Sci, Tech & Religion Integration Archives

Future Scenario: Humanity Rises to Address Climate Change

In a previous blog, we introduced our first scenario for the AI Futures project. Here we present our second scenario, Planetary Regeneration, which envisions high geopolitical cooperation that rises to meet the challenge of climate change. This hopeful scenario is not without its painful chapters yet it illustrates a viable path to a flourishing future.

Also, please be sure to check out our AI 2045 Writing Contest. This will be one of the scenarios used for the stories.

Every crisis is an invitation for change. Death and destruction often come before renewal can begin. 2025, later known as the Year of Reckoning, rocks the planet to its core. Climate change chaos comes early with massive floods, droughts, deadly hurricanes, and Tsunamis. Furthermore, acidification of significant portions of the ocean causes massive extinction of marine life and serious disruption to coastal economies along with food shortage.

While all these things were happening more frequently, the intensity and relentlessness of 2025 were unheard of. Modern civilization had never experienced such instability before which may explain the unraveling that followed.

Climate chaos rocked the geopolitical system sending the world economy into a nosedive. Pervasive disruption in the supply chain sent food soaring. Fortune 500 companies collapsed overnight unable to come through with their commitments to debtors and employees. The financial system collapsed as millions orchestrate a sudden run-on-banks desperate for cash. Unemployment reaches 30% in major areas of the world. Most communities experience chaos and violence where the market is no longer able to regulate day-to-day transactions. Cities across Latin America become battle zones run by gangs and militias as governments are unable to pay for standing police forces.

Fragile regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central America descend into bloody civil wars. While middle-income and rich countries’ government hold, there are pockets of anarchy everywhere with a steep increase in crime and lawlessness. Scarcity of food, jobs, and basic services rekindle old wounds of inequality and racial strife. In collapsing economic systems, the battle between the haves and have-nots violently played out on the streets.

Economic armageddon and localized anarchy eventually leads to a nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan. Decades-old grievances over the partition that happened nearly a century earlier combined with extreme drought exacerbated animosity in the region which quickly escalates into armed conflict. The world watches in horror as Karachi is decimated by an atomic bomb killing half of its population. Pakistan retaliates hitting Delhi with a powerful bomb that kills millions. Before things get worse a UN coalition led by US, China, Britain, and Russia descend on the region to ensure the war stops. A treaty is signed and an UN-led multinational army is stationed in the region to ensure peace is maintained.

Dall-e impressionist rendition of global cooperation

A Reeling world rally behind an UN-led coalition to rebuild the affected nations and ensure global cooperation and sustainability becomes paramount. In an unprecedented move, the UN general assembly votes for a 30 day global period of mourning to bury the dead from the war and natural disasters which later were reported to reach 100 million. A long period of mourning inaugurates 2026 when for a whole month, the world experiences a voluntary COVID-like stoppage.

Transportation is kept to a minimum along with the essential services. It is also a time of reflection where a global consensus emerges that the world politico-economic system must undergo sweeping change. A summit is called where all head-of-state converge in New York to draw out plans for a new economy to emerge. With the image of nuclear devastation fresh in their minds, humanity goes to work to re-imagine a new social order.

The global commons embarks on a 20-year plan to regenerate the planet. At the heart of the plan is a resolve to not let the 100 million fatalities of 2025 be in vain. In the depths of grief, humanity enters a liminal space and a global consciousness emerges permeating large swaths of the population. While some resist cooperation, a courageous remnant rallies around a cry for regeneration.

AI development is not immune to the year of reckoning. As part of the rebuilding of the social order, AI research undergoes a complete re-prioritization. In a 2026 global AI summit, industry leaders are joined by policymakers, clergy, and civic leaders to re-align AI priorities. At this gathering a global fund is established for research in 6 key areas 1) Green AI; 2) Finance AI; 3) AI Education; 4) AI Health; 5) Governance AI (explainable and anti-corruption) 6) General AI (project GAIA). Funded by corporations and world governments, grants are made available for research under the condition that the findings are shared widely and transparently. A ban is established on AI warfare. They also opt for a global tax on robotic automation to fund massive programs to re-tool displaced workers.

The human metanoia starts paying off as early as 2033. After 7 grueling years of rebuilding, re-directing, and reforming, a globally coordinated effort to move countries to a circular (doughnut economy) economy takes hold. Global warming halts at 1.5 while distributive economies start ensuring no one gets dropped from the donut bottom half. There is still inequality but the basic needs of food, housing, basic healthcare, and education are mostly addressed.

Dall-e rendition of beauty from ashes using Van Gogh’s style

Global cooperation becomes the norm and national allegiances are slowly replaced by regional commonwealths based more on biome similarities than political constructs. International zones are established around the main ports of entry to the West in the Mediterranean and the US southern border. Opportunity cities are erected to receive migrants coming North giving them enough support and preparation for either a migration to a new home or a return to their place of origin.

