Search
Close this search box.

Author: Elias Kruger

I am husband, father, data scientist and lay theologian. I blog about the intersection of theology, science and technology longing for integration and the flourishing of life.

Placing Human Dignity at the Center of AI Ethics

In late August we had our kick-off Zoom meeting of the Advisory Board. This is the first of our monthly meetings where we will be exploring the intersection of AI and spirituality. The idea is to gather scholars, professionals, and clergy to discuss this topic from a multi-faceted view. In this blog, we publish a short summary of our first conversation. The key theme that emerged was a concern for safeguarding and uploading human dignity as AI becomes embedded in growing spheres of our lives. The preocupation must inhabit the center of all AI discussions and be the guiding principles for laws, business practices and policies.

Question for Discussion: What, in your perspective, is the most pressing issue on AI ethics in the next three to five years? What keeps you up at night?

Brian Sigmon: The values from which AI is being developed, and their end goals. What is AI oriented for? Usually in the US, it’s oriented towards profit, not oriented to the common good or toward human flourishing. Until you change the fundamental orientation of AI’s development, you’re going to have problems.

AI is so pervasive in our lives that we cannot escape it. We don’t always understand the logic behind it. It is often beneath the surface intertwined with many other issues. For example, when I go on social media, AI controls what I see on my feed. It does not optimize in making me a better person but instead maximize clicks and revenue. That, to me, is the key issue.

Elias Kruger: Thank you, Brian. To add some color to that, since the pandemic, companies have increased their investment in AI. This in turn is creating a corporate AI race that will further ensure the encroachment of AI across multiple industries. How companies execute this AI strategy will deeply shape our lives, not just here in the US but globally.

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

Frantisek Stech: Coming from Eastern Europe, one of the greatest issues is the abuse of AI from authoritarian non-democratic regimes for human control. In other words, it is the relationship between AI control and human freedom. Another practical problem is how people are afraid to lose their jobs to AI-driven machines.  

Elias Kruger: Thanks Frantisek, as you know we are aware of what is happening in China with the merging of AI and authoritarian governments. Can you tell us a little bit about your area of the world? Is AI more government-driven or more corporate?

Frantisek Stech: In the Czech Republic, we belong to the EU, an therefore to the West. So, it is very much corporate-driven. Yet, we are very close to our Eastern neighbors are we are watching closely how things develop in Belarussia and China especially as they will inevitably impact our region of the world.

However, this does not mean we are free from danger there. There is the issue of manipulation of elections that started with the Cambridge Analytics scandal and issues with the presidential elections in the US. Now we are approaching elections in the EU, so there is a lot of discussions about how AI will be used for manipulation and the problem . So when people hear AI, they often associate with politics. So they think they are already being manipulated if they buy a phone with Facial recognition. We have to be cautious but not completely afraid. 

Ben Day: I am often pondering on this question of AI’s, or technology in general, relates with dignity and individual human flourishing. When we aggregate and manipulate data, we strip out individual human dignity which is Christian virtue, and begin to see people as compilations of manipulative data. It is really a threat to ontology, to our very sense of being. In effect, it is an assault on human dignity through AI.

Going further, I am interested in this question of how AI encroaches in our sense of identity. That is, how algorithms govern my entire exposure to media and news. Not just that but AI impacts our whole social eco-verse online and offline. What does that have to do with the nature of my being?

I often say that I have a very low view of humanity. I don’t think human beings are that great. And so, I fear that AI can manipulate the worst parts of human nature. That is an encroachment in huam dignity.

In the Episcopal church, we believe that serving Christ is intimately connected with upholding the dignity of human beings. So, if we are turning a blind eyed to human dignities being manipulated, then my Christian praxis compels me by moral obligation to do something about it. 

Photo by Liv Merenberg on Unsplash

Elias Kruger: Can you give us a specific example of how this plays out?

Ben Day: Let me give you one example of how this affected my ministry. I removed myself from most of social media as of October of 2016 because of what I was witnessing. I saw members of my church sparring on the internet, attacking each other’s dignity, and intellect over politicized issues. The vitriol was so pervasive that I encounter a moral dilemma. As a priest, it is my duty to deny the sacrament to those who are in unrepetant sin.

So I would face parishioners only hours after these spars online and wonder whether I should offer them the sacrament. I was facing this connundrum as a result of algorithms manipulating feeds to foster angry engagements because it leads to profit. It virtually puts the church at odds to how these companies pursue profit.

Levi Checketts:  I lived in Berkley for many years and the cost of living there was really high. It was so because a lot of people who worked in Silicon Valley or in San Francisco were moving there. The influx of well-to-do professionals raised home prices in the area, forcing less fortunate existing residents to move out.

So, there is all this money going into AI. Of the big 5 biggest companies in market cap, three are in Silicon Valley and two in the Seattle area. Tech professionals often do not have full awareness of the impact their work is having on the rest of the world. For example, a few years back, a tech employee wrote an op-ed complaining about having to see disgusting homeless people in his way to work when he was paying so much for rent.

What I realized is that there is a massive disconnect between humanity and the people making decisions for companies that are larger than many countries’ economies. My biggest concern is that the people who are in charge and controlling AI have many blind spots. Their inability to emphathize with those who are suffering or even notice the realities of systems that breed oppression and poverty. To them, there is always a technical fix. Many lack the humility to listen to other perspectives, and come from mainly male Asian and White backgrounds. They are often opposed to other perspectives that challenge their work.

There have been high-profile cases recently like Google firing a black female researcher because she spoke up about problems in the company. The question that Ben mentioned about human dignity in AI is very pressing. If we want to address that, we need people from different backgrounds making decisions and working to develop these technologies.

