AI is making one significant leap after the other. Computer programs can nowadays convincingly converse with us, generate plausible prose, diagnose disease better than human experts, and totally trash us in strategy games like Go and chess, once considered the epitome of human intelligence. Could they one day reach human-level intelligence? It would be extremely unwise to discount such a possibility without very good reasons. Time, after all, is on AI’s side, and the kind of things that machines are capable of today used to be seen as quasi-impossible just a generation ago.
How could we possibly speak of human distinctiveness when robots become indistinguishable from us?
The scenario of human-level AI, also known as artificial general intelligence (AGI), would be a game-changer for every aspect of human life and society, but it would raise particularly difficult questions for theological anthropology. Since the dawn of the Judeo-Christian tradition, humans have perceived themselves as a creature unlike any other. The very first chapter of the Bible tells us that we are special, because only we of all creatures are created in the image of God (imago Dei). However, the Copernican revolution showed us that we are not the center of the universe (not literally, at least), and the Darwinian revolution revealed that we are not ontologically different from non-human animals. AGI is set to deliver the final blow, by conquering the last bastion of our distinctiveness: our intelligence.
By definition, AGI would be capable of doing anything that a standard human can do, at a similar or superior level. How could we possibly speak of human distinctiveness when robots become indistinguishable from us? Christian anthropology would surely be doomed, right? Well, not really, actually quite the contrary. Instead of rendering us irrelevant and ordinary, AI could in fact represent an unexpected opportunity to better understand ourselves and what makes us in God’s image.
Science’s Contribution to the Imago Dei
To explain why, it is useful to step back a little and acknowledge how much the imago Dei theology has benefitted historically from an honest engagement with the science of its time. Based solely on the biblical text, it is impossible to decide what the image of God is supposed to mean exactly. The creation story in Genesis 1 tells us that only humans are created in the image and likeness of God, but little else about what the image means. The New Testament does not add much, except for affirming that Jesus Christ is the perfect image. Ever since Patristic times, Christian anthropology has constantly wrestled with how to define the imago Dei, without much success or consensus.
The obvious way to tackle the question of our distinctiveness is to examine what differentiates us from the animals, the only others with which we can meaningfully compare ourselves. For the most part of Christian history, this difference has been located in our intellectual capacities, an approach heavily influenced by Aristotelian philosophy, which defined the human as the rational animal. But then came Darwin and showed us that we are not as different from the animals as we thought we were.
Theologian Aubrey Moore famously said that Darwin “under the guise of a foe, did the work of a friend” for Christianity.
Furthermore, the following century and a half of ethology and evolutionary science revealed that our cognitive capacities are not bestowed upon us from above. Instead, they are rooted deep within our evolutionary history, and most of them are shared with at least some of the animals. If there is no such thing as a uniquely human capacity, then surely we were wrong all along to regard ourselves as distinctive, right?
Not quite. Theologian Aubrey Moore famously said that Darwin “under the guise of a foe, did the work of a friend” for Christianity. Confronted with the findings of evolutionary science, theologians were forced to abandon the outdated Aristotelian model of human distinctiveness and look for more creative ways to define the image of God. Instead of equating the image with a capacity that humans have, post-Darwinian theology regards the imago Dei in terms of something we are called to do or to be.
Defining the Imago Dei
Some theologians interpret the image functionally, as our election to represent God in the universe and exercise stewardship over creation. Others go for a relational interpretation, defining the image through the prism of the covenantal ‘I-Thou’ relationship that we are called to have with God, which is the fundament of human existence. To be in the image of God is to be in a personal, authentic relationship with God and with other human beings. Finally, there are others who interpret the imago Dei eschatologically, as a special destiny for human beings, a sort of gravitational pull that directs us toward existential fulfilment in the fellowship with God, in the eschaton. Which of these interpretations is the best? Well, hard to say. Without going into detail, let’s just say that there are good theological arguments for each of them.
If purely theological debate does not produce clear answers, we might then try to compare ourselves with the animals. This, though, does not lead us too far either. Although ‘technically’ we are not very different from the animals and we share with them similar bodily and cognitive structures, in practical terms the difference is huge. Our mental lives, our societies and our achievements are so radically different than theirs, that it is actually impossible to pinpoint just one dimension that represents the decisive difference. Animals are simply no match for us. This is good news for human distinctiveness, but it also means that we might be stuck in a never-ending theological debate on how to interpret the image of God, with so many options on our hand.
How Can AI help Define Who We Are?
This is where the emergence of human-level AI can be a game-changer. For the first time, we would be faced with the possibility of an equal or superior other, one that could potentially (out)match us in everything, from our intellectual capacities, to what we can do in the world, our relational abilities, or the complexity of our mental lives. Instead of agonizing about AI replacing us or rendering us irrelevant, we could relish the opportunity to better understand our distinctiveness through the insights brought about by the emergence of this new other.
The hypothesis of AGI might present theologians with an extraordinary opportunity to narrow down their definitions of human distinctiveness and the image of God. Looking at what would differentiate us from human-level AI, if indeed anything at all, may provide just the right amount of conceptual constraint needed for a better definition of the imago Dei. In this respect, our encounter with AI might prove to be our best shot at comparing ourselves with a different type of intelligence, apart from maybe the possibility of ever finding extra-terrestrial intelligence in the universe.
Dr. Marius Dorobantu is a research associate in science & theology at VU Univ. Amsterdam (NL). His PhD thesis (2020, Univ. of Strasbourg, FR) analysed the potential challenges of human-level AI for theological anthropology. The project he’s currently working on, funded by the Templeton WCF within the “Diverse Intelligences” initiative, is entitled ‘Understanding spiritual intelligence: psychological, theological, and computational approaches.‘