In the previous blog, I introduced the new project AIT is embarking on and we invited the reader to start thinking about the future by looking first at the past. We now turn to scenario planning as a way to prepare for the future of AI and Faith. For those curious about this, Future studies is an academic field that has developed solid business practices in the last 50 years. I even considered pursuing a degree in it in my early 30’s but that’s a story for another day. The main point here is to mine some of these practices to see what could be useful as we engage in a project to imagine alternative futures for AI and faith.
What is Scenario Planning?
A common foresight practice for large institutions to engage in is scenario planning. In the 1970’s Royal Dutch Shell corporation leadership wanted to engage in a robust process to prepare for an uncertain future. While the company already employed forecasting techniques for short-term planning, leaders felt the need for a different approach as they looked into the mid and long-term future. They turned to a practice developed a decade earlier by the Rand corporation to help them imagine new futures.
Instead of spending too much energy trying to predict the future, the leadership group sought to create plausible scenarios. That is, instead of simply extrapolating current trends, they wanted to paint pictures of possible futures at a conceptual level. Their point was not to “get it right” but to challenge executives to consider multiple alternatives.
In the early ’00s, I participated in one of these sessions with my employer. It was an exciting experience for a young professional and probably one of the reasons I got hooked on future thinking and what inspired me to consider scenario planning for AI and faith. On that occasion, the group chose 2 main variables that would define our scenarios. Then, plotting in a graph, we would create 4 scenarios that would alternate high and low for each of the variables. Each quadrant would have a catchy name that described the combination of the two variables for each scenario as illustrated in the picture below:
Taken from Ribbonfarm.com
In essence, scenarios are nothing more than narratives about the future. They are not striving for accuracy but must be compelling, plausible, and memorable. This way, they can play an important role in painting a picture of the future that the decision-maker can prepare for.
Why Focus on Multiple Futures?
Looking at the chart above can be overwhelming and it begs the question: why build multiple futures? Wouldn’t that create more confusion over what to do next? That’s a fair question to anyone encountering this practice. Yet, there is a strong reason for doing so. Futurist Amy Webb explains it this way:
It’s about flexibility. Most people and organizations are very inflexible in how they think about the future. In fact, it’s difficult to imagine yourself in the future, and there are neurological reasons for that. Our brains are designed to deal with immediate problems, not future ones. That plus the pace of technology improvement is becoming so fast that we’re increasingly focused on the now. Collectively, we are learning to be “nowists,” not futurists.
Here’s the problem with a “nowist” mentality: when faced with uncertainty, we become inflexible. We revert to historical patterns, we stick to a predetermined plan, or we simply refuse to adopt a new mental model.
Thinking through alternative options forces us out of our short-term mentality. It also breaks us out of pre-conceived ideas based on the past about how the future may unfold. In short, scenario planning undercuts the tendency to predict the future putting the focus instead on the range of possibilities.
Who should engage in this practice?
By now, it should be clear why large organizations are already embedding this practice into their planning cycle. Yet, is that limited to large institutions? Should smaller entities or individuals consider this practice? I would contend the answer is a resounding yes. In a world of increasing uncertainty, there is a growing incentive for democratizing scenario planning.
Certainly, in the field of AI and faith, there is a pressing need for considering alternative futures. It would not be prudent to assume AI adoption or even the make-up of the faithful will remain constant. Communities of faith are still reeling from the disruptive effects of the COVID-19 crisis. AI development and adoption continue to march on at neck-breaking speed. Just between these two factors, the possibilities are quite numerous not even considering the uncertainties around climate change and geopolitics.
In a fast-changing world, we need to reject the dichotomy of resorting to old thinking patterns or accepting change in passive resignation. There is a third way which is preparing for possibilities with courage, caution, and hope. That is why AI theology is engaging in scenario planning discussions to paint alternative futures. This is how we can best serve church, industry, and academia.
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.
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.
Greatly encouraged by my lovely wife, I decided to start taking Yoga classes in the local gym this year. I must say my first classes were long painful lessons in my body’s inflexibility. Yet, as I stuck with it, I come to enjoy it and sense an impact not just in my physical but also mental and spiritual health.In this blog, I reflect on how practicing Yoga as little as twice a week has come to be an important practice in my spiritual walk.
I Suck at Yoga and that’s Good
For starters, I am not the athletic type. I would much rather read than go to the gym. Yes, I am a bona fide nerd who realized I was more than a head on a stick. Recently, I’ve been reluctantly taking on physical exercise because I know it is good for me. It feels like eating raw vegetables. As I get older, I realize that sedentary behaviors won’t help me live long. Also, I come to enjoy the endorphins that get released after an exercise session.