Futhermore, if we define AI as a being that makes strictly rational decisions, what about people who do not fit that mold?

The key questions are where do we locate this dignity and how do we make sure AI doesn’t run roughshod over humanity?

Davi Leitão: These were all great points that I was not thinking about before. Thank you for sharing this with us.

All of these are important questions which drive the need for regulation and laws that will gear profit-driven corporations to the right path. All of the privacy and data security laws stand on a set of principles written in 1981 by the OECD. These laws are looking to these principles and putting into practice. They are there to inform and safeguard people from bias.

My question is: what are the blind spots on the FIP (fair information principles) that are not accounting for these new issues technology has brought in? This problem is a wide net, but it can help guide a lot of new laws that will come. This is the only way to make companies care about human dignity.

Right now, there is a proliferation of state laws. But this brings another problem: customers of states that have regulation laws can suffer discrimination by companies from other states. Therefore, there is a need for a federal uniform set of principles and laws about privacy in the US. The inconsistency between state laws keep lawyers in business but ultimately harm the average citizen.

Elias Kruger:  Thanks for this perspective. I think it would be a good takeaway for the group to look for blindspots in these principles. AI is about algorithms and data. Data is fundamental. If we don’t handle it correctly, we can’t fix it with algorithms. 

My 2 cents is that when it comes to AI applications, the one that concerns me most is facial recognition for surveillance and law enforcement. I don’t think there is any other application where a mistake can cause such devastating impact on the victim than here. When AI wrongly incriminates someone of a crime because an algorithm confused their face with the actual perpetrator, the indidivual loses his freedom. There is no way to recover from that.

This application calls for immediate regulation that puts human dignity at the center of AI in so we can prevent serious problems in the future.

Thanks everybody for your time.

3 Effective Ways to Improve AI Ethics Discussions

Let’s face it: the quality of discourse in the blogosphere and social media is dismal! What gets traffic is most often not the best representation of a topic but instead the most outrageous click-bait title. As a recent WSJ report suggests, content creators face the constant temptation (including myself and this portal) to trade well-crafted arguments for divisive pieces that emphasize controversy. When it comes to discussions on AI ethics, the situation is no different. Useless outrageous claims abound while a nuanced conversation that would help improve AI ethics discussions are rare.

It is time to raise the level of discourse on AI impact. While I am encouraged to see this topic get the attention is getting, I fear that it is fraught with hyperboles and misinformation which degrade rather than improve dialogue. Consequently, most pieces lead to precipitated conclusions rather than the thoughtful dialogue the topic requires. In this blog, I put forth three ways to improve the quality of dialogue in this space. By keeping them in mind, you can differentiate what is worth your attention from what can be ignored.

Impact is not the same as Intent

The narrative of big business or government seeking to hurt the small guy is an attractive one. We are hard-wired to choose simple explanations and simple storylines of good and evil fit the bill. Most often, they are a good front for our addiction to escape-goating. By putting all evil in one entity, we are excused from looking at evil among ourselves. Most importantly, they undermine the reality that a lot of evil happens as unintended consequences of well-intended efforts.

When it comes to AI bias, I am concerned that too many stories imply a definite villain without probing further to understand systemic dynamics. Consider this article from TNW, titled “Stop Calling it Bias: AI is Racist.” The click-bait title should you give a reason to pause. Moreover, the author seems to assign a human intent to complex systems without probing further into the causes. This type of hyperbolic rhetoric does more harm than good, assigning blame towards one group while ignoring the technical complexities of the issue at hand.

Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com on Unsplash

By implying intent to impact, these pieces miss the opportunity to ask broader questions such as: what environmental factors amplified the harmful impact of this problem? How could other actors such as consumers, users, businesses, and regulators play a part in mitigating risks in the future? What technical limitations helped cause or expand the problem? These are a few questions that can elevate the discussion on AI’s impact. Above all, they help us get past the idea that for every harmful impact lies a morally deficient actor behind it.

Generalizations Do More Harm than Good

Ironically, this is precisely at the root of the problem. What do I mean by that? AI algorithms err because they rely on generalizations of past data. Then, when they see new cases, they tend to, as the adage goes, “jump to conclusions.” While many times this has harmless consequences, such as recommending Strawberry Shortcake for me in my Netflix cue, other times this selection can cause serious harm.

Yet, when it comes to articles on AI, the problem is when the author takes one case and generalizes to all cases. Consider this Forbes article about AI. It takes a few statements by Elon Musk, one study, and a lot of speculation to tell us that AI is dangerous. While some of the points are valid, the article does nothing to help us understand why exactly it is dangerous and what we can do about it. In that sense, it does more harm than good giving the reader reasons for worry without grounding them on evidence or proposing solutions.

Taking anecdotal evidence (one case) devoid of statistical backing and stating it as the norm is very misleading. We often pay attention to these stories because they tend to describe extreme cases of AI adverse impact. Not that we should dismiss them outright but consider them in context. We should also ask how prevalent is the problem? Is it increasing or decreasing? What can be done to ensure such cases remain rare or non-existent? By staying at a general level we miss the opportunity to better understand the problem. Thus, it does very little to improve AI ethics discussions

Show me the Data

This leads me to the third and final recommendation. Discussions on AI ethics must stand on empirical evidence. In fact, given that data is at the foundation of algorithm formation, data is also readily available to evaluate its impact. The accessibility of data is both an advantage and also a reminder that transparency is crucial. This is probably one of the key roles regulators can play, ensuring that companies, government, and NGOs make their data available to the public.

