Elias Kruger, Author at AI Theology

Theology of Hope Moves South – Latin American Liberation

Moltmann’s theology of hope inspired theologians and clergy globally. In this blog, I explore the emergence of liberation theology.

In this process, the Crucified God became a bridge that revealed a new face of the cross. Jesus was killed as a political prisoner, challenging the political forces of the day, denouncing injustice and standing with the marginalized. Influenced by a Marxist view of history, these priests found in the cross an archetype for working for social justice. The gospel incarnated into the Latin American context as a message of liberation from inequality and racism.

In a previous blog, I introduced Moltmann’s theology of hope and its historical context. In this blog, I will discuss one of its most well-known offshoots, namely, liberation theology. While liberation theology had other influences and has recently expanded into a wide array of theologies, Moltmann’s influence was crucial in its beginning. Here is how the two are inter-connected.

The picture above encapsulates both what liberation theology is and its connection with Moltmann’s theology of hope. On November 16, 1989, Juan Ramon Moreno, Spanish-Salvadoran priest and Jesuit was murdered by Salvadoran government forces for denouncing human right violations in the country. While the soldiers carried his corpse to a room, his body hit a book in a shelf throwing it to the ground, staining it with his blood. This was Father Moreno’s last prophetic act. The book (pictured above) was a Spanish translation of Moltmann’s work “The Crucified God”, part of Moreno’s library and most certainly an important influence in his thought and work as an activist Jesuit priest.

Solidarity with the Poor

One of the key ideas of “the Crucified God” is that God suffered with Christ on the cross. This idea was controversial because it contradicted the understanding of God’s impassibility. In classical theism, God could not suffer because that would suggest vulnerability from an all-powerful being. Yet, even more scandalous was the implication of this idea. Moltmann’s cruciform theology was calling the church to retreat from identifying with the political power of Western culture and instead, align itself with the oppressed. The argument goes as follows: because Jesus identified with the oppressed in the cross and God suffered with him, Christians are called to identify and suffer with those in the margins.

Moltmann’s theological seed of the Crucified God would blossom into a full-blown theology of solidarity with the poor in Latin American soil. It emerged as Latin American Catholic priests reflected on the plight of the poor they were serving in the late 60’s. As they worked to alleviate poverty, they started looking for the roots that created and sustained structural misery for most in the continent. How could they work not only to feed the poor but also to empower them to feed themselves?

Liberation theologians would take the Crucified God a step further. Their innovation was, following the political tenor of Jesus original historical context, to conclude that God had a preference for the poor. This controversial conclusion would both align liberation practitioners with revolutionary movements and be at odds with right-wing military dictatorships and, at times, the Vatican itself. In short, it became a potent political theology speaking truth to power but also legitimizing violent guerilla movements and oppressive leftist regimes.

Liberation Theology’s Impact

Over fifty years after its initial formulation, liberation theology’s (LT) legacy is mixed. On the positive side, LT became a vital theological dialogue partner that no modern theologian could ignore. While many, both in the Protestant and Catholic side, would reject its main claims, they always felt obliged to respond to its challenge. In seminaries all over the world, the writings of Gutierrez, Sobrino and Boff continue to inspire and spark debate. Their influence has become even more prominent with the installation of an Argentine Pope. Francis, while not a liberation theologian per se, certainly has moved concern with the poor to the center of the church’s attention.

Yet, this wide-spread influence does not compare with the witness of its martyrs. The life and story of Archbishop Oscar Romero in Guatemala, Sister Dorothy Stang in Brazil and Juan Ramon Moreno in El Salvador are holy examples of those who took up the cause of the oppressed with their blood. Their example, faith and resolve shall never be forgotten. They belong to the company of the saints of the church that came before them.

Beyond that, LT never took hold in the overall church practice in Latin America. Apart from the still existing base communities, the theology did not make its way into Catholic masses. Furthermore, it did not cross into the Latin American Protestantism, the fastest-growing Christian movement of the last century. In the Latin American church a saying goes that “Liberation theology opted for the poor but the poor opted for Pentecostalism.”

In many aspects, Pentecostalism is the anti-thesis of LT. It seeks instead to align itself with the rich and focus on heavenly matters as opposed to political change. If anything, Pentecostal Christians have often politically aligned with the reactive political forces, the very ones LT sought to overturn. Ironically, the Christian movement has been split into both defending and criticizing Capitalism in the region. This is an unfortunate development as both LT and Pentecostalism have much to learn from each other.

Reformulating Hope and Liberation

In spite of producing admirable martyrs, the power and promise of liberation theology has not materialized in its native land. Yet, its promise as a hope theology, grounded in solidarity with the poor rings even more relevant now than it did in the last century.

The revolutionary spirit of the 60’s relied on the assumption that the most effective way to change society was through political means. As a result, democracies have sprung up all over the world and freedom has increased. Yet, most of these projects are showing signs of decay as the popular vote starts turning them back to authoritarianism. As democracies fail to solve persistent social-economic problems, people start looking for leaders who promise simple solutions to complex problems. Without diminishing the importance of these social movements, maybe the problem was in its initial assumption. Yet, if politics is not the way, what is it then?