The Catholic church follows Pope Francis’ lead. Inspired by Laudato si, the church takes a decisive turn towards dialogue with other religions, a greater focus on earthcare and service to the poor. In a watershed event, women are allowed to be priests and in 2043, the first woman pope emerges. This reform is not without turmoil. Internal conservative factions threaten to break off and some dioceses keep to traditional ways in open defiance of Roman leadership. Jesuits and Dominicans turn more conservative as a counterweight to Franciscan dominance. On the ground, mass attendance and baptism decline globally with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa and pockets in Asia. In the US and Europe, small study groups, inspired by the “comunidades de base” pop up all over providing needed liturgical innovation and a strengthened focus on environmental and equity activism. By 2045, they amount to a significant and growing minority whose influence spills way beyond its numbers.

In spite of effervescent renewal movements in the fringes, mainline attendance, and financial clout diminishes over time. Many churches, seminaries, and parachurch ministries that were dependent on the parish system collapsed as greying congregations do not rejuvenate. Buildings turn into libraries, museums, community centers, and businesses. The only exception is large urban cathedrals that are able to wade through the crisis. Sub-Saharan Africa also follows an outlier path, where congregations follow more native liturgy and seek to distance themselves from the dying institutions of the North.

After the year of reckoning, Evangelicals undergo a deep metanoia turning away from dispensational fears to an Isaiah 9-inspired call to care for the earth. Missions expand to include environmental work. While still holding to a traditional view of the Bible, influential pastors lead the way to the greening of evangelicalism. Pentecostals dive deeper into mysticism and more nature-friendly spiritual practices.

Sunday church attendance declines but weekly events bring new demographics into the fold as congregations experience deep transformation. Solar panels, workspaces, and community gardens become commonplace. Climate deniers become a minority of holdouts in rural and suburban pockets. Evangelicals embrace the switch to digital forms of gathering creating strong global networks to spread a more green-conscious gospel.

In spite of tremendous green progress in institutional Christianity, the fringes continue to grow steadily in this period as many decide that organized Christianity is no longer an option but Jesus is still “alright with them.” Without coalescing around any one movement, this growing group makes its presence known first in Europe and North America, eventually in Latin America, pockets of Asia, and urban areas of Sub-Saharan Africa. They grow along with the global middle class and pursue spiritual practices mediated primarily through digital means. These are also active in the metaverse where they experiment with VR/AR and AI-assisted faith practices. They are both reviled and admired by mainstream Christianity and mostly align with a greener faith focusing on the connection of all things.

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 E U 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.

Netflix “Eden”: Human Frailty in a Technological Paradise

Recently, my 11 year-old daughter told me she wanted to watch animes. I have watched a few and was a bit concerned about her request. While I have come to really appreciate this art form, I feared that some thematic elements would not be appropriate to her 11 year-old mind. Yet, after watching the first episode of Netflix Eden, my concerns were appeased and I invited my two oldest (11 and 9) to watch it with me. With only 4 episodes of 25 minutes each, the series make it for a great way to spend a lazy Saturday afternoon. Thankfully, beyond being suitable there was enough that for me to reflect on. In fact, captivating characters and an enchanting soundtrack moved me to tears making Netflix Eden a delightful exploration of human frailty.

Here is my review of this heart-warming, beautifully written story.

Official Trailer

A Simple but Compelling Plot

Without giving a way much, the story revolves around a simple structure. From the onset we learn that no human have lived on earth for 1,000 years. Self-sufficient robots successfully turned a polluted wasteland into a lush oasis. The first scenes show groups of robots tending and harvesting an apple orchard.

Two of these robots stumble into an unlikely finding: a human child. Preserved in a cryogenic capsule, the toddler stumbles out and wails. The robots are confused and helpless as to how to respond. They quickly identify her as a human bio-form but cannot comprehend what her crying means.

After the initial shock, the toddler turns to the robots and calls them “papa” and “mama” kicking off the story. The plot develops around the idea of two robots raising a human child in a human-less planet earth. We also learn that humans are perceived as a threat and to be surrendered to the authorities. In spite of their programming, the robots choose to hide and protect the girl.

Photo by Bruno Melo on Unsplash

Are Humans Essential for Life to Flourish on Earth?

Even with only 4 episodes, the anime packs quite a philosophical punch. From a theological perspective, the careful observer quickly sees why the show is named after the Biblical garden. It is an illusion to the Genesis’ story where life begins on earth yet it includes with a twist. Now Eden is lush and thriving without human interference. It is as if God is recreating earth through technological means. This echoes Francis Bacon’s vision of technology as a way to mitigate the destructive effects of the fall.

Later we learn the planet had become uninhabitable. The robot creators envisioned a solution that entailed freezing cryogenically a number of humans while the robots worked to restore earth back to its previous glory. The plan apparently works except for the wrinkle of this girl waking up before her assigned time. Just like in the original story of Eden, humans come to mess it up.