It goes without saying that my flexibility is fairly limited. In class, doing some of the poses move muscles I didn’t even know I had. Furthermore, I still cannot tell left from right without looking at my hands. So, when the teacher describes the next pose, it might as well be Greek. I get by through watching more advanced practitioners beside me. Often times, I find myself turning right when everybody else it turning left. That is when I delicately and slowly correct my position.
Needless to say, it is a humbling experience to join a class where people are lot more advanced than I am. As I am straining to balance or simply stretch, I am surrounded by master Yogis who turn their bodies into pretzels. That is when I think to myself: “Are you fu&%$ing kidding me?” Yes, lately most of my spiritual experiences have been accompanied by under-breath cussing.
I say this not just to amuse but to highlight the fact that doing something I suck at is actually a good thing. It serves to humble me while also destroying my illusions of competency and self-reliance. Slowly, I am learning to embrace the suckiness as I drench my mat with sweat while others stretch much further with little effort. Besides, I am not setting out to be a master yogi. I just want to learn to breathe.
Yoga is not Just Exercise
I suspected that there was more to Yoga then uncomfortable stretches. This only became more clear as I started practicing it. The class starts and ends with mindfulness exercises where we are quieting ourselves and focused on breathing. This is no “transcendental meditation” but it is baby steps to help us connect mind and body. As mentioned above, now that this nerd is discovering that he is more than a head, connecting with the body is becoming an important centering activity. It is so easy to ignore our bodies are when we forget that we are above all breathing beings.
Often times I have experienced a strong sense of peace and calm after a class. I’ll move slower, be less worried and at times become a better human to my wife and kids. This has been a great antidote for the anxiety I feel on the weekends. Usually, my week is intense between family, work, reading and writing. Yet, when the weekend comes, I feel a bit lost not knowing what to do with myself. Hence, doing Yoga on Saturday mornings has really helped smooth out anxiety and help structure the weekend.
I also sense that the effects of it lingers. First, I usually feel sore for the rest of the day but it is a satisfying soreness. It is like I pride myself in making these muscles work. At times, I have also noticed being more aware of what is going on emotionally with myself and even be more present. For someone who often lives in the clouds of ideas and future plans, anything that helps me be in the present is a big positive.
Walking into Uncharted Territory
When I wonder why I didn’t try this before, I know exactly why. In my evangelical upbringing, Yoga was considered a dangerous practice from a competing religion. What I experience today could scarcely classify as that. My Yoga teacher does not emphasize its Hindu roots. Just like Chinese food in America, it is a westernized, secularized, watered down version of the original Hindu practice.
Yet, regardless of that, I still catch myself feeling jealous by the fact that it came from a different religion than Christianity. Why couldn’t our traditions figure this out? Why did we insist on head-knowledge practices that do little for the body? There is historical precedent for meditation in the practices of Middle Age Christian mystics. Yet, that is not the same as full body practice that helps connect mind, body and spirit. In view of this realization, I wish I had discovered this earlier.
In this spiritual journey, sometimes I am finding the answers outside of the gates of familiar Christian teachings. I don’t see this is an endorsement of Hinduism as a religions but a recognition that they know something we don’t. I would be spiritually poorer if I ignored their contribution and wisdom.
In all sincerity, I found that practicing Yoga has made me a healthier human being. In some ways, it has also helped my relationship with God. As I become more self-aware, I am also better able to hear the Spirit’s voice who often whispers quietly. That whisper can often be drawn out by the noises around and inside me. It is in learning to slow down and breath again that I am also finding my way back to the Giver of breath.
In my seminary years, I was often amused by people’s reactions when I told them I was studying theology. Some looked confused, others elated, some indifferent while others awkwardly tried to change the subject. The standard assumption was that I was training to be a pastor or a priest. That is true for about half of those who enter seminary today. However, theology is much more than preparing to serve in a Christian church. In this series of blogs, I would like to dive into defining this term in a hope to set a baseline of understanding on the topic while also dispelling some myths.
Christian or Religious
As I step into a multi-cultural cyber space, I cannot start defining theology without first addressing the question of sources. At face value, theology means “the study of God” or the “divine.” This immediately begs the question: which conception of God? Different cultures speak of a higher being through diverse conceptions. We often assign this type of thinking to the broad term of religion. So, is theology religious thinking?
I would contend that it is not. Theology proper as a discipline emerged in the West within the Judeo-Christian school of thought. This is not take away from thinking emerging from other religious contexts. In fact, one could argue that theology has been developed in at least all the Abrahamic faiths (Christianity, Islam and Judaism). For the purposes of this blog, I am narrowing it to Christian theology. It would be disingenuous not to do so when that is the tradition from which I am rooted in and have studied for all my life. This is not a matter of legitimacy but only of narrowing the scope and of expertise.