As my previous blog title suggests, what if the time has come to re-formulate a theology of hope within a technological context? What if the promise of eschatological hope will not materialize through political action but technological creativity? What if the most consequential force for liberating the oppressed is not policy but social technologies? This is what I want to explore in the next part.

A Theology of Hope in a Technological Age – Introduction

This blogs starts a series on re-visiting a theology of hope in a technological age. For full transparency, I write this as my reflection on the topic progresses. I do this on purpose, in the hope that this reflection is not limited to an isolated individual’s musings but instead can open the way for a dialogue with others. Theology is done best when done in community. In an age of instant global communication, the possibilities for dialogue widen and allow for an in-time collaboration that was simply not possible before. Hence, I invite the reader to enter this not as a passive receiver of information but instead an active participant in this conversation. Feel free to post comments or email me directly through the contact form in the site.

In this first blog, I want to discuss the emergence of a theology of hope in the middle of the last century looking at its most prominent proponent -German theologian Jurgen Moltmann. His seminal work Theologie der Hoffnung [Theology of Hope] in the mid 1960’s would initiate a revolution in academic theology that reverberated through decades to come. Here is how it started.

The Emergence of a Theology of Hope

Each theology engages a particular set of questions which are considered to be crucial to the context of the theologian. To do theology is precisely that: to observe the world and listen to its most perennial questions. Then, in prayerful mediation, under the guidance of the Spirit and in dialogue with their community, to seek out answers emerging from the Christian tradition and practices.

Jurgen Moltmann’s theology emerges from the Post-war experience as the world was taking stock of the horrific atrocities executed by the European powers. One of the questions his world was asking was how could there be a good God in a world where Auchwitz happens? Even seventy years later, this question rings in Western ears challenging the European Christendom projects of the previous centuries. If Christian societies were capable of such cruelty and destruction, what is even the point of upholding the Christian religion as the foundation of our political structures? Furthermore, is Christianity even relevant for individuals in a post-war age or does it belong to the history books? The crisis cast both existential (personal) as corporate (political) doubts on an European Christian identity.

A Passionate/Suffering God

A temptation, then and now, is to relegate religious expression to a privatized individualistic piety. That is, all that matters is me, Jesus and my salvation. As long as my passport to heaven is stamped, I don’t need to engage with worldly affairs. The world is confusing enough and meaningless, let me endure its reality in the weeks and escape to heavenly dreams on the weekend.

Moltmann resists this temptation by taking seriously the suffering in the world. If Christianity is to have a voice in the public square (and in our lives), it must actively engage with the questions people and societies are asking. If our faith inadequately addresses the crisis of our time, then it is no longer useful or pertinent to our time.

He starts by reframing the problem. In one of his shortest books, Open Church, Moltmann sees apathy as the biggest curse of our age:

[Our] one-sided orientation towards accomplishment and success make us melancholic and insensitive. We become incapable of love and incapable of sorrow. We no longer have tears, and we smile only because we are supposed to keep on smiling…We become apathetic, still alive but surely and slowly dying inwardly. (pg 23)

Theology of hope starts and ends with a passionate God. It is important here to recover the original meaning of the word passion. It is not just about energy and zeal but also about suffering. The best example is the Passion of Christ, where we see both an unyielding zeal as well as the resulting suffering Christ goes through. A passionate God means one that is moved by the world suffering, cries with them but also moves to action to answer the cries of humanity.

The End is the Beginning

If every theology has a starting point, theology of hope begins with the end. This is what theologians call an eschatological approach. Eschatology is the study of the last things which has come to mean many different things. Recently, because of evangelical pop culture, eschatology has sadly become synonymous with exhaustive speculation about the end of the world. That is not what Moltmann means by it.

Instead, he is following New Testament scholarship in recovering the centrality of the eschatological hope in the Early church. That is, the fact that the apostles and early Christians believed in an actual installation of God’s kingdom on earth. They believed it to be an imminent event. The point of it was not the destruction of the world but the future vindication of God’s people in view of their present political oppression. Hence, the gospel message, in the First and still in the Twenty-First century, has political implications.

By doing so, Moltmann is joining a chorus of theologians, scholars and some clergy in bringing eschatology from the supernatural realm to the natural world. With time and heavy influence from Greek philosophy, eschatology became focused on the after-life. Instead, they want to correct this notion so that Christians can focus more on the here and now.

Hence, this recovery the eschatological character of early Christianity should translate into present action. While grounded in God’s action, it raises the question of how to live today in a way the reflects that future reality. In short, how do we bring the future liberation of God’s people into the present?

Inspired on Moltmann’s writing, the early 70’s would see the emergence of a Latin American, Catholic version later known as liberation theology. If eschatology is about a political reality, then what would that look like in the context of Latin American poor? This is the topic of part 2.