Embedded in this narrative is the provocative question of human ultimate utility for life in the planet. After all, if machines are able to manage the earth flawlessly, why introduce human error? Of course, the flip side of the question is the belief that machines in themselves are free of error. Putting that aside, the question is still valid.

Photo by Alesia Kazantceva on Unsplash

Human Frailty and Renewal

Watching the story unfold, I could not help but reflect on Dr. Dorabantu’s past post on how AI would help us see the image of God in our vulnerability. That is, learning that robots could surpass us in rationality, we would have to attribute our uniqueness not to a narrow view of intelligence but our ability to love. The anime seems to be getting at the heart of this question and it gets there by using AI. It is in the Robot’s journey to understand human’s essence that we learn about what makes us unique in creation. In this way, the robots become the mirrors that reflect our image back to us.

Another parallel here is with the biblical story of Noah. In a world destroyed by pollution and revived through technological ingenuity, the ark is no longer a boat but a capsule. Humans are preserved by pausing the aging process in their bodies, a clear nod to Transhumanism. The combination of cryogenics and advanced AI can preseve human life on earth albeit for a limited number of humans.

I left the story feeling grateful for our imperfect humanity. It is unfortunate that Christian theology in an effort to paint a perfect God have in turn made human vulnerability seem undesirable. Without denying our potential for harm and destruction, namely our sinfulness, it is time Christian theology embraces and celebrate human vulnerability as part of our Imago Dei. This way, Netflix Eden, helps put human frailty back in the conversation.

How AI and Faith Communities Can Empower Climate Resilience in Cities

AI technologies continue to empower humanity for good. In a previous blog, we explored how AI was empowering government agencies to fight deforestation in the Amazon. In this blog, we discuss the role AI is playing to build climate resilience in cities. We will also look at how faith communities can use AI-enabled microgrids to serve communities hit by climate disassters.

A Changing Climate Puts Cities in Harm way.

I recently listened to an insightful Technopolis podcast on how cities are preparing for an increased incidence of natural disasters. The episode discussed manifold ways city leaders are using technology to prepare, predict and mitigate the impact of climate events. This is a complex challenge that requires a combination of good governance, technological tools, and planning to tackle.

Climate resilience is not just about decreasing carbon footprint, it is also about preparing for the increased incidence of extreme weather. Whether there are fires in California, Tifoons in East Asia, or severe droughts in Northern Africa, the planet is in for a bumpy ride in the coming decades. They will also exacerbate existing problems such as air pollution, water scarcity and heat diseases in urban areas. Governments and civic society groups need to start bracing for this reality by taking bold preventive steps in the present.

Cities illustrate the costs of delaying action on climate change by enshrining resource-intensive infrastructure and behaviors. The choices cities make today will determine their ability to handle climate change and reap the benefits of resource-efficient growth. Currently, 51% of the world’s population lives in cities and within a generation, an estimated two-thirds of the world’s population will live in cities. Hence, addressing cities’ vulnerabilities will be crucial for human life on the planet.

Photo by Karim MANJRA on Unsplash

AI and Climate Resilience

AI is a powerful tool to build climate resilience. We can use it to understand our current reality better, predict future weather events, create new products and services, and minimize human impact. By doing so, we can not only save and improve lives but also create a healthier world while also making the economy more efficient.

Deep learning, for example, enables better predictions and estimates of climate change than ever before. This information can be used to identify major vulnerabilities and risk zones. For example, in the case of fires, better prediction can not only identify risk areas but also help understand how it will spread in those areas. As you can imagine, predicting the trajectory of a fire is a complex task that involves a plethora of variables related to wind, vegetation, humidity, and other factors

The Gifts of Satellite Imagery

Another crucial area in that AI is becoming essential is satellite imagery. Research led by Google, the Mila Institute and the German Aerospace Center harness AI to develop and make sense of extensive datasets on Earth. This in turn empowers us to better understand climate change from a global perspective and to act accordingly.

Combining integrated global imagery with sophisticated modeling capabilities gives communities at risk precious advance warning to prepare. Governments can work with citizens living in these areas to strengthen their ability to mitigate extreme climate impacts. This will become particularly salient in coastal communities that should see their shores recede in the coming decades.

This is just one example of how AI can play a prominent role in climate resilience. A recent paper titled “Tackling Climate Change with Machine Learning,” revealed 13 areas where ML can be developed. They include but are not limited to energy consumption, CO2 removal, education, solar energy, engineering, and finance. Opportunities in these areas include the creation of new low-carbon materials, better monitoring of deforestation, and cleaner transport.