This is not limited to impact but extends into the inputs. That is, understanding the data that algorithms train on is as important as understanding the downstream impact they create. For example, if past data shows that white applicants get higher approval rates for mortgages than people of color, guess what? The models will inevitably replicate this bias in their results. This is certainly a problem that needs to be recognized in the front-end rather than monitored on the outcomes only.

Discussions on AI ethics must include statistical evidence for the issues at hand. That is, when presenting a problem, the claims must be accompanied by numbers. Consider this article from the World Economic Forum. It makes appropriate claims, avoids generalizations, and backs up each claim with research. It not only informs the reader but provides references for further. By doing so, it goes a long way to improve AI ethics discussions.

Conclusion

It is encouraging to see the growing interest in AI. The public must engage with his topic as it affects many aspects of our lives. Expanding dialogue and welcoming new voices to the table is critical to ensure AI will work towards human flourishing. With that said, it is now time to ground AI ethics discussions on real evidence and sober assessments of cause and effect. We must resist the temptation of escape-goating and lazy generalizing. Instead, we must pursue the careful path of relentless probing and examining evidence.

This starts with content creators. As those who frame the topic, we must do a better job to represent the issues clearly. We must avoid misleading statements that attract eyeballs but confuse minds. We must also have a commitment to accurate reporting and transparency with our sources.

Can we take the challenge to improve AI ethics discussions? I hope so.

What is Mystical Christian Transhumanism? A Conversation with ICN

Just recently, I had the privilege to talk to Luke Healy and David Pinkston for the Integral Christian Network podcast. The interview was inspired by the 3 essay series I completed at Medium on Mystical Christian Transhumanism.

To listen to the podcast click on the picture

In this casual conversation, we covered a lot of ground from deconstructing evangelical faith to integrating it into all aspects of life. I really enjoyed the conversation and would like to provide a guided summary here for those interested in listening in.

Luke started us off with a short guided meditation, setting the tone for a lively but relaxed conversation. It also helped me engage with the questions less from the head and more from the heart.

The conversation started at 4:00 when Luke asked me to give a short overview of my spiritual journey. I discussed portions of it in previous blogs like this one and this one. In the podcast, I described the path from a Charismatic militant religion to the Mystical Christian Transhumanism where I am today.

Discovering the Mystical

Next at about 7:55, Luke asked about how the mystical fits into this picture. What is the mystical part? I spoke a bit about how the mystical was a thread that was there all along. One that has run through Christian history and even embedded in our current movements. In short, the mystical is about the experience of the divine presence irrespective of how we explain it theologically. It sets a foundation of non-dualistic thinking that enables us to be open to the world.

At around minute 12, Luke asked me to dive deeper into the Christian part. He was particularly interested in the militant part of my faith upbringing. I shared how while having to shed the more combative aspects of my earlier faith, I was also grateful for how it celebrated the experiential. While this was a long a painful road, I would certainly not be who I am today without going through it.

Technology and Transhumanism

This became a good segway into discussing technology at minute 19. He first asked me about the path to integrating my work with technology with the Christian faith. That is how I told the story of how AI Theology started as a desire to integrate the technologist in me with the theologian.

From minute 24 onwards, the conversation shifted towards Transhumanism. I started by providing a brief definition. Next, I talked about engaging this emerging philosophy and its Christian roots. I then proceeded to better define Christian Transhumanism as a way to live out the faith in very practical terms.

At 29:30, Luke asked how the mystical relates to Transhumanism. Are those opposing ideas? I talked about how mystical adds a spiritual dimension to the pursuit of Transhumanism. The remainder of the conversation revolved around our relationship with technology and how it can support and uphold human flourishing. Part of this process is re-thinking how we use church buildings.

This is the first of many conversations to come on this topic. I hope you find the exploration of Mystical Christian Transhumanism helpful for your journey.

Developing an E-Bike Faith: Divine Power with Human Effort

What can technology teach about faith? In a past blog, I spoke of the mystical qubit. Previously I spoke on how AI can expand our view of God. In this blog, I explore a different technology that is now becoming a common fixture of our cities: e-bikes. A few weeks ago I bought a used one and have loved riding it ever since. For those wondering, you still get your exercise minus the heart palpitations in the uphill climbs. But I digress, this is not a blog about the benefits of an e-bike but of how its hybrid nature can teach us about faith and spirituality.

Biking to Seminary

Eight years ago, we moved to sunny Southern California so I could attend seminary. We found a house about 5 miles from the campus which in my mind meant that I could commute by bike. The distance was reasonable and the wonderful weather seem to conspire in my favor. I could finally free myself from the shackles of motorized dependency.

On our first weekend there, I decided to go for a trial bike ride. The way to the campus went by like a breeze. In no more than 15 minutes I was arriving at Fuller seminary beaming in delight. Yet, I had a nagging suspicion the way back home would be different. One thing that did not enter my calculations was that though we were only 5 miles away from campus, our house was at the foothills of Altadena. That meant that the only way home was uphill. The first 2 miles were bearable yet by mile 3, my legs were giving out. I eventually made it back home drenched in sweat and disappointment.

It became clear that this would not be a ride I could take often. My dreams of biking to seminary ended that day. Back to the gasoline cages for the rescue, not as exciting but definitely more practical.

Photo by Federico Beccari on Unsplash

Divine Electricity

We now live in the Atlanta area and often go to Chattanooga for day trips. This charming Tennesee jewel offers a beautiful riverfront with many attractions for families like ours. Like many cities seeking to attract Millenials, they offer a network of public bikes for a small cost. Among them, I noticed they had some e-bikes available. For a while, I was curious to try one but not enough to shell out the thousands of dollars they cost. Timidly, I pick one for a leisure ride in the city.