AI Ethics: Evaluating Google’s Social Impact

I have noticed a shift in the corporate America recently. Moving away from the unapologetic defense of profit making of the late 20th century, corporations are now asking deeper questions on the purpose of their enterprises. Consider how businesses presented themselves in the Super Bowl broadcast this year. Verizon focused on first-responders life-saving work, Microsoft touted its video-game platform for children with disabilities and the Washington Post paid tribute to recently killed journalists. Big business wants to convince us they also have a big heart.

This does not mean that profit is secondary. As long as there is a stock market and earning expectations drive corporate goals, short-term profit will continue to be king. Yet, it is important to acknowledge the change. Companies realize that customers want more than a good bargain. Instead they want to do business with organizations that are doing meaningful work. Moreover, Companies are realizing they are not just autonomous entities but social actors that must contribute to the common good.

Google AI Research Review of 2018

Following this trend, Google AI Review of 2018 focused on how its research is impacting the world for good. The story is impressive, as it reach encompasses many fields of both philanthropy, the environment and technological breakthroughs. I encourage you to look at it for yourself.

Let me just highlight a few developments that are worth mentioning here. The first one is the development of AI ethical principles. In it, Google promise to develop technologies that are beneficial to society, tested for safety and accountable to people. The company also promises to keep privacy embedded in design, uphold highest levels of scientific excellence while also limiting harmful potential uses of their technology. In the latter, they promise to apply a cost-benefit analysis to ensure the risks of harmful uses does not outweigh its benefits.

In the last section, the company explicitly states applications they will not pursue. These include weapons, surveillance and or those that oppose accepted international law and human rights. That last point, I must admit, is quite vague and open to interpretation. With that said, the fact that Google published these principles to the public shows that they recognize their responsibility to uphold the common good.

Furthermore, the company showcases some interesting examples of using AI for social good. The example includes work on flood and earthquake prediction, identifying whales and diseased cassavas and even detecting exoplanets. The company has also allocated over $25M in funds for external social impact work through its foundation.

A Good Start But is that Enough?

In a previous blog, I mentioned how the private sector drives the US AI strategy . This approach definitely raises concerns as profit-ventures may not always align with the public good in their research goals. However, it is encouraging to see a leader in the industry doing serious ethical reflection and engaging in social work.

Yet, Google must do more to fully recognize the role its technologies play in our global society. For one, Google must do a better job in understanding its impact in local economies. While its technologies empower small businesses and individual actors in remote areas, it also upends existing industries and established enterprises. Is Google paying attention to those in the losing side of its technologies? If so, how are they planning to help them re-invent themselves?

Furthermore, if Google is to exemplify a business with a social conscience does it have appropriate feedback channels for its billions of customers? Given its size and monopoly of the search engine industry, can it really be kept accountable on its own? The company should not only strive for transparency in its practice but also listen to its customers more attentively.

Technology, Business and Society

The relationship between business and society is being revolutionized through the advance of emerging technologies such as AI. In the example of Google, being the search engine leader makes them the primary knowledge gate-keeper for the Internet. As humans come to rely more on the Internet as an extension of their brain, this places Google in a role equivalent to what religious, educational and political leaders played in the past. This is too important a function to be centralized in one profit-making organization.

To be fair, this was not a compulsory process. It is not that Google took over our brains by force, we willingly gave them this power. Therefore, change is contingent not only in the corporation but in its customers. From a practical standpoint, that may mean skipping that urge to “google things”. We might try different search engines or even crack open a book to seek the information we need. We should also seek alternative ways to finding things in the Internet. That may mean looking at resource sites, social platforms and other alternatives. These efforts may at first make life more complicated but over the long run it will safeguard us from an inordinate dependence on a company.

The technologies developed by Google are a blessing (albeit one that we pay for) to the world. We should leverage them for human flourishing regardless of the company’s intended focus. For that to happen, we the people, must take stock of our own interaction with them . The more responsibly we use it, the more we insure that they remain what they are really meant to be: gifts to humanity.

Abraham and the Sacrifice of Isaac: How Travelers Re-visits the Biblical Story Through AI Theology

Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. So the two of them walked on together. Isaac said to his father Abraham, “Father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “The fire and the wood are here, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” Abraham said, “God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So the two of them walked on together. Gen 22: 6-8.

One of the most powerful narratives of the Hebrew Bible is the story of Abraham’s near-sacrifice of his son Isaac. The book of Genesis tells us that God, after promising and delivering a son to Abraham at old age, one day asked him to sacrifice him as an offer back to God. The absurdity of the request is matched by Abraham’s unquestioning obedience.

As he is taking Isaac to the place of sacrifice, the young boy asks where was the animal to be sacrificed. In a prophetic statement, the father of the Hebrew faith simply answered: “God will provide.” The agony and suspense continues as Abraham ties his sleeping son and raises the knife to end the young boy’s life. That is when God intervenes, relieving Abraham from the unbearable task of killing his own son. It was a gruesome test, but Abraham passed. Thinking of my 16 month-old boy, I cannot imagine ever coming this close.

Episode 3 of the third season of Travelers tells a story with too many parallels to the Old Testament story to ignore. For those not familiar with the show, let me give you a quick overview of its plot. Travelers are people from the a distant apocalyptic future whose consciousness travel to the present and take on bodies of those who are about to die. They work in teams to complete missions that are meant to change the course of history. They take their orders from an advanced AI that has the ability to work out the best alternative in other to improve the future. They refer to it simply as the Director.