Microgrids and Faith Communities

If climate change is the defining test of our generation, then technology alone will not be enough. As much as AI can help find solutions, the threat calls for collective action at unprecedented levels. This is both a challenge and an opportunity for faith communities seeking to re-imagine a future where their relevance surpasses the confines of their pews.

Thankfully, faith communities already play a crucial role in disaster relief. Their buildings often double as shelter and service centers when calamity strikes. Yet, if climate-related events will become more frequent, these institutions must expand their range of services offered to affected populations.

An example of that is in the creation of AI-managed microgrids. They are small, easily controllable electricity systems consisting of one or more generating units connected to nearby users and operated locally. Microgrids contain all the elements of a complex energy system, but because they maintain a balance between production and consumption, they operate independently of the grid. These systems work well with renewable energy sources further decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels

When climate disaster strikes, one of the first things to go is electricity. What if houses of worship, equipped with microgrids, become the places to go for those out of power? When the grid fails, houses of worship could become the lifeline for a neighborhood helping impacted populations communicate with family, charge their phones, and find shelter from cold nights. Furthermore, they could sell their excess energy units in the market finding new sources of funding for their spiritual mission.

Microgrids in churches, synagogues, and mosques – that’s an idea the world can believe in. It is also a great step towards climate resilience.

How Does AI Compare with Human Intelligence? A Critical Look

In the previous post I argued that AI can be of tremendous help in our theological attempt to better understand what makes humans distinctive and in the image of God. But before jumping to theological conclusions, it is worth spending some time trying to understand what kind of intelligence machines are currently developing, and how much similarity is there between human and artificial intelligence.Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

The short answer is, not much. The current game in AI seems to be the following: try to replicate human capabilities as well as possible, regardless of how you do it. As long as an AI program produces the desired output, it does not matter how humanlike its methods are. The end result is much more important than what goes on ‘on the inside,’ even more so in an industry driven by enormous financial stakes.

Good Old Fashioned AI

This approach was already at work in first wave of AI, also known as symbolic AI or GOFAI (good old-fashioned AI). Starting with the 1950s, the AI pioneers struggled to replicate our ability to do math and play chess, considered the epitome of human intelligence, without any real concern for how such results were achieved. They simply assumed that this must be how the human mind operates at the most fundamental level, through the logical manipulation of a finite number of symbols.

GOFAI ultimately managed to reach human-level in chess. In 1996, an IBM program defeated the human world-champion, Gary Kasparov, but it did it via brute force, by simply calculating millions of variations in advance. That is obviously not how humans play chess.

Although GOFAI worked well for ‘high’ cognitive tasks, it was completely incompetent in more ‘mundane’ tasks, such as vision or kinesthetic coordination. As roboticist Hans Moravec famously observed, it is paradoxically easier to replicate the higher functions of human cognition than to endow a machine with the perceptive and mobility skills of a one-year-old. What this means is that symbolic thinking is not how human intelligence really works.

The Advent of Machine Learning

What replaced symbolic AI since roughly the turn of the millennium is the approach known as machine learning (ML). One subset of ML that has proved wildly successful is deep learning, which uses layers of artificial neural networks. Loosely inspired by the brain’s anatomy, this algorithm aims to be a better approximation of human cognition. Unlike previous AI versions, it is not instructed on how to think. Instead, these programs are being fed huge sets of selected data, in order to develop their own rules for how the data should be interpreted.

For example, instead of teaching an ML algorithm that a cat is a furry mammal with four paws, pointed ears, and so forth, the program is trained on hundreds of thousands of pictures of cats and non-cats, by being ‘rewarded’ or ‘punished’ every time it makes a guess about what’s in the picture. After extensive training, some neural pathways become strengthened, while others are weakened or discarded. The end result is that the algorithm does learn to recognize cats. The flip side, however, is that its human programmers no longer necessarily understand how the conclusions are reached. It is a sort of mathematical magic.

ML algorithms of this kind are behind the impressive successes of contemporary AI. They can recognize objects and faces, spot cancer better than human pathologists, translate text instantly from one language to another, produce coherent prose, or simply converse with us as smart assistants. Does this mean that AI is finally starting to think like us? Not really.

When machines fail, they fail badly, and for different reasons than us.

Even when machines manage to achieve human or super-human level in certain cognitive tasks, they do it in a very different fashion. Humans don’t need millions of examples to learn something, they sometimes do very fine with at as little as one example. Humans can also usually provide explanations for their conclusions, whereas ML programs are often these ‘black boxes’ that are too complex to interrogate.

More importantly, the notion of common sense is completely lacking in AI algorithms. Even when their average performance is better than that of human experts, the few mistakes that they do make reveal a very disturbing lack of understanding from their part. Images that are intentionally perturbed so slightly that the adjustment is imperceptible to humans can still cause algorithms to misclassify them completely. It has been shown, for example, that sticking minuscule white stickers, almost imperceptible to the human eye, on a Stop sign on the road causes the AI algorithms used in self-driving vehicles to misclassify it as a Speed Limit 45 sign. When machines fail, they fail badly, and for different reasons than us.