From the beginning, I could sense the difference. I still had to pedal normally like I would on a normal bike. Yet, as I pedaled it was like I got a little push that made my pedaling more effective. I would dash by other bikers glancing back at them triumphantly. I then decided to test in an uphill. Would the push sustain or eventually fizzle out because of gravity?

To my contentment, that was when the e-bike shined. For those accustomed to biking, you know that right before going uphill you pedal fast to get as much speed as you can. As you start climbing, you switch to lower gears until the bike is barely moving while you pedal intensively. You make up for the weight relief by tripling your pedal rotations. It can be demoralizing to pedal like a maniac but move like a turtle which is why many dismount and walk. It is like all that effort dissipates by the gravitational pull on the bike.

Pedaling uphill in an e-bike is a completely different experience. First, there is no need to maximize your speed coming into it. You pedal normally and as the bike slows down, the electric motor kicks in to propel you forward. You end up keeping the same speed while pedaling at the same rate.

Goodbye frantic-pedaling-slow-going uphill, hello eternal-e-bike-flatlands

It is as if the hand of God is pushing you from behind when your leg muscles can keep the speed. Going up is no longer a drag but a thrill, all thanks to the small electric motor in the back wheel capable of pushing up a grown man and a 50 lbs bike.

Humanity Plus

If I could change one thing in the Western Christian tradition, that would be the persistent and relentless loathing for humanity. From very early on, and at times even expressed in the biblical text, there is a tendency to make humans look bad in order to make God look good. The impetus stems from a desire to curb our constant temptation to hubris. Sure, we all, especially those whom society put on a pedestal, need to remember our puny frailty lest we overestimate our abilities.

Yet, we are mysteriously beautiful and unpredictable. Once I let go of this indoctrinated loathing, I could face this intricate concoction of flesh in a whole new way. Humanity is a spectacular outcome for an insanely long and painful process of evolution. In fact, that is what often leads us back to the belief in God. The lucid beauty of our humanity is what points us to the invisible divine.

This loathing of humanity often translates into the confusing and ineffective grace-versus-work theology. Stretching Pauline letters to ways never intended by the beloved apostle, theologians have produced miles of literature on the topic. While some of it is helpful (maybe 2%, who knows?), most of it devolves into a tendency to deny the role of human effort in spirituality. In an effort to address transactional legalism, many overshoot in emphasizing divine activity in the process. This is unfortunate because removing the role of human effort in spirituality is a grave mistake. We need both.

Photo by Fabrizio Conti on Unsplash

The Two Sides of Spiritual Growth

Human empowerment plays a pivotal role in a healthy spirituality. If pride is a problem so is its passive-aggressive counterpart low self-loathing. To have an inordinately negative view of self does not lead to godliness but it is a sure path to depression. Along with a realistic view of self comes the understanding that human effort is key to accomplishing things on this earth.

Yet, just like pedaling uphill, human effort can only take you so far. Sometimes you need a divine push. For a long time, I thought divine empowerment worked independently from human effort. What if it is less like a car and more like an e-bike? That is, you still need to pedal, tending for this earth and lifting fellow humans from the curse of entropy. Yet, as you faithfully do it, you are propelled by divine power to reach new heights.

Had e-bikes existed 8 years ago, my idea of commuting to seminary would have been viable. I could have conquered those grueling hills of Altadena with elegant pedaling. I would have made it home without breaking a sweat and still kiss my wife and kids without repelling them with my body odor. It would have been glorious.

Conclusion

Human effort without divine inspiration is not much different from trying to bike uphill. It requires initial concentrated effort only to get us to a state of profuse effort with little movement. Engaging the world without sacred imagination can and will often lead to burnout.

As we face mounting challenges with a stubborn pandemic that will relentlessly destroy our plans, let’s hold on to an e-bike faith. One the calls us to action fueled by divine inspiration. One that reminds us of our human limitation but focuses on a limitless God. That is when we can soar to new heights as divine electricity propel us into new beginnings.

Faith Deconstruction: Trading Convictions for Better Questions

In a previous blog, I shared about my journey to find a more integrated faith. In this blog, I talk about the process of faith deconstruction that led me there. It was a long windy road that took years. Nevertheless, I am grateful for every mile traveled.

Imagine your car breaks down. Because you don’t have the money to buy a new one, you decide to fix it. However, you do not know any mechanics. You still need a mode of transportation and bikes are out of the question. That is when you decide to fix the engine yourself. Your first step is taking the engine apart, piece by piece, inspecting to see what can be wrong with it. After this long process, you are now ready to put the engine back together. Yet, to save time and effort, you decide to let go of the parts that are broken and those that are unnecessary. Instead, you rebuild it a leaner version of the original to ensure you are able to have a working car to take you from point a to point b.

That is what faith deconstruction looks like.

It is a long and laborious process of taking beliefs apart, inspecting what may not serve you any longer. Seeing the good and the bad and choosing to retain only what is needed for the journey ahead.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

A Personal Story

Deconstructing one’s faith is not for the faint of heart. I confess this was a task I dared not engage in for years. Why? In one word: fear. I was afraid I would lose my bearings, my sanity, my identity, my community, the respect of my loved ones, my very purpose of being. On top of that, of course, there was the fear of eternal damnation. That small nagging feeling that even if there was a 1% chance of being true, that was enough not to risk it. Forget it, there was much to lose, too many uncertainties on the other side and after all — things were not that bad on this side. At least, so I thought.

I wasn’t like I woke up one day and said: “Now I am ready to deconstruct my faith!” Like for many that underwent this process, it was a combination of events, disappointments, and irreconcilable situations that thrust us into the tempestuous sea of doubt. For some, it was the death of a loved one. To me, it was the death of a dream. Yes, in every story of faith deconstruction, there is death involved.