In episode three, Mack (Erick McCormack) the team leader, tries to re-trace their last mission. Waking up with a gap in his memory, he suspects that his team altered his memory for some unknown reason. The episode unfolds as Mack pieces together the events from the previous day.

Misguided Good Deeds Lead to Unintended Consequences

In season one, we met an adopted boy called Alecsander. As the team is executing their mission, the historian (the team member who knows the future), throws a curve ball by sending them to save this little boy. He knew that the boy was in an abusive situation and therefore creates the intervention to save him. Seems like a noble action except that this was not in the Director’s plan. Travelers were trained to never deviate from the plan. Therefore, even though they are able to rescue the boy, the implications of this deviation are unknown.

Fast forward to episode three of season three, we eventually find out the team’s mission for the previous day. The Director, knowing that Alecsander was destined to become a psychopath, task the team to eliminate him. A reckless good deed, operating outside the director’s plan had created bigger problems for the future. It was time to course-correct.

Mack, the team leader, draws the responsibility to himself. They pick up the boy in his current foster home and their fears are confirmed. The boy was growing recluse and disturbingly violent with animals – early signs of a troubled adulthood to come.

Mack takes the boy to a deserted woods with the intention of killing him. . While walking in the woods, they find a struggling coyote who is facing a painful end of life. Mack ends his misery with a shot.

Next, they share a meal around the fire, cooking a rabbit the boy had previously caught. There, they have a heart-to-heart conversation where Mack demonstrates to the boy that he is seen, known and understood. Mack becomes the father that Alecsander never had. All of this only heightens the tension as these tender moments contrast with Mack’s dreadful mission. Just as Abraham, Mack agonizes over his assignment while also showing love to the troubled boy.

As the climactic scene begins, they dig a hole to bury the dead coyote. The altar is ready for the sacrifice. Once they place the dead animal in the designated place, Aleksander asks to say a prayer. As the boy is praying in memory of the dead animal, Mack steps back reluctantly. He pulls out his gun as he see the designated time of boy’s death approaches. He points the gun and prepares to pull the trigger. At that moment, just like Yahweh in Genesis, the director intervenes. Instead of an angel, the AI speaks through the boy : “mission abort.” Just like Isaac, the boy is spared.

Later in the episode, Mack’s teammates inform him that the director had a change of plans. Apparently, Mack’s heart-to-heart conversation with the boy changed his future. The assurance of love from a father figure was enough to halt a future of serial murders.

New Avenues of Meaning

There is so much to unpack in this episode that I can’t hardly do justice in a few paragraphs. As stated above, the episode draws some clear parallels with the biblical story but does not re-tell it outright. I honestly even wonder if the writers had the biblical story in mind when formulating the episode. Yet, using the Biblical story as a backdrop allows us to reflect deeper into the many themes addressed here.

One underlying theme throughout the show is the conflict between the AI’s plan and human action. Often times, travelers struggle to follow through with the mission as conditions on the ground change. At its core, it explores the philosophical debate between free-will and determinism.

Classical theism resolves this tension on the side of determinism, often referred to as “God’s will.” In its extreme forms, this thinking paints the picture of a detached God whose plans and will cannot be altered. Hebrew Scripture does not always support this script as it contains some examples where Yahweh changed his mind. Yet, this idea of God’s immutability made its way into Western Christian thought early on and has persisted to our time. For many, God is the absolute ruler that controls every aspect of the universe while also demanding blind loyalty from humans.

For the most part, the same is true in the relationship between the travelers and the Director. Mack, especially, is often the one who claims and demands unquestioning loyalty to the Director’s mission. This episode illustrates this well as Mack showed complete willingness to carry out the unthinkable mission of killing the young boy.

Yet, the emphasis of the episode is not on Mack’s loyalty but in how by showing love to the boy, he altered his future. Mack’s actions changed the director’s plans. It suggests that human action can bending the will of a greater being (or technology in this case).

Sacrificial love can alter divine plans.

Hence, this well-written Science-Fiction series challenges us to re-think our relationship with the divine. Is it possible to move the heart of God or is our job simply to accept his will? Do humans have real power to shape their future or is it all pre-determined by a higher power?

What do you think?

AI Revelation: From Natural to Artificial Theology

Systematic theology organizes theological ideas into topics. The original intent was to construct a system that could explain the many facets of the Christian faith to its adherents. If Scripture described the experience of God through history, systematic theology sought to organize the knowledge emerging from that historical experience into a cohesive group of propositions and arguments. This system consists of specific topics that include esoteric terms, often coming from Greek or Latin such as Trinity, Eschatology and Deification. Each of these terms carry centuries of arguments, reflections and stories within them.

Dusting off Seminary Books

It is unfortunate that such approach has now fallen into neglect. Even those who have studied these concepts in seminary will often not use them again in sermons, writings even less day-to-day conversations. When was the last time you discussed the different views of the Trinity with your spouse? Their historical nature is what makes them both distinctive but also disconnected from contemporary language. They require a pre-requisite knowledge that is no longer taught in western societies.

