I'm not going to go into a description of the recent revelations about Google's Gemini AI system. At the bottom of this post are just some examples of the neo-Nazi, racist trash and the sexually degenerate filth it returned to various prompts. If you want to learn more about it, the information is easy to find.
Instead, I want to point out that everyone who worked on the Gemini project was a college graduate, most of whom had degrees in science and engineering fields. If you think that secularism will produce good science, that you can maintain the purity of science without an overarching, objective moral system, then you need to explain mainstream science and engineering descending into sexual degeneracy and racial madness at the same time the culture is ditching Christianity.
Google Gemini is just a tiny example. Scientific American, loaded as it is recently with neo-Nazi musings about race, is equally warped as are many professional medical organizations who promote the poisoning and mutilation of girls in the name of "gender affirmation."
My exit questions for the secularists are this: Why was any of this wrong? Derive your answer from first principles. What provides the guardrails to put an end to this? Why pursue the truth? Is there such a thing as the truth?
Before you talk about slavery and the Church, I'll just point to the fact that it was Christianity and only Christianity that put an end to slavery. Even the Confederacy constantly grappled with the moral contradictions of their "peculiar institution." Had the United States been secular, there would have been no need for the South to struggle with the morality of slavery and no need for the Civil War. Without Genesis 1:27, we would have been no different than the Aztecs or the Dahomey, who never understood objections to slavery.
My hypothesis from the previous blog post still stands. In the absence of an objective morality, codified in a catechism, derived from logic and a set of first principles, you will always end up here.
A Sampling Of Gemini AI Responses
Tweets From The Head Of The Gemini Project
Gemini Is Fine With Pedophilia
6 comments:
"Before you talk about slavery and the Church, I'll just point to the fact that it was Christianity and only Christianity that put an end to slavery. Even the Confederacy constantly grappled with the moral contradictions of their "peculiar institution.""
Christianity put an end to slavery in Christian lands several times between 476 and 1492. But, every few generations for a thousand years, a new barbarian horde would roll in and re-introduce slavery along with their conquests. And the process of Christianizing the new barbarians and eliminating slavery from the lands they ruled would have to start anew.
The *reason* that those who profited from the "peculiar institution" tried to use the Bible to justify and defend it is because the condemnation of it was based in the Bible.
My own direct great-grandfather -- who was considered by "white" society to be a Cherokee half-breed (he evaded the Trail of Tears, whereas many of his cousins did not), and who was not reared in Christianity -- held slaves. He freed them "two years before the Emancipation Proclamation" (as my father once put it), that is, in 1861, when, according to my father, he became a Christian.
As my grandfather was born near Memphis, I presume that my great-grandfather's plantation was near Memphis. But he freed his slaves at the height of anti-emancipation sentiment while (apparently) living in a very pro-slavery and pro-Confederacy locality. To the best of my knowledge, my Southern relatives were Unionists; my grandfather's step-father fought in the Union army.
While I am not an elite physicist living around 1910, my own great-grandfather (who would have been a youngish/early middle-aged man in 1840) would not have looked too terribly different from the the man with the feather in his hair. ;-)
... or the fellow to his left.
People used to be weird about Indian ancestry. Of course, people are weird about it today, also, just in the opposite direction.
I always knew growing up, that my father's father was considered by all "his people" (i.e. kith and kin) to be 1/4 Cherokee. I was born with very light brown hair, which darkened as I grew up. When I was almost as tall as she was, my father's mother patted me on the shoulders and told me (very emotionally) that she hoped my hair would turn as jet-black as my grandfather's hair had been.
At the same time, when as I child I had asked my father's mother whether she was part Indian -- I swear, she looked like a female version of the famous photo of Geronimo -- she denied it so vehemently that even as I small child I suspected that she was not telling me the truth. Many years later, at my mother's funeral, I asked my father's older half-brother about it, and he said, "Yes, her people were Indian".
A few years after than, I read an essay in Time or Newsweek, written by a man who clearly had Indian ancestry, in which he said that even as recently as his childhood it was "better" to be thought to have black ancestry than Indian. I don't recall whether it was in that article where I read that the singer Lena Horne's ancestor a couple of generations back were actually an Indian/white mixed-race couple but who "passed" as black/white and settled in the mixed-race town in which she was born and raised.
Ah. I see that the Wickedpedia places Lena Horne's birth in NYC.
I guess you can't always believe what you read in the "respectable" media, even decades ago.
Post a Comment