This is the way.

I have written before about my pain and disappointment. Suffice it to say that at every turn doors closed and it became painfully clear that my vocational path would lead elsewhere. It wasn’t just about vocation but also about identity, meaning, and deep disappointment with Chrisitians’ attitude in the public square. Yes, you guessed it: Trump, treatment of LGBTQ, authoritarianism, and other unfortunate events.

Revisiting Old Certainties

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

If I was going to move further, I had to let go of some convictions. Like screws in an engine, they must first loosen up before we fix anything. One key conviction was my view of the Bible. In my childhood faith, the Bible was the ultimate authority and source of all truth. It was never to be questioned only to be submitted to. While this may have saved my European ancestors from Papal oppression, it has now become the foundation for dogmatic thinking and stifling perspectives. Re-visiting my view of the Bible was a key step in the journey of faith deconstruction.

The change went deeper than that. It meant letting go of certainty and inviting doubtful faith. My childhood faith taught me the blessed assurance was beyond doubt. Letting go of this perceived security was a hard thing to do. It begged the following: if the Bible is no longer the source of ultimate authority, then what is?

For years I had no answer to this question which was why I also stood paralyzed in this conundrum. On the one hand, I knew that placing this amount of faith in the letter of the Bible was no longer viable. On the other, I did not see any alternative that could adequately replace it.

Leaping into Untethered Faith

Would my experience now be the arbiter of truth? I am not that smart or spiritually enlightened. That, I knew for sure so it had to be elsewhere. Would science be the new source of authority? It was also a problematic choice given the evolving nature of scientific inquiry. What we know now can really change in the next discovery. What then?

It was then that instead of trying to answer the question, that I encountered a new question: What if there is no absolute authority to hang my belief in? What if I will never really know for sure? The implications were terrifying but also surprisingly freeing.

Even so, they did not require a simple change of perspective. Instead, they call for a leap of faith. It was more like a jump into untethered belief. A certainty that even though I could not articulate an ultimate authority for my faith, that faith was real nevertheless. Not just that, but there was a trust that there was higher power on the other side to catch me. This is not a rejection of God but an acceptance that God is much more we can describe or experience.

The place of encounter is where God lives – no other assurances are needed.

The Mystical Qubit: How Quantum Computers Inspire Christian Spirituality

AI Theology is about integrating different ways of thinking. Not just that but reflecting deeply on experiences even more than ideas or technologies. In this blog, I reflect on my spiritual journey looking for ways in which technology can help explain what at first seems unexplainable. Can that be so? In this post, I introduce the mystical qubit, how Quantum computers can help us understand Christian Mysticism.

Intrigued? Read on.

Christian Mysticism

My introduction to Christian Mysticism came in seminary. I honestly did not know this was a “thing.” My evangelical upbringing taught me that mysticism belonged to New Age and spiritists and had no place in the “true” religion. That is kind of ironic because as I reflect on my charismatic experiences of my youth, they turned out to be, well…quite mystical. 

Some definitions are in order. After all, what do I mean by Christian Mysticism? Author Carl Coleman offers us this description:

“Christian Mysticism is the spiritual encounter with a sacred mystery that cannot be put into words, but may be embodied through feelings, conscious awareness, experience, or intuition – or even through darkness or unknowing.“

In short, it is the secret sauce of spirituality. The experiential unexplainable that has drawn billions of souls to religious practices through the millennia. It is often what we mean when we say we have had a spiritual experience. 

To me it was less of a discovery but more of an unveiling. It was an awakening to recognize that throughout my life, I have practiced a type of CM. As I mentioned in the first paragraph of this section, my charismatic background is steeped in mysticism. I first encountered it as an 11 years old boy, while praying with a friend out in nature. That was when I had a deep connection with the divine reality, one that would carry me through the many valleys of doubt I would go through in the following years. 

Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

Quantum Computers as a Metaphor for Integrality

I imagine by now you have heard about Quantum computers. If not, suffice it to say that they are the next generation of computing that will revolutionize hardware for decades to come. In short, it uses Quantum mechanics to run calculations more efficiently than traditional computers. This increased capacity will open the way to a myriad of opportunities in AI and simulation currently not possible.

At its core, Quantum computers look at information differently. Traditional computers process information in bits. These bits are gates, or switches if you will, with two possibilities: 0 or 1. A bit can be either 1 or 0 at a time and the combination of these switches to the billions and trillions is what allowed our current revolution in digitization.

Quantum computer’s foundational unit is the qubit. Different from the traditional bit, it can be 1, 0, or both. Due to the phenomenon of superposition, the bit can simultaneously be 0 and 1.

Don’t think too hard about how that works as it is likely to give you a royal headache!

The point is, unlike traditional bits, the qubit is not either-or but both-and. In its foundational measure of foundation, it can hold different signals simultaneously without forcing them to resolve to one or the other.

Quantum computing is the non-dual thinking computer!

The Mystical Qubit

We inhabit a binary world where people and things are forced into either-or categories. There is simplicity and comfort in that. When translated into religious thinking, this creates the in-and-out dynamic of faith groups. A big driver of the Christian theological enterprise has been in the service of classifying “who is in” and “who is out.”

The allure of binary thinking is self-evident. It brings clarity and direction for areas that once seem complex and intractable. It is not that binary thinking is useless. However, it can be very counter-productive when it prematurely forces conflicting ideas to resolve. Here is the gift of the mystical quibit.

A mystical perspective is able to hold conflicting ideas without resolving them. This does not just apply to ideas but also how we perceive each other. The mystic does not rush to judge the other prematurely. Instead, she is able to contemplate the full complexity of the other being: seeing their beauty and shortcoming as a whole.