Does that mean that theology is irrelevant to non-Christians? I would disagree. It is true that Christian and a non-Christian will approach theology differently. However, I firmly believe that theological thinking has something to say to all humanity, regardless of ethnicity or religious background. That also means that it must be open to scrutiny from the outside as well. If cannot be transmitted as an imposition but as a proposal at the common table of humanity. It cannot be the ultimate arbiter of truth in a multicultural public place but it certainly can and should have a voice.
What (Christian) Theology is NOT
Theology is not ministry. As my anecdote above illustrates, the most common misconception is to associate theology narrowly with the pastoral profession. Candidates to the ministry do study theology along with other disciplines. However, studying theology does not in itself prepares one for ministry. At its best, it offers a mental framework that undergirds the work of ministry. It can provide a cohesive worldview from which the minister can operate from. Yet, to do that well, the minister needs practice, mentoring and other skills beyond what theology offers.
If theology is not ministry, one can often confuse it with doctrine (church teaching) or dogma. This is especially true in reformed circles. Doctrine has to do with teachings of the church passed on through time. While not always, they often denote rigid statements of belief which serve primarily to define the boundaries of what is Christian and what is not. Also, they often emerged through the the history of the church when disagreements arose about a new idea or practice.
This is not to say that theology and doctrine are mutually exclusive. Doctrinal statements both spring from and inform theological thinking. The main difference is not as much of content but of orientation. Doctrine is meant to be a conclusion while theology is meant to be a question. That is, doctrines are often developed to settle debates. Theology, and healthy theology at that, aims to continually raise questions. It is constantly evolving and it is often times independent from the institutional church.
Finally, theology is not biblical interpretation. This is a common misconception in the evangelical culture I grew up in. In fact, in some circles, theology was seen as unnecessary given that all we need is in the Bible. That is gross myopic misconception of both what theology is and what the Bible is for. Christian theology often flows from, emerges and in some cases start from the biblical text. However, healthy theology also wrestles with and challenges the text. While the Bible is crucial source for theology it certainly not the only one. They both seek to make sense of the divine and the Bible carries a historical legitimacy and authority that theology often lacks. With that said, it is important to differentiate the two.
Theology is a way to make sense of the Biblical text. In fact, I believe no one approaches the Bible without some theological framework. Theology is the path to connect the dots of areas that the Bible is silent or even where the text transmits diverging ideas. Theology enriches biblical interpretation while the Bible grounds theology.
Conclusion
So far, I have only described what theology is not. You may wonder: “So, what is it?” I will present a working definition in the next blog. Yet, that would have not been possible before addressing the confusion around this term. I hope this short listing of what is not can clear the way for re-discovering theology anew. I firmly believe in re-introducing theology in the public sphere as we move towards a Post-Christendom society (one where Christianity is no longer the official religion). In order to do that, the first step is rejecting assumptions that are often taken for granted. Only then can we start formulating it as a source hope and wisdom for our planet.
I was looking forward to this conference for months. It was my only opportunity in the year to get together with friends that I interact online throughout the year. The line up of speakers was impressive. There were academics, activists, engineers, theologians, pastors and entrepreneurs which made it for a fairly unique event destined to spark engaging dialogue and stretch us into uncomfortable spaces.
In the opening, Micah Redding, Christian Transhumanist Association (CTA) president and founder mentioned that if the conference did no make you uncomfortable then it was not doing its job. This was not a place for cozy group think. In eyes of many, Christianity and Transhumanism make for strange bedfellows. Furthermore, mixing religion, science and technology is still a novel concept. As an emerging organization, CTA is still defining its own identity in an environment where many are too willing to dismiss it as an oxymoron. On the one hand, Science and Technology are weary of religious talk getting into their business. Religious people, on the other hand, get very uncomfortable with movements that exalt a changing humanity.
Entering a new world
Conference main speakers: Science Mike, Liz Parish, Cheryle Renee Moses and Jim Stump
The morning kicked off with Bio Logos VP, Jim Stump. He offered preliminary thoughts on how to engage Transhumanism from a Christian perspective. In his view, the jury was still out on the movement and its impact. With that said, instead of fearful rejection, he proposed active engagement. In other words, it was an opportunity to enter the conversation as disciples of Christ with humility, caution and openness.
This was a fitting introduction as the speakers that followed exemplified that engagement. They offered a Christian cultural critique that was not limited to Transhumanism but expanded into digital cultures, AI and the Internet. It is hard to summarize here all the great points made throughout these presentations. I hope that CTA posts the presentations so those interested can browse through them.