Machine Learning vs Human Intelligence

Perhaps the most important difference between artificial and human intelligence is the former’s complete lack of any form of consciousness. In the words of philosophers Thomas Nagel and David Chalmers, “it feels like something” to be a human or a bat, although it is very difficult to pinpoint exactly what that feeling is and how it arises. However, we can intuitively say that very likely it doesn’t feel like anything to be a computer program or a robot, or at least not yet. So far, AI has made significant progress in problem-solving, but it has made zero progress in developing any form of consciousness or ‘inside-out-ness.’

Current AI is therefore very different from human intelligence. Although we might notice a growing functional overlap between the two, they differ strikingly in terms of structure, methodology, and some might even say ontology. Artificial and human intelligence might be capable of similar things, but that does not make them similar phenomena. Machines have in many respects already reached human level, but in a very non-humanlike fashion.

For Christian anthropology, such observations are particularly important, because they can inform how we think of the developments in AI and how we understand our own distinctiveness as intelligent beings, created in the image of God. In the next post, we look into the future, imagining what kind of creature an intelligent robot might be, and how humanlike we might expect human-level AI to become.

How to Integrate the Sacred with the Technical: an AI worldview

At first glance, the combination between AI and theology may sound like strange bedfellows. After all, what does technology have to do with spirituality? In our compartmentalization-prone western view, these disciplines are dealt with separately. Hence the first step on this journey is to reject this separation, aiming instead to hold these different perspectives in view simultaneously. Doing so fosters a new avenue for knowledge creation. Let’s begin by examining an AI worldview

What is AI?

AI is not simply a technology defined by algorithms that create outcomes out of binary code. Instead, AI brings with it a unique perspective on reality. For AI, in its present form, to exist there must be first algorithms, data, and adequate hardware. The first one came on the scene in the 1950s while the other two became a reality mostly in the last two decades. This may partially explain why we have been hearing about AI for a long time while only now it is actually impacting our lives on a large scale.

The algorithm in its basic form consists of a set of instructions to perform, such as to transform input into output. This can be as simple as taking the inputs (2,3), passing through an instruction (add them), and getting an output (5). If you ever made that calculation in your head, congratulations: you have used an algorithm. It is logical, linear, and repeatable. This is what gives it “machine” quality. It is an automated process to create outputs.

Data + Algorithms + Hardware = AI

Data is the very fuel of AI in its dominant form today. Without it, nothing would be accomplished. This is what differentiates programming from AI (machine learning). The first depends on a human person to imagine, direct and define the outcomes of an input. Machine learning is an automated process that takes data and transforms it into the desired outcome. It is learning because, although the algorithm is repeatable, the variability in the data makes the outcome unique and at times hard to predict. It involves risk but it also yields new knowledge. The best that human operators can do is to monitor the inputs and outputs while the machine “learns” from new data.

Data is digitized information so that it can be processed by algorithms. Human brains operate in an analog perspective, taking information from the world and processes them through neural pulses. Digital computers need information to be first translated into binary code before they can “understand” it. As growing chunks of our reality are digitized, the more the machines can learn.

All of this takes energy to take shape. If data is like the soul, algorithms like the mind, then hardware is like the body. It was only in the last few decades when, through fast advancement, it was possible to apply AI algorithms to the commensurate amount of data needed for them to work properly. The growth in computing power is one of the most underrated wonders of our time. This revolution is the engine that allowed algorithms to process and make sense of the staggering amount of data we now produce. The combination of the three made possible the emergence of an AI ecosystem of knowledge creation. Not only that but the beginning of an AI worldview.

Photo by Franki Chamaki on Unsplash

Seeing the World Through Robotic Eyes

How can AI be a worldview? How does it differ from existing human-created perspectives? It is so because its peculiar process of information processing in effect crafts a new vision of the world. This complex machine-created perspective has some unique traits worth mentioning. It is backward-looking but only to recent history. While we have a wealth of data nowadays, our record still does not go back for more than 20-30 years. This is important because it means it will bias the recent past and the present as it looks into the future.

Furthermore, an AI worldview while recent past-based is quite sensitive to emerging shifts. In fact, algorithms can detect variations much faster than humans. That is an important trait in providing decision-makers with timely warnings of trouble or opportunities ahead. In that sense, if foreseeing a world that is about to arrive. A reality that is here but not yet. Let the theologians understand.

It is inherently evidence-based. That it is, it approaches data with no presuppositions. Instead, especially at the beginning of a training process, it looks at from the equivalent of a child’s eyes. This is both an asset and a liability. This open view of the world enables it to discover new insights that would otherwise pass unnoticed to human brains that rely on assumptions to process information. It is also a liability because it can mistake an ordinary even for extraordinary simply because it is the first time it encounters it. In short, it is prime for forging innovation as long as it is accompanied by human wisdom.

