulatory challenges of robotics: some guidelines for addressing legal and ethical issues. Law, Innov Technol 9(1):1–44

    Google Scholar 

  173. 173.

    Brougher C (2011) Application of religious law in US courts: selected legal issues. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  174. 174.

    Grotius H (2005) The rights of war and peace. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  175. 175.

    Maoz A (2004) Can judaism serve as a source of human rights? Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 64:677–721

    Google Scholar 

  176. 176.

    De Blois M (2010) Religious law versus secular law. The example of the get refusal in Dutch, English and Israeli law. Utrecht Law Rev 6(2):93–115

    Google Scholar 

  177. 177.

    Ferrari S (2012) Law and religion in a secular world: a European perspective. Eccles Law J 14:355–370

    Google Scholar 

  178. 178.

    Brownsword R, Goodwin M (2012) Law and the technologies of the twenty-first century: texts and materials. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  179. 179.

    Lessig L (1999) The law of the horse: what cyberlaw might teach. Harv Law Rev 23:501–546

    Google Scholar 

  180. 180.

    Trovato G, Lucho C, Ramon A, Ramirez R, Rodriquez L, Cuellar F (2018) The creation of SanTO: a robot with “divine” features. In: Proceedings of 15th international conference on ubiquitous robots (UR), pp 437–442

  181. 181.

    Trovato G, Paraisca F, Ramirez R, Cerna J, Reutskiy L, Rodriguez L, Cuellar F (2019) Communicating with SanTO- the first Catholic robot. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN 2019), pp 1–6

  182. 182.

    Holley P (2019) Meet ‘Mindar,’ the robotic Buddhist priest: the $1 million robot preaches in a Japanese template. Will one day learn to think on its own? The Washington Post

Download references

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Grant No. NNX15AI02H under the sub-award No. 18-54, issued through the Nevada NASA Space Grant Consortium for Curriculum Development: Robotics and Big Data Curriculum for Undergraduate and Graduate Students of UNR College of Engineering.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Habib Ahmed.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmed, H., La, H.M. Evaluating the Co-dependence and Co-existence between Religion and Robots: Past, Present and Insights on the Future. Int J of Soc Robotics 13, 219–235 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00636-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Religion
  • Robotics
  • Social robots
  • Artificial intelligence (AI)
  • Automatons
  • Humanoid robots
  • Roboethics