One speaker that stood out was Liz Parish. Liz was patient zero in genetic modification treatment. She underwent this unprecedented procedure in 2015 and since then has stayed involved in the longevity and human enhancement movement as an entrepreneur. Her company, BioViva, seeks to find safe ways to expand to make genetic intervention more affordable. Watching her presentation gave mixed feelings of awe, hope and fear. It reminded me that we were entering a new world, one full of possibilities but with no shortage of dangers. Messing with our genes is not something I am comfortable with. Yet, what if that is the way for the cure of many terminal diseases? Don’t we owe ourselves to at least try? Liz Parish’s life and work challenged us all to re-think our pre-conceived answers to these questions.
Learning Solidarity
Right before lunch, I received a text from Micah. I was scheduled to speak in the afternoon right before a panel on future and equity. My presentation explored how the movie Black Panther, as a prime example of Afro-Futurism, represented a hopeful, original and promising vision for the future. In the text, Micah informed me that Cheryle Renee Moses, an African-American activist and one of the key speakers in the event objected to the title of my presentation “Dreaming Alternative Futures with Black Panther.” The plan was to sit down at lunch to discuss her concerns.
In our conversation, Cheryle expressed that she had reservations with the fact that I, a Euro-Brazilian was speaking about a story that belonged to Africans. She was also offended at the word “dreaming” for it reminded her of how slave owners have used that word to keep slaves from asserting their humanity. To be more specific, she was referring to how Christianity was used to tell slaves to simply hope for a better future after death rather than fight for freedom. It reminded her, I write this with tears in my eyes, of how the gospel was used, and in some cases continues to be used for social control and racial subjugation.
There was no choice other than to pull the presentation from the program and to extend the following forum on future and equities. From a personal level this was a difficult decision. I had poured hours into that presentation and thought that it would actually connect a mostly white and male audience with a beautiful African vision of the future. Yet, there was something happening here much bigger than that. If we were to be serious about equitable futures, we could not ignore Cheryle’s concern. As an activist, she was speaking for the margins in a way that none of us could. Her voice at that moment was more important than anything I had to say.
Photo by Mike Morrell – Elias Kruger, Cheryle Renee Moses and Micah Redding
In the forum, Cheryle reminded us of the uncomfortable truths about racism and how this continues to impact even the conversations we were having about technology, faith and the future. She challenged the audience to expand their networks to ensure they were hearing perspectives from diverse voices. For a room full of white men, still the vast majority involved in the conversation, the awkwardness was palpable. It was an unplanned, uncomfortable, awkward moment that was sorely needed.
A few days later, after reflecting on this experience, it dawned on me that I never apologized or expressed sympathy for the hurtful reality that Cheryle was bringing forth. Thankfully, I was able to call her this week and express my heartfelt sorrow for this painful heritage that we often want to forget rather than make it right. Cheryle graciously accepted my apologies and thanked me for reaching out. I also asked her to review this text to ensure I was not working under short-sighted assumptions in my writing. Part of building equitable futures is learning to listen to diverse voices and feel their pain.
It is only in solidarity that we can move forward.
Fruitful Conversations
Like most conferences, great dialogue happens in the breakout sessions. In an age of on-demand streaming, one can watch great speakers at the tip of their fingers. What is rare and even more valuable is good old face-to-face conversations. We were a small but high caliber group. Among attendants there were scientists, theologians, college students, professors, pastors and a good share of technology enthusiasts. The conference offered two opportunities for break out conversations with a broad range of topics.
Photo by Seth Cartwright
In the first one, I attended a break out on “AI and the impact on the local church.” Not surprisingly the topic attracted its share of ministry-oriented folks. It did not take long, about 5 minutes to be precise, for our conversation to veer into sex-bots. That’s what happens when pastors discuss AI, we joked . Beyond that, we had fruitful discussions on the differences between narrow and general AI, applications for ministry and the technology impact on social inclusion. Some reported the church’s reluctance to embrace new technologies. Others discussed the benefits and perils of taking virtual communion or conducting virtual baptism. Welcome to doing ministry in the 21st century.
In the second breakout, I joined a stimulating conversation on the future of Christian Transhumanism (XH+). We discussed the baggage Transhumanism carries and why many Christians are reluctant to join or be identified with the movement. There is also resistance from secular Transhumanism in accepting the legitimacy of a religious voice. We explored which audiences had the most to benefit from XH+ and found that it would fit well within a faith at work movement. At its best, the XH+ could help Christians boldly connect their faith with their vocations. Yet, our discussion left many unanswered questions. What is XH+? How does it fit the church ecosystem? What does it believe? These are questions the CTA will be engaging for years to come.
Unexpected Ending
Science Mike closed the night with a stimulating and at times entertaining presentation on technology, faith and Transhumanism. He brought up many valuable points. For one, he questioned the narrative that AI is overtaking humanity and computers would surpass human intelligence. Showing recent trends in computer performance, Mike bluntly put: “Electrons are getting tired of our shit!” In short, we are now finding limits in Moore’s law challenging the projections for machine super intelligence. He also questioned the possibility of brain uploading, cryonics and even whether life prolongation was desirable.