Rationality Devoid of Ethics

Finally, and this is its more controversial trait, It approaches the world with no moral compass. It applies logic devoid of emotion and makes decisions without the benefit of high-level thinking. This makes it superior to human capacity in narrow tasks. However, it is utterly inadequate for making value judgments.

It is true that with the development of AGI (artificial general intelligence), it may acquire capabilities more like human wisdom than it is today. However, since machine learning (narrow AI) is the type of technology mostly present in our current world, it is fair to say that AI is intelligent but not wise, fast but not discerning, and accurate but not righteous.

This concludes the first part of this series of blogs. In the next blog, I’ll define the other side of this integration: theology. Just like AI, theology requires some preliminary definitions before we can pursue integration.

Integrating Technology and Religion in a Post-Secular World

This blog discusses how the post-secular can be a fitting stage for the promising dialogue between religion, science and technology.

Last Friday I “zoomed into” a stimulating academic dialogue entitled “Theology, Technology and the Post-Secular.” In it, a world-class team of scholars explored how the intersection of theology, science, and technology has evolved in the last 50 years and where it is going in the future. In this blog, I’ll provide a short overview of the conversation while also offering reflections on how the discussion enriches our dialogue in the AI theology community.

If the post-secular is our reality, it is time we learn how to build bridges there.

An Overview of the Field

The talk started with Dr. Tirosh-Samuelson asking Dr. Burdett to provide a short overview of the burgeoning field of religion and science. In the United States, the establishing of the Zygon journal of religion and science inaugurated the dialogue in 1966. In essence, the challenge was to find a place where these two can interact. Science tends to bracket the question of metaphysics (why things are the way they are) while religion lives in that space. This can often lead to misunderstanding and members of each side talking past each other.

Rejecting the notion of incompatibility, Dr. Burdett prefers to define the relationship as complex. For example, on the one hand, theology paved the way for scientific inquiry by first positing a belief in an orderly world. On the other hand, Christian Geocentrism clashed directly with Galileo’s accurate Heliocentric view. Therefore, the theologian believes in forging integrative models where conflict is not glossed over but carefully sorted out through respectful dialogue.

According to Dr. Burdett, the field is currently undergoing a shift from natural to human sciences. While the conversation started in topics like the implications Big Bang and Evolution, the focus now is on Neuroscience, questions of personhood and cognitive science of religion. The field has zoomed in from the macro view of cosmology to the micro view of anthropology.

Furthermore, the field is shying away from theoretical discussions opting instead to work on concrete questions. This new focus highlights where science and religion meet in the social-political stage. For example, how does religion and science interact when someone is considering in vitro fertilization? How do religion and science meet in people’s decision to take the vaccine? How does one comprehend the motivation of climate change deniers? These are just a few questions fueling research in this nascent field.

Image by Michael Schwarzenberger from Pixabay

A Theologian in a Tech-saturated World

In the next segment, Dr. Gaymon Bennett asked Dr. Burdett to speak about the role of the theologian in a technology-saturated world. How can a theologian tell a compelling story in the public square to those who do not align with his religious beliefs? Do religious perspectives still have a place in a secular world?

In his answer, Dr. Burdett pointed to Vatican II’s formula of Ressourcement and Agiornamiento. The first word has to do with a return to the sources, namely, the traditions and writings of the faith. It means examining carefully what we received through tradition and practices from past generations. The second points to updating that knowledge to the current context. How can these sources speak fresh insight into new evolving questions? The dual movement of reaching for the past while engaging with the present becomes a vital framework on how to do public theology in our times.

To illustrate the point, Dr. Burdett shared a personal anecdote about his journey to scholarship. Growing up in Northern California in the 1990s, he asked “what are the main driving forces shaping culture?” To him, it was clear that the rise of PCs, the Internet, and smartphones would categorically transform society. What would theology have to say about that? He wanted to know it from a technical perspective so he could see it from the inside. This is what moved him to focus his studies on the intersection of theology and technology after a stint in the industry.

Photo by Natalya Letunova on Unsplash

Grappling with the Post-Secular

Closer to the end, the conversation shifted towards grappling with the term “post-secular.” For decades, western society divided the world between the secular and the religious, with little intersection between the two. Science and technology have in effect been the major driving forces of secularism. Yet, we now find Silicon Valley, arguably the global center of this marriage, teeming with religious aspirations.

Even so, Dr. Burdett suggested that we still live in a God-haunted world. The removal of religion from public life left a jarring vacuum yet to be replaced. Along with religion was also any notion of the supernatural, all sacrificed in the altar of Modernity. Victorian poet Matthew Arnold expresses this sentiment well in the following verses from Dover Beach:

  The Sea of Faith
  Was once, too, at the full, and round earth’s shore
  Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
  But now I only hear
  Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
  Retreating, to the breath
  Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
  And naked shingles of the world.