Even so, maybe it is time we re-visit this age-old tradition with a fresh perspective. In that vein, I have recently gathered some books I acquired in seminary and browsed through them again. Almost three years since I have graduated, I must confess my theological thinkings has grown rusty. Just like any art or skill, you lose it if you don’t use it.

As I looked over them, I re-encountered the concept of revelation. This loaded term is theology’s way to describe how God communicates with humanity. It speaks of the role of Scripture, tradition and experience in how divine truth is communicated. I acknowledge that in a secular world, the idea that an unseen being would speak is quite scandalous. Yet, hang in there for a bit.

General, Special and Natural

Theologians have often divided the topic into general and special revelation. Special revelation speaks of the exclusive way in which God directly speaks through the Hebrew and the Christian faith. This is where Scripture and religious experience fits in. Yet, theologians recognize that God’s revelation was not limited to those means. That is where the concept of general revelation emerged as a way to express these instances where God communicates through non-religious means.

One way general revelation occurs is through nature. I can personally attest to that reality. Many times I have had life-changing moments of clarity, peace and resolve while hiking through the woods. There is something compelling about being outdoors. It touches our senses in rich ways.

Thomas Aquinas, a church father and one of the first systematic theologians, recognized this reality and developed some thinking around this phenomenon. This later became known as natural theology – the idea that nature also contains divine truths available to all humans regardless of religious persuasion. Unfortunately, natural theology fell in disrepute with the Reformation. In an effort to elevate the role of God in salvation, reformers emphasized special over general revelation. In reacting against traditional Catholic thinking, they ended up closing the door on this rich avenue of meaning.

From Natural to Artificial

In a multicultural and secular world, the idea of general revelation cannot be denied. That is why Christian theologians and believers must reconsider natural theology. It is time to re-visit Aquinas’ legacy and re-formulate it anew in a technological era.

It is also time to introduce a new concept: Artificial theology. If natural theology focused on how God could speak through nature, consequently artificial theology should explore how God could speak through technology. What if revelation could happen through algorithms? Can we find God in the countless pieces of data circulating through the cyber world?

Many of us can attests that one can find transcendence in nature. However, when it comes to our experience with technology, transcendence is not the first word that comes to mind. More often than not, technology connotes a lifeless sense of utility. It is more like an imitation of reality than reality itself. Hence why we tend define it artificial, implying the opposite of natural. Yet, by doing so, we shut out a growing part of our human experience from divine connection.

Dutch theologian Albert Kuyper believed that no square inch of existence was beyond God’s dominion. If this is true, it must also include our silicon world. The first step in this journey is to open our eyes to this reality.

Re-Thinking Worship: Seeing Liturgy as Technology

Can the technical and the religious intersect? In this blog I want to explore what happens when we look at liturgy (the order of Christian rituals) as technology. What kind of new insights can this perspective provide?

A Personal Struggle

For a few years now, my family has struggled to plug into a church. Part of that is the phase of our lives with small children. Getting three kids ready make any outings an elaborate event! Yet, I know there is more to it. This external struggle only reflects what is happening internally with me and my wife. After growing up as active members in Christian communities we find ourselves struggling to find a spiritual home (in the way we traditionally understood it). Church is no longer an anchoring community but instead a trigger for painful memories. Going to church does not give meaning to our lives as it used to even as we still hold on to the faith it preaches.

This perception is also spilling over to our kids. Any time I mention to my two older girls (8 and 6) about going to church, protest follows. I guess they learned early to be Protestants!

When I probe further, they say that that they do not get much out of it. They don’t see the point dressing up in a Sunday morning to sit with other kids they barely know to hear stories they already know. As a father, my knee-jerk reaction is to contest these impressions, trying to affirm the slow work of grace that happens in the continual exposure to Christian rituals. Yet, the message is not getting through. Often time, I find myself being the only one at home who sees value in going to church on a Sunday morning.

This situation grieves my heart. For all its failures, I still believe in the institutional church. I also see the regular gathering of believers as an essential part of spiritual formation. Therefore, my children’s aversion to church makes me feel like I failed. I know that ultimately they will have to choose the path they need to follow. This is not under my control. Yet, I hope that by then they would have at least as much exposure as I had to the faith. Doing that without regularly participating in a Christian community is very difficult.

A Shift in Perspective

Pondering on this predicament, I wanted to understand why my view of church was so different from that of my kids. There are many differences between our upbringings in culture, language, age and technology. What I realized, however, is that through practice and study, I was encouraged and trained to see the grandeur of God in the life of the church. This has come to me through many avenues. One of them was music and the experience of worship. Another was through listening to preachers and Sunday School teachers. Additionally, I have had multiple personal mystical experiences, deeply personal and emotionally rich, that affirmed the realities being spoken in church. Through study, my vision of the body of Christ expanded beyond a group of a few hundred whom I join on a weekly basis to an unbroken communion of people affirming this faith over time in all continents of the earth. The latter, is one of the main reasons why I still believe in the institution.