When we are able to hold each in the graceful gaze that is free from judgment, then we move closer to God. That’s the power of the mystic qubit and how quantum computers help us understand Christian Mysticism.

Losing My Religion to Find an Integrated Christianity

In the last six months, I have written primarily on AI ethics and AI for good in the AI theology portal. In this piece, I would like to turn inward. Rather than providing informative pieces that keep the pulse of AI developments, I would like to dive deeper into a theological reflection of my spiritual experience – more theology, less AI. In this blog, I share about the journey of letting go of militant convictions to find an integrated Christianity.

A Holistic Spirituality

Encouraged by my western upbringing, I tend to compartmentalize spirituality separately from the rest of my life. On the one hand, I had my spiritual life consisting of practices like prayer, studying, and worship. On the other hand, I managed the remainder of life through analytical rational forms, trying to balance the competing demands of being a father, husband, professional, and citizen. I knew these two parts were interrelated but found it difficult to integrate them. It invited too many questions often making good fodder for deep thinking but little impetus for action. And so, I carried on with an internal spiritual life while also responding to external circumstances brought by my many roles in society.

Photo by Willian Justen de Vasconcellos on Unsplash

Thankfully, this dynamic began to shift in the last few years. I have written before about my journey out of church life. In this wilderness, I have encountered companions that helped me show the way to a more integrated Christianity. I am far from mastering it but I am content to become an avid disciple under its vast wisdom. When convictions wane and certainties loosen up, we can finally receive the gift of the new. That is, the new wine of an integrated spirituality can only arrive in the new wineskins of an open heart.

What does that integrated spirituality look like? I really didn’t have words until recently and in this piece will attempt to flesh it out for others. This is in no way an authoritative description of an emerging Christianity. It is, however, anecdotal evidence that an Christian spirituality can thrive outside of the confines of organized religion. I hope you find it useful to your journey.

Shedding a Militant Worldview

The move to a more holistic spirituality could not happen without leaving some old convictions behind. One of those that I was happy to shed was a militant dualistic view of the world. One of the most destructive theological fallacies of the last two centuries was a marrying of dispensationalism with political conservatism. That is, the first one filled believers with fear of imminent doom. The second one mistook Capitalism for Christianity. The mix created the insidious Christian nationalism that mistakes global cooperation with the mark of the beast.

Photo by Maxim Potkin on Unsplash

In practice, what that meant to me was that the Christianity I was raised in was often punctuated by a need to fight real and imaginary enemies. Our spiritual practices were part of a military mobilization for the kingdom of God – as if Jesus needed an army of freedom fighters (or terrorists) to bring his kingdom to earth. Spiritual warfare was an indirect way to address the social anxiety of losing cultural influence.

This militarism also made me suspicious of any mystical experience outside the very narrow acceptable definitions imposed by evangelical orthodoxy. That is, they have to be “biblical,” lest they be an opportunity for the enemy. In this militarized focus, many were hit by friendly fire. Spiritual experiences, especially those of rival Christian denominations, that deviated from an arbitrary “biblical” norm, became a threat. This in effect closed me off from going deeper into Christian tradition so I could learn more from the mystics. After all, when you are a part of the church that will usher Jesus’ return, you have no need to learn from history. 

Integral Christianity

As my journey moved away from the centers of official Christendom, I grew increasingly isolated. Thankfully, I recently learned about the Integral Christian Network. That was when I discovered mystical Christianity anew. 

Reading books, studying movements, and discussing their implications are all helpful ways to learn. They are, however, poor substitutes to experiencing spiritual practices in community. This is how any faith is best transmitted and preserved through generations. So, while I have had my share of studying Christian mystics from the past and even read their important writings, joining an ICN Wespace allowed me to go a step further. 

This Zoom facilitated small group has allowed me to encounter a supportive group to explore mystical Christianity unbounded by the militant restrictions of my upbringing. I confess I was scared and at times skeptical. The talk about spirit guides and speaking with angels made me uncomfortable at first. As I pressed forward, I received an inner affirmation that the Creator would be there to prod me from error. As I get to know a bigger God, the fear of error diminishes. That is when I am free to fly. 

Conclusion

The movement from dualism to mystical openness did not happen overnight. Instead, it came from a long process of dying and being born anew with the help of others along the way. In an integrated Christianity, I don’t claim to have found a new orthodoxy to hang my hat on. I am only here to report what my experience has said. It is neither authoritative nor meaningless.

Yet, I do hope that by learning about my experience you can look to your own. The path for spiritual growth will rarely look the same for two individuals but thankfully we can always learn from each other. And that is why I leave you with a final question:

Where is your spiritual journey leading you to?

This post is a snippet from a larger article I published at medium.

How is AI Hiring Impacting Minorities? Evidence Points to Bias

Thousands of resumes, few positions, and limited time. The story repeats itself in companies globally. Growing economies and open labor markets, now re-shaped by platforms like Linkedin and Indeed, a growing recruiting industry opened wide the labor market. While this has expanded opportunity, it left employers with the daunting task to sift through the barrage of applications, cover letters, resumes thrown in their way. Enters AI, with its promise to optimize and smooth out the pre-selection process. That sounds like a sensible solution, right? Yet, how is AI hiring impacting minorities?

Not so fast – a 2020 paper summarizing data from multiple studies found that using AI for both selection and recruiting has shown evidence of bias. As in the case of facial recognition, AI for employment is also showing disturbing signs of bias. This is a concerning trend that requires attention from employers, job applicants, citizens, and government entities.