This vacuum generated a thirst for new avenues of meaning. This in turn dethroned science as the sole arbiter of truth as it proved inadequate to fill humanity’s soul. The post-secular dashes the illusion that science and technology are sufficient to explain the world and therefore cannot be elevated above other views. Instead, it is a space where religious, mystical, and secular (scientific and technological) views are on the same footing again. The task, therefore, is to bring all these disparate perspectives into respectful dialogue while recognizing their common goals.

Reflections and Implications

Here I offer a few reflections. The first one relates to an important clarification. Throughout the dialogue, the unspoken assumption was that the relationship between religion and science was equivalent to that of religion and technology. However, it is worth noting that while science and technology are deeply intertwined today, that was not always the case. Hence, I would love to see an interdisciplinary branch that focuses on questions of religion and technology independent of science.

It was also illuminating to see scholars name a phenomenon we have been experiencing for a while now. While I have not heard of the term before, its reality resonates well. Nowhere else is this more true than in the cyber global space of social media. Given the pervasive nature of these platforms, this reality is also spilling over to other spheres of human connection. University, churches, companies, and non-profits are also becoming post-secular spaces. This is a fascinating, harrowing, and alarming development all at once.

Finally, I would add that it is not just about connecting with ultimate meaning but also about a return to nature. Whether it is the climate crisis or the blatant confession of how disconnected we are from creation, the post-secular is about digging down to our roots.

Maybe the sea of faith is not just calling us to ultimate meaning but also to encounter the oceans again.

Is Theology Relevant to Artificial Intelligence?

What does Theology have to do with Artificial Intelligence? What does Jerusalem have to do with Silicon Valley? In this blog, I want to address this question head-on to show that theology is not just relevant but much needed in the current debates about AI.

If social media is any indication, not everyone sees the connection between AI and Theology. Consider a recent discussion I had in Facebook where a contributor expressed the following view:

“The more I read [your blog, the more] I feel like you have to justify to us the introduction of the subject of theology in discussions about AI because I don’t see the relevance.”

Challenge accepted! Simply put, if I can’t answer this question satisfactorily, I have no business keeping this blog.

I acknowledge that readers come to this blog from diverse backgrounds. While a good number are Christians, there are also some that are not affiliated with Christianity or any faith at all. I want to respond having the second group in mind. The question that may arise is whether Theology (especially the Christian type, which is mostly associated with the discipline) is relevant to the topic of Artificial Intelligence. Furthermore, if it is relevant, does it have anything meaningful to say that warrants a place at the table of AI debates?

The Human Connection

For starters, I would define theology (and religion) and the development of Artificial Intelligence as human endeavors. Why point that out? I want to point to the fact that both disciplines emanate from our shared human experience. What differentiates AI from other technologies is its perennial connection with human intelligence. While human intelligence is not the only intelligence as one could argue that other animals have their own unique intelligence, it is inevitably our starting point. Technology, like all other human endeavors, is a creative expression of who we are, whether we acknowledge it or not. The primary focus of AI is to mimic human intelligence, therefore establishing humanity at the center of it.

Theology, while focused on the divine, is greatly interested in humanity. The study of the divine is incomplete without a starting point that emanates from humanity. In that sense, it is similar to AI, because it uses humanity as a primary point of reference. We cannot define or speak of the divine without bringing it analogically to a human dimension. Christian theology does not speak of an abstract idea about God but one that is deeply personal.

AI as Playing God

While the human connection is important, this is not enough to explain the relevance of theology. For that we must turn to the god connection that links these two subjects. Consider the provocative statement Kevin Kelly (one of the founders of Wired magazine) made in the turn of the century:

As we attempt to create from scratch life, and other minds, and perhaps someday other universes, we need a better catalog of god-ness, and a more exact notion of what species of god is best for what kind of creation. As we become better gods we must become better theologians. It is sort of like how the Web forces everybody to be a librarian; what once was left to esoteric professionals is now everybody’s business.

When we step in the business of creating intelligent machines, we are stepping into the realm of divine. This is new territory for humanity where we must thread with caution. If AI is playing God, can Theology offer a playbook? Yet, what if developing intelligence is a step in becoming more like God? If so, we might have something to learn from a discipline that has attempted to explain the divine for centuries.

Regardless of whether you see the divine as a human construct or a real being, theology can still be relevant. If you are in the first camp, wouldn’t it be interesting to learn how our ancestors imagined God? Wouldn’t their reflection, their cautionary tales and utopias, be instructive in helping us navigate the road to an AI future?