The problem is that I expected my young children to simply get all that by simply dropping them off in a nursery or Sunday school class on a weekly basis. This becomes even more complicated when they are bombarded from multiple influences throughout the week that claim their attention. They are not growing up in the same world I was. A new context require different measures.

In view of this realization, I decided to take upon myself the responsibility to pass on the faith, in the best way I can, directly to my children. Relying on others to do is not working. Maybe then, they will come to yearn for gathering with other Christians on a weekly basis. That theological degree may finally come in handy after all!

Liturgy as Technology

As I considered ways to pass on the Christian faith to my children, I wondered whether I could see liturgy as technology.

To level set, liturgy means the order and content of how Christian services are conducted. It it encompasses prayers, music, reading, taking communion (or the Eucharist), baptism, etc. Liturgy is what people do when they come together for worship, hence, the “work of the people.” When ministers prepare for a Sunday service, they consider what the experience communicates. It goes beyond words but can include sounds, aromas and visuals. All these elements shape, direct and communicate through the worship experience. Over time, good liturgy changes those who regularly participate in it. There is not such thing as a liturgical church because every congregation follows a liturgy. Some are implied rather than explicitly stated.

What is the connection with technology? If technology is applied science to solve a problem, liturgy is applied theology to form character. In other words, it is a means, albeit important, to foster divine encounters. These encounters, re-order desires, transform souls and develop faith. When working properly, they have the power to make us better people.

If we are willing to accept this analogy, I wonder if the problem that my kids see no relevance in church is a technical rather than a spiritual one. I wonder if the liturgy is inadequate to do the work at their level of understanding. By that, I don’t mean that they need to experience church through more advanced technological means. The idea is not to create children’s VR church! It is much deeper than that. It is examining the elements that are not working properly and test alternatives that work better.

Can I pass on a faith that will stick over time? Will the liturgy, like a technology, work properly towards that goal? How effective are our liturgies in the goal of spiritual formation?

What do you think?

AI for Scholarship: How Machine Learning can Transform the Humanities

In a previous blog, I explored how AI will speed up scientific research. In this blog, I will examine the overlooked potential that AI has to transform the Humanities. This connection may not be clear at first since most of these fields do not include an element of science or math. They are more preoccupied with developing theories than testing hypotheses through experimentation. Subjects like Literature, Philosophy, History, Languages and Religious Studies (and Theology) rely heavily in the interpretation and qualitative analysis of texts. In such environment, how could mathematical algorithms be of any use?

Before addressing the question above, we must first look at the field of Digital Humanities that created a bridge from ancient texts to modern computation. The field dates back the 1930’s, before the emergence of Artificial Intelligence. Ironically, and interestingly relevant to this blog, the first project in this area was a collaboration between an English professor, a Jesuit Priest and IBM to create a concordance for Thomas Aquinas’ writings. As digital technology advanced and texts became digitized, the field has continued to grow in importance. Its primary purpose is to both apply digital methods to Humanities as well as reflect on its use. That is, they are not only interested in digitizing books but also evaluating how the use of digital medium affect human understanding of these texts.

Building on the foundation of Digital Humanities, the connection with AI becomes all too clear. Once computers can ingest these texts, text mining and natural language processing are now a possibility. With the recent advances in machine learning algorithms, cheapening of computing power and the availability of open source tools the conditions are ripe for an AI revolution in the Humanities.

How can that happen? The use of machine learning in combination with Natural Language Processing can open avenues of meaning that were not possible before. For centuries, these academic subjects have relied on the accumulated analysis of texts performed by humans. Yet, human capacity to interpret, analyze and absorb texts is finite. Humans do a great job in capturing meaning and nuances in texts of hundreds or even a few thousand pages. Yet, as the volume increases, machine learning can detect patterns that are not apparent to a human reader. This can be especially critical in applications such as author attribution (determining who the writer was when that information is not clear or in question), analysis of cultural trends, semantics, tone and relationship between disparate texts.

Theology is a field that is particularly poised to benefit from this combination. For those unfamiliar with Theological studies, it is a long and lonely road. Brave souls aiming to master the field must undergo more schooling than Physicians. In most cases, aspiring scholars must a complete a five-year doctorate program on top of 2-4 years of master-level studies. Part of the reason is that the field has accumulated an inordinate amount of primary sources and countless interpretations of these texts. They were written in multiple ancient and modern languages and have a span over thousands of years. In short, when reams of texts can become Big Data, machine learning can do wonders to synthesize, analyze and correlate large bodies of texts.

To be clear, that does not mean the machine learning will replace painstaking scholarly work. Quite the opposite, it has the potential to speed up and automate some tasks so scholars can focus on high level abstract thinking where humans still hold a vast advantage over machines. If anything it should make their lives easier and possibly shorter the time it takes to master the field.

Along these lines of augmentation, I am thinking about a possible project. What if we could employ machine learning algorithms in a theologian body of work and compare it to the scholarship work that interprets it? Could we find new avenues or meaning that could complement or challenge prevailing scholarship in the topic?

I am curious to see what such experiment could uncover.