Photo by Cytonn Photography on Unsplash

Using AI for Hiring

MIT podcast In Machines we Trust goes under the hood of AI hiring. What they found was surprising and concerning. Firstly, it is important to highlight how widespread algorithms are in every step of hiring decisions. One of the most common ways is through initial screening games that narrow the applicant pool for interviews. These games come in many forms that vary depending on vendor and job type. What they share in common is that, unlike traditional interview questions, they do not directly relate to skills relevant to the job at hand.

AI game creators claim that this indirect method is intentional. This way, the candidate is unaware of how the employer is testing them and therefore cannot “fake” a suitable answer. Instead, many of these tools are trying to see whether the candidate exhibits traits of past successful employees for that job. Therefore, employers claim they get a better measurement of the candidate fit for the job than they would otherwise.

How about job applicants? How do they fare when AI decides who gets hired? More specifically, how does AI hiring impact minorities’ prospects of getting a job? On the other side of the interview table, job applicants do not share in the vendor’s enthusiasm. Many report an uneasiness in not knowing how the tests’ criteria. This unease in itself can severely impact their interview performance creating additional unnecessary anxiety. More concerning is how these tests impact applicants with disabilities. Today, thanks to the legal protections, job applicants do not have to report disabilities in the interviewing process. Now, some of these tests may force them to do it earlier.

What about Bias?

Unfortunately, bias does not happen only for applicants with disabilities. Other minority groups are also feeling the pinch. The MIT podcast tells the story of an African-American woman, who though having the pre-requisite qualifications did not get a single call back after applying to hundreds of positions. She eventually found a job the old-fashioned way – getting an interview through a network acquaintance.

The problem of bias is not entirely surprising. If machine learning models are using past data of job functions that are already fairly homogenous, they will only reinforce and duplicate this reality. Without examining the initial data or applying intentional weights, the process will continue to perpetuate this problem. Hence, when AI is training on majority-dominated datasets, the algorithms will tend to look for majority traits at the expense of minorities.

This becomes a bigger problem when AI applications go beyond resume filtering and selection games. They are also part of interviewing process itself. AI hiring companies like Hirevue claim that their algorithm can predict the success of a candidate by their tone of voice in an interview. Other applications will summarize taped interviews to select the most promising candidates. While these tools clearly can help speed up the hiring process, bias tendencies can severely exclude minorities from the process.

The Growing Need for Regulation

AI in hiring is here to stay and they can be very useful. In fact, the majority of hiring managers state that AI tools are saving them time in the hiring process. Yet, the biggest concern is how they are bending power dynamics towards employers – both sides should benefit from its applications. AI tools are now tipping the balance toward employers by shortening the selection and interview time.

If AI for employment is to work for human flourishing, then it cannot simply be a time-saving tool for employers. It must also expand opportunity for under-represented groups while also meeting the constant need for a qualified labor force. Above all, it cannot claim to be a silver bullet for hiring but instead an informative tool that adds a data point for the hiring manager.

There is growing consensus that AI in hiring cannot go on unregulated. Innovation in this area is welcome but expecting vendors and employers to self-police against disparate impact is naive. Hence, we need intelligent regulation that ensures workers get a fair representation in the process. As algorithms become more pervasive in the interviewing process, we must monitor their activity for adverse impact.

Job selection is not a trivial activity but is foundational for social mobility. We cannot afford to get this wrong. Unlike psychometric evaluations used in the past that have scientific and empirical evidence, these new tools are mostly untested. When AI vendors claim they can predict job success by the tone of voice or facial expression, then the burden is on them to prove the fairness of their methods. Should AI decide who gets hired? Given the evidence so far, the answer is no.

Wandering Earth Review: A Chinese Vision of Apocalyptic Hope

Sci-Fi authors are the visionaries of our time, those who can see where society is going and imagine future scenarios that inspire us to live a better present. While their books introduce their ideas to the public, their cinematic expressions are what bring them to life. This review claims that the Chinese blockbuster Wandering Earth does that to Cixin Liu’s writing of apocalyptic hope. The movie is not just entertainment but pertinent material for theological reflection. Its message of hope and cooperation, similar to Eden and Oxygen, sheds light on how we can face the global challenge to avoid climate catastrophe.

A Daring Apocalyptic Vision

Apocalyptic comes from a Greek word that means unveiling. It is about making a hidden meaning show up in plain sight. It is also the name for an ancient type of literature that foresaw end-of-the-world scenarios. In the West, the biblical books of Daniel and Revelation are the most well-known examples of this type of writing.

Science Fiction is the contemporary version of this ancient literature. If you pay attention, most stories in this genre revolve around a moral dilemma that is resolved by the end. While they paint a future world, their implications speak directly to the present environment of the readers. In this respect, Wandering Earth is no different. The movie grapples with how humanity responds to impending doom.

The story happens in the near future where natural disasters become commonplace. A warming climate, droughts, torrential rains, hurricanes happen in higher frequency because the Sun is collapsing and inching closer to Earth. Humanity has 100 years to come up with a plan.

What is the plan? Send a few souls to space in order to start a new civilization? No. Shoot the Sun with a gigantic nuclear bazooka? Nope. How about moving the whole friggin Earth out of the Solar system? Yep, that’s the plan. How? By building enormous reactors in 10,000 places on earth, burning mountains, and sheltering 3.5 Billion people underground.

Talk about a grand plan!

The idea is to shuttle the whole planet 4.2 light-years away into a new galaxy where they can find a new sun. How long will that take? Not 100 or even 1000 years but 2,500 years to complete! Needless to say, this multi-generational project entails immense sacrifice of present generations so future descendants can simply live. The main storyline revolves around one family and their fate in this great scheme. It defines hope as the collective will to persevere for a better future.