At points, he delivered heart-felt reflections on how one could live out a Christian faith in the midst of so much technological change. He affirmed the bodily shape of our humanity asserting that mind uploading was simply confusing people with brains on a stick. He also encouraged us to re-think our relationship with technology as a separate entity from nature. As an example, he said we should look at Manhattan as an island filled with human nests. In making these points, he offered some provocative insights to help us move forward in a time of great confusion.
Unfortunately, his talk ended in a very pessimistic tone. Mike was weary of Silicon Valley and American Christianity, claiming that both were built on a foundation of white supremacy. Because of that, he lost faith in them and instead was looking for ways to live a Christian life that resisted these forces. Hence, he saw little hope on technology or the church in effecting positive change in the world.
While partially agreeing with his assessment, I was disappointed that he could not also see the potential and opportunity for Christianity and technology in our time. That is what attracted me the XH+ in the first place. I saw it as an alternative to the prevailing luddite narrative that focuses on the negative impact of technology in the world. While he left a grave reminder of our current reality, he overlooked the potentiality of technology and faith. These issues are not mutually exclusive, we can dismantle oppressive systems while building an alternative equitable-techno-natural-spiritual future. In fact, accomplishing the first is only possible by pursuing the second.
I would like to hear more about this hopeful vision in the 2020 CTA conference.
This week, Ravi Zachariah’s Institute here in Atlanta hosted an event entitled: “Should we fear Artificial Intelligence?” In it, British Mathematician and Christian Apologist John Lennox gave a lecture on the challenge of AI and Transhumanism to the Christian faith. Dr. Lennox’s talk covered a wide range of topics including the difference of general and narrow AI, emerging Transhumanism, relevant literature and theological responses.
Coming from an apologist (defender of the faith) approach, the professor focused on how the emergence of AI diverges from Classical Christianity. While affirming some of the possibilities this technology brings, Lennox’s emphasized in how it was contrary to a Judeo-Christian understanding of the world. By citing many examples, he sees the rise of AI and Transhumanism as another tower of babel project. In Transhumanism, more specifically, he sees a direct counterfeit of Christian eschatology. That is, while the New Testament speaks of a final human transformation through the Second Coming of Christ, the first speak of a similar transformation through technology. Furthermore, Dr. Lennox saw echoes of Revelation in the rise of Superintelligence as a possible tool for global social control. To drive this point he drew a parallel between Max Tegard’s image of Prometheus and the biblical figure of the beast.
In his view, there was a clear difference between AI and humanity. The first a invention of humans while the latter being God’s creation. In doing so, he reinforced a separation between technology and biology as opposing endeavors with little connection. His main concern was that by focusing too much on AI, that he rightly defined it as algorithms, we could lose sight of the Imago Dei of humanity. In short, while not explicitly telling us to fear AI, Dr. Lennox driving narrative was one of caution and concern. In his view, Transhumanism is a re-formulation of the Second Century heresy of Gnosticism. With that said, he affirmed the Christ would rise victorious at the end even if AI could bring havoc to the world.
From Confrontation to Dialogue
Dr. Lennox presentation rightly uncovered and explored the the idolatrous tendencies in the Transhumanist movement. Pushing the boundaries of immortality can be an exercise in human-centrism in a direct defiance to God’s sovereignty. The optimism that intoxicates the movement can well be tempered by a healthy dose of Judeo-Christian skepticism. For Christians and Jews, humanity is steeped in sin which makes any human endeavor to achieve ultimate good suspect.
Yet, by painting Transhumanism as an offshoot of atheistic naturalism, he misses an opportunity to see how it can enter into a fruitful dialogue with Christianity. What do I mean by that? Well, If Christianity and Transhumanism both preach transformation of humans into an elevated ideal state, could there be parallels among them that are worth exploring? For centuries Christianity has preached spiritual transformation as humans are shaped into the God-human Christ. Can technology be part of this transformation? Can the transformation of individuals and communities include technology, to enact here a picture of the coming kingdom of God?
I suspect that to enter into this dialogue, two prior movements are necessary. The first is re-framing the relationship between Christianity and Science. While not explicitly said, Dr. Lennox seem to espouse the view that Science (and more specifically Evolutionary Biology) contradicts the claim of Genesis and therefore cannot be reconciled. In this binary view, there is only atheistic naturalism or theistic supernaturalism where God’s action is confined to a strictly literal view of the first books of the Pentateuch. If that is the case than the idea of past evolution proposed by Darwin and future evolution proposed by Transhumanism is a direct threat to the Christian faith. If, however, science can be harmonized with the Biblical view of creation, then evolution (either past of future) are no longer challenge to Christianity. Instead, it can find parallels with the Christian idea of Deification (East) or Sanctification (West).