Is Transhumanism a Challenge or an Opportunity for the Christian Faith?

This week, Ravi Zachariah’s Institute here in Atlanta hosted an event entitled: “Should we fear Artificial Intelligence?” In it, British Mathematician and Christian Apologist John Lennox gave a lecture on the challenge of AI and Transhumanism to the Christian faith. Dr. Lennox’s talk covered a wide range of topics including the difference of general and narrow AI, emerging Transhumanism, relevant literature and theological responses.

Coming from an apologist (defender of the faith) approach, the professor focused on how the emergence of AI diverges from Classical Christianity. While affirming some of the possibilities this technology brings, Lennox’s emphasized in how it was contrary to a Judeo-Christian understanding of the world. By citing many examples, he sees the rise of AI and Transhumanism as another tower of babel project. In Transhumanism, more specifically, he sees a direct counterfeit of Christian eschatology. That is, while the New Testament speaks of a final human transformation through the Second Coming of Christ, the first speak of a similar transformation through technology. Furthermore, Dr. Lennox saw echoes of Revelation in the rise of Superintelligence as a possible tool for global social control. To drive this point he drew a parallel between Max Tegard’s image of Prometheus and the biblical figure of the beast.

In his view, there was a clear difference between AI and humanity. The first a invention of humans while the latter being God’s creation. In doing so, he reinforced a separation between technology and biology as opposing endeavors with little connection. His main concern was that by focusing too much on AI, that he rightly defined it as algorithms, we could lose sight of the Imago Dei of humanity. In short, while not explicitly telling us to fear AI, Dr. Lennox driving narrative was one of caution and concern. In his view, Transhumanism is a re-formulation of the Second Century heresy of Gnosticism. With that said, he affirmed the Christ would rise victorious at the end even if AI could bring havoc to the world.

From Confrontation to Dialogue

Dr. Lennox presentation rightly uncovered and explored the the idolatrous tendencies in the Transhumanist movement. Pushing the boundaries of immortality can be an exercise in human-centrism in a direct defiance to God’s sovereignty. The optimism that intoxicates the movement can well be tempered by a healthy dose of Judeo-Christian skepticism. For Christians and Jews, humanity is steeped in sin which makes any human endeavor to achieve ultimate good suspect.

Yet, by painting Transhumanism as an offshoot of atheistic naturalism, he misses an opportunity to see how it can enter into a fruitful dialogue with Christianity. What do I mean by that? Well, If Christianity and Transhumanism both preach transformation of humans into an elevated ideal state, could there be parallels among them that are worth exploring? For centuries Christianity has preached spiritual transformation as humans are shaped into the God-human Christ. Can technology be part of this transformation? Can the transformation of individuals and communities include technology, to enact here a picture of the coming kingdom of God?

I suspect that to enter into this dialogue, two prior movements are necessary. The first is re-framing the relationship between Christianity and Science. While not explicitly said, Dr. Lennox seem to espouse the view that Science (and more specifically Evolutionary Biology) contradicts the claim of Genesis and therefore cannot be reconciled. In this binary view, there is only atheistic naturalism or theistic supernaturalism where God’s action is confined to a strictly literal view of the first books of the Pentateuch. If that is the case than the idea of past evolution proposed by Darwin and future evolution proposed by Transhumanism is a direct threat to the Christian faith. If, however, science can be harmonized with the Biblical view of creation, then evolution (either past of future) are no longer challenge to Christianity. Instead, it can find parallels with the Christian idea of Deification (East) or Sanctification (West).

The second movement is re-defining the separation between nature and technology. Dr. Lennox spent portions of his talk differentiating AI from human intelligence. His main point was that the biological one was divinely made while the latter was human created. By framing these two as opposing ideas, the connection between them is lost. Technology will always be an inferior pursuit compared to the biological reality around us. What if these two were not opposing phenomena but two sides of a continuum? What if technology was God’s way to further perpetuate Creation?

A New Strategy

I recognize that asking these questions pose tremendous challenges to a classical (Modernist) understanding of Christianity. The avenues explored above are not new nor am I the first to suggest it. They are well fleshed out in the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. The Jesuit Paleontologist initiated this dialogue in the middle of 20th century, well before digital technology transformed our lives. We do well to re-visit his ideas.

Yet, a traditional view of apologetics that simply fits AI and Transhumanism as past heresy will not suffice. It overlooks the breadth and depth of how these developments are re-defining humanity. It also pegs them to past ideological challenges that while similar in the surface belong to very different historical contexts.

To establish boundaries and define what is right and wrong is a good first step. However, in a time of fast-paced change, these boundaries will have to be re-visited often making the whole enterprise inadequate. Moreover, such strategy may help keep some in the faith but will certainly do little to attract new comers to the faith. For the latter purpose, there is no alternative but to engage more deeply with the challenge that AI and Transhumanism pose to our time.

There is much to be said on that. For now, I propose the outlines of an alternative Apologetics through a few provocative questions. What if instead of challenging competing ideologies directly we instead try to subvert them? What if instead of exposing fault lines between Christianity and a competing ideology to defend orthodoxy, we appropriate Transhumanist’s aspirations and direct them towards Christian aims?