Photo by Rod Long on Unsplash

A Distinct Story Line

I hope by now you can see what makes the Wandering Earth different from other epic doomsday blockbusters. As the world is facing insurmountable challenges, humanity opts for a daring long-view solution. We also see this theme in Cixin Liu’s award-winning novel The Three-Body Problem, where the planet learns of alien invaders 400 years out.

Could this be a metaphor for climate change? Maybe, but it sure is a refreshing alternative to the once-and-done happy ending prevalent in Hollywood cinematic stories. The deeper question that confronts us is not whether we have what it takes to avert an imminent disaster but do we have the generational resolve to work for long-term plans of salvation?

In this way, the millenary Chinese culture offers the long-view perspective as an alternative route to solving global intractable problems. With that said, the movie is still a blockbuster for a reason. There is no shortage of entertaining visuals and the tech is stunning. On the downside, the personal storylines could have been a bit more polished and the plot is hard to follow at times. Even so, the overall result is still an impressive accomplishment.

Screenshot from the Wandering Earth‘s movie scene

The Thousand-Year Reign

Now, let’s turn to some theological reflection. The book of Revelation in the New Testament is filled with mysterious imagery. While many throughout time have claimed to understand it, the imagery continues to elude modern readers and believers alike. As I reflected on the movie, I wondered how would a long view of redemption interact with the Biblical story. Hence, this review probes how Wandering Earth apocalyptic hope squares with the Biblical apocalyptic literature.

At first glance and heavily influenced by dispensational theology, a reading of the last book of the NT may yield a sense of a quick succession of events. That is, the doomsday scenario will unfold in a matter of years and certainly within a generation. No place for a long view plan in this perspective.

However, the text may not lend itself to these certainties. Any text built on imagery is wide open for interpretation. Hence, when John the Revelator talks about 3 1/2 years, these may not be literal years. Furthermore, chapter 20 introduces the idea of the Millenial reign. This is a period of peace where the faithful reign with God as our ultimate enemy is imprisoned and unable to thwart our plans.

This is not to say that the Bible suggests a millenary plan to move earth across galaxies. The idea is more of a dramatic liberation followed by a long period of peace. With that said, the millennial reign does open the way for a human-divine partnership in the service of earth stewardship. In this way, the 1,000 years, literal or not, provides a nod to a long view.

Screenshot from Wandering Earth Movie

Re-Considering Wandering Earth‘s Long View

At the end of the day, movies like Wandering Earth are meant primarily to entertain us with fantastic visuals and unexpected plot twists. Hence, I don’t claim to speak for the author or movie director. However, there is enough there to give us reason to ponder. In an age where multiple sources fight for our attention in a split second of a finger scroll, it is wise to expand our time horizons. An inordinate focus on the immediate crisis can rob us of the hope and resolve to build a sustainable future for the generations to come. If for nothing else, the movie is worth your time for that alone.

Furthermore, the interaction with the long view also allowed me to re-think the meaning of millenary biblical texts. While Christian theology continues to over-emphasize an imminent redemption through Christ’s return, we do well to take a pause and consider a longer time horizon. If anything, followers of Christ have been anticipating a return for over 2,000 years. Could it be that we missed something about how this is to unfold? As we grapple with these questions, it is wise to engage Eastern voices offering alternative perspectives. As this review stated earlier, Wandering Earth apocalyptic hope can help us better understand a Christian view of the future as well.

The Glaring Omission of Religious Voices in AI Ethics

Pew Research released a report predicting the state of AI ethics in 10 years. The primary question was: will AI systems have robust ethical principles focused on the common good by 2030? Of the over 600 experts who responded, 2/3 did not believe this would happen. Yet, this was not the most surprising thing about the report. Looking over the selection of responders, there was no clergy or academics of religion included. In the burgeoning field of AI ethics research, we are missing the millenary wisdom of religious voices.

Reasons to Worry and Hope

In a follow-up webinar, the research group presented the 7 main findings from the survey. They are the following:

Concerning Findings

1. There is no consensus on how to define AI ethics. Context, nature and power of actors are important.

2. Leading actors are large companies and governments that may not have the public interest at the center of their considerations.

3. AI is already deployed through opaque systems that are impossible to dissect. This is the infamous “black box” problem pervasive in most machine learning algorithms.

4. The AI race between China and the United States will shape the direction of development more than anything else. Furthermore, there are rogue actors that could also cause a lot of trouble

Hopeful Findings

5. AI systems design will be enhanced by AI itself which should speed up the mitigation of harmful effects.

6. Humanity has made acceptable adjustments to similar new technology in the past. Users have the power to bent AI uses towards their benefit.

7. There is widespread recognition of the challenges of AI. In the last decade, awareness has increased significantly resulting in efforts to regulate and curb AI abuses. The EU has led the way in this front.

Photo by Wisnu Widjojo on Unsplash

Widening the Table of AI Ethics with Faith

This eye-opening report confirms many trends we have addressed in this blog. In fact, the very existence of AI theology is proof of #7, showing that awareness is growing. Yet, I would add another concerning trend to the list above which is the narrow group of people in the AI ethics dialogue table. The field remains dominated by academic and industry leaders. However, the impact of AI is so ubiquitous that we cannot afford this lack of diversity.

Hopefully, this is starting to change. A recent New York Times piece outlines efforts of the AI and Faith network. The group consists of an impressive list of clergy, ethicists, and technologists who want to bring their faith values to the table. They seek to introduce the diverse universe of religious faith in AI ethics providing new questions and insights into this important task.

If we are to face the challenge of AI, why not start by consulting thousands of years of human wisdom? It is time we add religious voices to the AI ethics table as a purely secular approach will ostracize the majority of the human population.

We ignore them to our peril.