Hope and Imagination

In a recent article, Beth Singler explored the striking similarity between the language of techno-enthusiast and religious people. She shows how the conversation around AI today connects her to concepts she had heard in Sunday School as a child. What could be the connecting thread? Hope and imagination. To talk about an AI future, forces us to imagine what we cannot see. Faith is defined as believing in things we hope for but cannot see. In the same way, Science Fiction literature express a hope for a better future or a warning to keep what is most dear to us. They may express different values, but their method is surprisingly similar.

It is hard to do justice in a 900 word blog to a topic that deserves volumes of books. Yet, I hope this writing can challenge some established mental models and crack open new horizons. I firmly believe that the conversation around AI has much to benefit from a theological perspective. I don’t claim it should be the only or even the dominant voice. Consequently, Theology has much to learn from AI as well. The challenge is whether we’ll move forward in courageous dialogue or let fear and misunderstanding keep these disciplines apart.

I certainly hope for the first option. Do you?

Why AI Theology?

My path here was certainly not intentional or carefully planned. For years, I’ve been asking ‌ how could I marry my work skills with my passion. Becoming a data scientist was not a carefully planned career. I kind of fell into it. Like many people in the workplace, my career arose out of a blend of opportunities, skill sets, curiosity and providence (a word I prefer from luck). I started working for a large bank right out of college. My initial plan was to do that for “a few years” until I would start doing what I was “called” to do. These few years turn into a decade and then more years. Throughout this time, I wondered what in the world I was doing in my job. That is also when I started pursuing a degree in Theology, in the hopes of a career change. For years, I saw these pursuits as separate endeavors, failing to see much connection between them.

As I started studying Theology while still working as a data scientist, I was constantly straddling these two worlds. They tap into different parts of our brain, requiring different skills. As a data professional, I see the world through tables organized in columns and rows. My primary function is to extract meaning out of these tables either by combining them, creating new ones or visualizing their information in clarifying ways. This can happen through summarization or modeling. At times, I am trying to answer questions while others, I am simply exploring the data.

As a Theology student, I see the world through text. We start with sacred text, written two Millennia ago in languages not spoken today. Beyond that, we work with an ungodly (no pun intended) amount of books based on reflection on the sacred text between the time the sacred texts were written and our present day. Beyond that, you reflect on the experience of the believing community and academy that enriches, confuses and at times undermines the sacred text. Yet Theology is not only about books. It is ‌about being human – how we experience the world around us and speak hope into it. Theology also informs and shapes values, morals and ideologies. That is ‌what has drawn me to it from an early age. So, even as the Sacred texts are studied and analyzed, that is a sense of gravitas often missing from most forms of knowledge.

While navigating these two world concurrently, I often saw them as incompatible. It is not that they are opposed to each other but that they seem to talk past each other. They ask different questions, seek other means to pursue answers and arrive at widely different conclusions. At its core, Theology is mostly concerned with how things should be. Data analysis strives to be a detached assessment of how things are. One example of that would be ‌global warming. Theology is mostly concerned with the moral implications of what causes global warming and how people will be affected. It then proposes an alternative way to relate to the environment, inspired by Christian revelation, that will lead to a more just future. A data analysis approach will look at past trends and then make assumptions for future forecast. Scientists gather heaps of data, develop complex models that provide benchmarks that will guide planning for the future (ie: an % increase of CO2 ‌ as the benchmark being discussed in the recent gathering of world leaders). Data analysis will also use test and control methods which determine which one has yielded the best results. A theological approach is not interested in what has worked but what is good.

As I approached the end of my theological education, I found myself longing for integration. In that pursuit, I began to ask what it would look like to interact Theology with technology. This convergence started taking shape as breakthroughs in computing power, big data and promising algorithms ushered Artificial Intelligence to the spotlight. Because data science is an essential part of AI, I saw opportunity in the horizon. As industry titans make their bet on Artificial Intelligence, data science became a promising field for employment. If these investments yield concrete applications, data science will become a regular function of organization across all industries just like finance and accounting is today.

Apart from the impact on data science, the advent of Artificial Intelligence raises profound questions. The idea that machine could act in such human-like manner that we may confuse them with people is mind-boggling. This clearly marks a new era of technological advancement requiring a multi-disciplinary engagement. Simply put, will human-made intelligence mirror our best or our worse? In that question, I believe the Christian tradition has much to contribute.

Yet, I don’t see many voices addressing the intersection of technology and Theology effectively. At best, these topics are discussed separately as if they did not interact. This in turn becomes my personal attempt to integrate the very worlds I live in, with the hopes it may bring insight and wisdom in answering the perennial question: How shall we then live in a world where Artificial Intelligence is a reality?

Here is a list of topics I plan to address in this blog:

What are the ethical implications of the increasing use of AI applications in our world?
What would it look like to do theology with AI and vice-versa – what would a theologically-informed AI look like?
Can AI be used for good and what would that look like?
Who gets to decide how AI will affect our way of life?

These are just a few questions worthy of exploration. Let the conversation begin.

Category: Sci, Tech & Religion Integration