The second movement is re-defining the separation between nature and technology. Dr. Lennox spent portions of his talk differentiating AI from human intelligence. His main point was that the biological one was divinely made while the latter was human created. By framing these two as opposing ideas, the connection between them is lost. Technology will always be an inferior pursuit compared to the biological reality around us. What if these two were not opposing phenomena but two sides of a continuum? What if technology was God’s way to further perpetuate Creation?
A New Strategy
I recognize that asking these questions pose tremendous challenges to a classical (Modernist) understanding of Christianity. The avenues explored above are not new nor am I the first to suggest it. They are well fleshed out in the writings of Teilhard de Chardin. The Jesuit Paleontologist initiated this dialogue in the middle of 20th century, well before digital technology transformed our lives. We do well to re-visit his ideas.
Yet, a traditional view of apologetics that simply fits AI and Transhumanism as past heresy will not suffice. It overlooks the breadth and depth of how these developments are re-defining humanity. It also pegs them to past ideological challenges that while similar in the surface belong to very different historical contexts.
To establish boundaries and define what is right and wrong is a good first step. However, in a time of fast-paced change, these boundaries will have to be re-visited often making the whole enterprise inadequate. Moreover, such strategy may help keep some in the faith but will certainly do little to attract new comers to the faith. For the latter purpose, there is no alternative but to engage more deeply with the challenge that AI and Transhumanism pose to our time.
There is much to be said on that. For now, I propose the outlines of an alternative Apologetics through a few provocative questions. What if instead of challenging competing ideologies directly we instead try to subvert them? What if instead of exposing fault lines between Christianity and a competing ideology to defend orthodoxy, we appropriate Transhumanist’s aspirations and direct them towards Christian aims?
In the hit Netflix show Altered Carbon, the people become immortal by making their consciousness portable. They perpetuate their existence by moving into a new body (or “sleeve”) when the old one is no longer useful. Their consciousness live in a device that is inserted into the back of their neck. As long as the device remains intact, the person lives on independent of the body. Yet, Science fiction is not the first genre to discuss our individual essence as something that transcends the body. Religious thought has been reflecting on this for Millennia. Can anything be learned in a dialogue between a religious (in this case Christian) view of the soul and consciousness? In this blog, I want to explore how the Christian vision of the soul can inform the Science-Fiction view of consciousness and vice-versa.
Christian thought has a similar idea about personhood. Instead of a device, it believes the person has a soul, an internal invisible energy that contains the individual’s essence. Once the body dies, the soul lives on eternally in a place of torment or bliss.[note] Early Christians did not share this notion of a soul independent of the body but instead emphasize a full-body resurrection. It was only later, as Christianity Westernized that we got this conception of body-less souls going to live with God eternally. [/note] In that way, Christian thought connects this idea that we transcend our bodies with a notion of justice. The destiny of a soul is tied to how the body lived in its time on Earth. Interestingly enough, in the Altered Carbon series, the Christians (Neo-Catholics) are the main group opposing the idea of transferring the consciousness to different bodies. They believe such practice would condemn one to punishment in the afterlife (if that individual ever reaches it, I guess).
While Religion and Science may have similar ideas of our personhood, the first defines that personhood in a context of an ideal of justice, while the second wants to leave it alone. For the scientist, one’s consciousness destiny is independent of ideas of justice, but instead it just is. Yet, to many humans being with an insatiable search for meaning, such explanation seems insufficient even if descriptively accurate. There has to be more, even if we cannot know for sure what that “more” is. That is where Science-Fiction comes in. If Science is indifferent to the human longings, Sci-Fi takes scientific ideas, speculate on its assumptions and possibilities and places them in a context of human stories. Sci-Fi brings “objective” science into the “subjective” world of human story.
Yet, Sci-Fi, while pursuing similar ends as religion has also a different way of pursuing it. Religions looks at the past to bring lessons to the present. It aims to expose the depravity of the human heart through history in a hope that present humanity can avoid or rectify those mistakes. Sci-Fi reverses this order, teaching moralistic lessons from the future. If Christianity says “look what your ancestors did wrong – don’t do that”, Sci-fi says “look at the future world your children will live in – change now.”
To be fair, Christian tradition has a similar genre to Sci-fi in the prophetic and apocalyptic writings. In them, writers paint a vision, often full of symbolism, to tell people on the present of a future doom. Yet, if in Sci-fi the focus is in how humanity can screw up their future, in the Christian tradition it is God who brings destruction because of human depravity. The aim is the same – to force us to re-think about how we live our lives in the present.