What Does Beyonce, AI and Democracy All Have in Common?

Answer: they are all mentioned in the Superposition Magazine.

As some of you may not know, besides keeping this blog I am also writing for a newly launched SuperPosition magazine. I am excited to be part of this new endeavor that aims to broaden the conversation on faith and technology. Superposition is the world’s first theologically informed digital tech magazine. We create new content and aggregate content from around the web to create reality changing observations. Beyond Technology, the magazine also explores society, culture, the environment and many other topics.

Here is a short list of what you can find there:

Is AI a threat to Democracy? This article explores author Yuval Harari’s current article explaining why he believes so.

Your Ancestor’s may define you more than you think. Genes may be passing on more than hair color, height and nose size. Could it also be transmitting memories? The research on this topic could have ground-breaking implications in how we understand humanity.

Robots Must Learn to Think Like Little Children. Here we learn about Toco, a robot built to learn as a child.

God uses Technology to Redeem the World. In this five-part article, Rev Chris Benek shows us how the God who created our natural world can also use technology to fulfill His plans.

How Alexa and Siri May Be Making You A Bigger Jerk. Did you ask your digital assistant nicely for directions today? How about saying “please” and “thank you”? Some thoughts to ponder here.

Beyoncé Uses AI to Teach Compassionate Eating. I didn’t think I would see the words “Beyonce” and “AI” in the same sentence but here it is. The singer is using machine learning to help fans come up with Vegan diet plan.

These are just a few examples of the content being created there. Please be sure so sign up and comment on the site. Let’s get the word out about this new tool that help us make sense of this ever-changing world.

Intelligence for Leadership: AI in Decision Making

Kings have advisors, presidents have cabinets, CEOs have boards and TV show hosts have writers – every public figure relies on a cadre of trusted advisors for making decisions. Whenever crucial decisions are made, an army of astute specialists have spent countless hours researching, studying and preparing to communicate the most essential information to inform a decision maker on that issue. Without them, leaders would lead by instinct and most likely often get it wrong. What if these advisors were not human only but also AI-enabled decision systems?

This is what Modeling Religion Project is doing. Developed by a group of scientists, philosophers, and religion scholars, the project consists of a computer simulation populated by “virtual agents” mimicking the characteristics and beliefs of a country’s population. The model is then fed evidence-based social science tendencies of human behavior under certain conditions. For example, a sudden influx of foreigners may increase the probability of hostility by native groups.

Using this initial state as a baseline, they experiment using different scenarios to evaluate the effects of changes in the environment. Levers for change include adding newcomers, investing in education, changing economic policy among other factors. The model then simulates outcomes from the changes allowing for scholars and policy makers to understand the effects of decisions or trends in a nation. While the work focuses on religion, its findings have broad implications for other social sciences such as Psychology, Sociology and Political Science. Among others, one of their primary goal is to better understand what factors can impact the level of religious violence. The government of Norway is about to put the models to test, where they hope to use the insights of the model to better integrate refugees to their nation.

Certainly, a project of such ambition is not without difficulties. For one, there are ethical questions around who gets to decide what is a good outcome and what is not. For example, one of the models provides recommendation on how to speed up secularization in a nation. Is secularization a good path for every nation? Clearly, while the model raises interesting insights, using them in the real world may prove much harder than the complex math involved in building them. Furthermore, irresponsible use can quickly lead to social engineering.

While hesitation is welcome, the demand for effective decision making will only increase. Leaders from household to national levels face increasing complex scenarios. Consider the dilemma that parents face when planing for their children’s education knowing that future job market will be different from today. Consider organizational leaders working on 5-10 year plans when markets can change in minutes, demand can change in days and societies in the course of a few years. Hence, the need for AI-generated insights will only increase with time.

What are to make of AI-enabled advice for public policy? First, it is important to note that this already is a reality in large multi-national corporations. In recent years, companies have developed intelligent systems that seek to extract insights from the reams of customer data available to these organizations. These systems may not rise to the sophistication of the project above, but soon they will. Harnessing the power of data can provide an invaluable perspective to the decision making process. As complexity increases, intelligent systems can distill large amounts of data into digestible information that can make the difference between becoming a market leader or descending into irrelevancy. This dilemma will be true for governments as well. Missing data insights can be the difference between staying in power or losing the next election.

With this said, it is important to highlight that AI-enabled simulations will never be a replacement for wise decision making. The best models can only perform as well as the data they contain. They represent a picture of the past but are not suitable for anticipating black swan events. Moreover, leaders may have pick up signals of change that have not yet been detected by data collection systems. In this case, human intuition should not be discarded for computer calculations. There is also an issue of trust. Even if computer perform better than humans in making decisions, can humans trust it beyond their own capabilities? Would we trust an AI judge to sentence a person to death?

Here, as in other situations, it bears out to bring the contrast between automation and augmentation. Using AI systems to enhance human decision making is much better than using it to replace it altogether. While they will become increasingly necessary in public policy, they should never replace popular elected human decision-makers.

Author: Elias Kruger