While some Sci-Fi literature can imagine a world where our consciousness lives on this earth by jumping from body to body, it can also envision something akin to a blissful heaven. This is present in the idea of uploading one’s consciousness to the cloud. No, this is not the cloud of angels but the cloud of 1s and 0s of the Internet. A National Geographic Documentary Year Million even explores what would be like for people to abandon their bodies to live in the cloud. What would be like to live a life where individuality disappears and we are absorbed by an universal consciousness? At first glance, this approach to the afterlife has more in common with Buddhism than monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The first one sees the unity of all beings as the ultimate goal, while the latter keeps our individuality intact in relationship to a personal God.
Where does this comparison leave us? What I described above demonstrated how the dialogue between Science-Fiction and Christianity can enrich both disciplines. Sci-Fi could benefit from a more defined vision of justice offered by religious imagery while religion (in this case Christian tradition) could take it more seriously the role of human action in the future. Christian tradition does a good job in teasing out personal sins of immorality while not giving enough attention to corporate sins of environmental destruction. Sci-Fi, conversely, does a great job in extrapolating our corporate ills into the future while not being so concerned with personal morality. Furthermore, Sci-Fi rarely gives us a positive view of our present and how that can create a harmonious future. Instead, it is mostly concerned in highlighting what could go wrong. Christian tradition offers a robust view of a ideal future in the book of Revelation where all nations will come together as one. It speaks of a city where God’s (the source of all goodness in religious thought) is present at its very center. In this way, it gives something to look forward to, not just something to look away from.
A full conversation between the two can bring a fuller picture of the challenges ahead while also highlighting the promise of what is possible if we dare to change our ways. I would love to see one day the emergence of a religious sci-fi genre that takes both scientific and religious themes seriously while also captivating our imagination in the process. I am encouraged to see how Altered Carbon hints at this conversation by including a religious element to the story. Yet, much more could be done.
Is anyone doing that already? If so, I would love to hear about it.
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.
Very rarely do the words sex and theology appear in the same blog title. Yet, here we are.
Sexbots: The Final Step in Human Machine Relationships
In a previous blog I discussed how Intelligent Agents could eventually develop romantic relationships with humans. Yet, these relationships were mostly platonic imaginations. Sexbots are the next level, where robots can actually relate to humans in physical ways, including intimacy. How close are we from this reality? An expert from the Pew research predicted that robot relationships would be common by 2025. David Levy predicts that by 2050 marriage to robots will be legal. Mind blowing, indeed! Note that these predictions don’t just point to an outlier market of men seeking pleasure with robots as they are unable to do so with women. Instead, it foresees a world in which these relationships will become common place.
What are these sexbots? They started as hyper-realist dolls fabricated primarily for men. Now, as AI technologies advance, they are adding an interface in the head that can speak and learn his human companion’s desires. They are also starting to develop the outlines of a personality intended to create an emotional bond with the human companion. Yet, all this integration is in its very early stages. At this point, some of these dolls send me right into the uncanny valley, that point in which robots are human enough to catch your attention but still robotic enough to be creepy.
As these issues still need to be worked out, it is not too early to start considering a future in which some of us engage in romantic relationships with robots. In this scenario, we have left the world of Her to enter the badlands of Westworld.
Is This For Real?
My first reaction to this trend was to dismiss it as an abnormality. Surely, only a small group of lonely men would even consider such possibility. Who would exchange a real human with a heartless machine? As discussed before, the level of AI available is no where close to human (or live) intelligence but only a highly mimicked form of it. Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I understood the appeal of it.
The state of human marriage is in disarray to say the least. Moreover, in most Western societies, livelihood is secure and procreation is no longer a necessity. Individuals are free to pursue personal goals and meet every other need without another human being. Fantasy is available in a click of a mouse, a screen of a device or even surreal glasses. In these societies, whole industries have emerged to meet individual needs that relationships have become more of an option than a necessity.
We been in this road for a while, the road towards total independence, where sexbots are not even a destination but only another milestone in this journey toward hyper-isolation.
How Do We Respond?
I started this blog series as a follow up to a call for Christian leaders to enter the AI conversation. In this context, maybe sexbots are less of an absurdity but more of a cry for help. If this is where we are going, maybe it is time to stop this ship and re-think our trajectory. The point here is not to scream loud about the immorality of sexbots when most of Christian men already struggle with two-dimensional pornography. Yes, this is a sin issue but maybe there is a deeper wound to be addressed. A cry for true relationship sorely missing in our families and churches. Maybe the biggest gift technology can give in this junction is to expose the height from which we have fallen.
It is time to offer alternatives through healthy long-lasting relationships. This does not only apply to marriages, but also friendships and above all Christian fellowship. May we never have to resort to any sort of artificial relationship. My hope is that human relationships in our lives will always be enough. God did not create men and women to be alone. As Christians, we believe the very being of God is a community in the Trinity. We are called to love each other and to invite all into redemptive community.
We can never afford to outsource this job to a machine.
While it is easy to see how this technology is relevant to IT professionals, business leaders and geeks (like myself), how does it impact those pursuing Christian ministry? In this blog, I put forth the five main reasons why I think Christian leaders should be paying attention to AI (and why I started a blog about it).
1. AI Will Directly Impact Those You Minister To
Professionals in all areas will experience some type of disruption because of the rise of AI. Drivers, accountants and loan officers may become unemployed. Lawyers will have to re-learn to practice their profession alongside digital assistants. Business leaders will face competitive pressures to adopt AI technologies or see their business become obsolete. They may not identify AI as the culprit yet they will feel the distress caused by it and will be in search for answers.
Disruption is bound to cause anxiety, confusion and fear. While the church has been in the business of comforting the afflicted for centuries, we have not always done this in an informed manner. Understanding the implications of the upcoming 4th industrial revolution to come from these technologies can help you better speak to the lives of those affected by it. Not all of it will be negative, in fact much will be positive. Yet, fast change has a way to disorient us often causing us to resist it.
2. AI is Changing How We Relate to Each Other
As computers become more human-like, relationships are taking a new dimension. In a time where isolation increases, many will be looking for virtual companionship. What one could only find through human interaction will now become possible with highly intelligent machines. This can take place in many ways such as acquiring a companion robot, finding partners or friends through AI enhanced applications to pursuing intimacy with sexbots. The movie Herdepicts a world where people engage in monogamous relationships with AI applications. This will become possible in the near future.
If you think gay marriage is a challenge, try marriage with robots? Experts predict that marriage to robots will become legal by 2050. If your parishioner wants to marry his/her android, will you officiate it? While this is still far off, the transition to this reality will start now as computer interfaces become more personable.
3. AI Can be Conduit for Missions and Incarnational Ministries
While AI will eliminate jobs, it will also foster new industries that don’t exist today. As AI applications become more common, there will be a tremendous demand for people with the skills to operate, fix and create tools based on these technologies. The education for these jobs does not exist and only a handful of degrees can prepare you to thrive in these new professions. This is truly where the church has a great opportunity by moving into this area early. Some AI professionals may already sit in your pews. Maybe it is time you invite them for coffee.
This could work for Christians of all denominations. Evangelicals could enter new missionary frontiers through business as mission that introduce this technology to developing countries. Mainliners could devise vibrant incarnational ministries around AI education and social empowerment. These are just a few examples but you get the picture. If the future of opportunity is in AI, then let’s carve out a space to live out the gospel in it.
4. AI Can Take The Study of Scriptures to a Whole New Level
AI can take your Bible software to a whole new level. Through natural language processing algorithms, we will soon be able to detect sentiment, do in-depth research in large bodies of texts and even summarize the life-work of great theologians in a matter of instants. We will move away from word searches to the researching ideas or themes implicit in the text. Imagine you want to prepare a message in the theme of joy. Not only you’ll be able to find all verses that contain the word joy but also actual examples where Biblical characters felt joy even if the words themselves were not spelled out. You will also be able to find passages with joyful tones through sentiment analysis. Suddenly, you will have many new avenues to explore the biblical text which before would require painstaking work to accomplish.
The possibilities do not end in research but also extend to producing new content. While the AI preacher is still a far cry, soon you will be able to enlist AI in crafting life-changing sermons and/or analyzing past sermons in new ways. By training AI applications with past sermons, the computer could create new sermons that align with your past style and theological emphasis. It is not that you would outsource the creative process to a software but using it could enhance your ability to communicate effectively. In short, new tools will be available for those who enjoy in-depth studies or want to improve on their communication skills.
5. AI Needs Christian Voices in the Conversation
Historically, Christians have been notorious in entering social conversations late. When we do it, our response is reactive, uninformed and grossly ineffective. My hope is that we address this challenge differently. While we are firmly grounded in the past through tradition, that should not hinder us from walking boldly into the future. The emergence of AI has profound implications to our humanity. Some even believe that our identity as a species will be altered. All of this is uncharted territory fraught with obstacles and great ethical dilemmas. If we believe our faith has something to say as humanity experiments with super intelligence then we need to make our voices heard.
This blog and is here to do exactly that – empower you to engage in this topic in an informed and faithful manner. Our vision is to shorten the learning curve so people like you can enter the conversation pro-actively. Check out our resources and past blogs and feel free to share this with other leaders.
The challenge to live the Christian life in an AI world is staring at our faces. Let’s hear the voices of our cloud of witnesses beckoning us to live for Christ faithfully in this present context. This starts by entering the conversation.
