Search
Close this search box.

Tag: theology

Klara and the Sun: Robotic Redemption for a Dystopian World

In the previous blog, we discussed how Klara, the AI and the main character of Kazuo Ishiguro’s latest novel, develops a religious devotion to the Sun. In the second and final installment of this book review, I explore how Klara impacts the people around her. Klara and the Sun, shows how they become better humans for interacting with her in a dystopian world.

Photo by Randy Jacob on Unsplash

Gene Inequality

Because humans are only supporting characters in this novel, we only learn about their world later in the book. The author does not give out a year but places that story in a near future. Society is sharply divided along with class and racial lines. Gene editing has become a reality and now parents can opt to have children born with the traits that will help them succeed in life.

This stark choice does not only affect the family’s fate but re-orients the way society allocates opportunities. Colleges no longer accept average kids meaning that a natural birth path puts a child at a disadvantage. Yet, this choice comes at a cost. Experimenting with genes also means a higher mortality rate for children and adolescents. That is the case for the family that purchases Klara, they have lost their first daughter and now their second one is sick.

These gene-edited children receive special education in their home remotely by specialized tutors. This turned out to be an ironic trait in a pandemic year where most children in the world learned through Zoom. They socialize through prearranged gatherings in homes. Those that are well-to-do live in gated communities, supposedly because the world had become unsafe. This is just one of the many aspects of the dystopian world of Klara and the Sun.

Photo by Andy Kelly on Unsplash

AI Companionship and Remembrance

A secondary plot-line in the novel is the relationship between the teenage Josie, Klara’s owner, and her friend Rick who is not gene-edited. The teens are coming of age in this tumultuous period where the viability of their relationship is in question. The adults discuss whether they should even be together in a society that delineates separate paths assigned at birth. One has a safe passage into college and stable jobs while the other is shut out from opportunity by the sheer fact their parents did not interfere with nature.

In this world, droids are common companions to wealthy children. Since many don’t go to school anymore, the droid plays the role of nanny, friend, guardian, and at times tutor. Even so, there is resistance to them in the public square where resentful segments of society see their presence with contempt. They represent a symbol of status for the affluent and a menace to the working class. Even so, their owners often treat them as merchandise. At best they were seen as servants and at worse as disposable toys that could be tossed around for amusement.

The novel also hints at the use of AI to extend the life of loved ones. AI remembrance, shall we say. That is, programming AI droids to take the place of a diseased human. This seems like a natural complement in a world where parents have no guarantee that their gene-edited children will live to adulthood. For some, the AI companion could live out the years their children were denied.

Klara The Therapist

In the world described above, the AF (artificial friend) plays a pivotal role in family life not just for the children that they accompany but also for the parents. In effect, because of her robotic impartiality, Klara serves as a safe confidant to Josie, Rick, her mother, and her dad. The novel includes intimate one-on-one conversations where Klara offers a fresh take on their troubles. Her gentle and unpretentious perspective prods them to do what is right even when it is hard. In this way, she also plays a moral role, reminding humans of their best instincts.

Yet, humans are not the only ones impacted. Klara also grows and matures through her interaction with them. Navigating the tensions, joys, and sorrows of human relationships, she uncovers the many layers of human emotion. Though lacking tear ducts and a beating heart, she is not a prisoner to detached rationality. She suffers with the pain of the humans around her, she cares deeply about their well-being and she is willing to sacrifice her own future to ensure they have one. In short, she is programmed to serve them not as a dutiful pet but as a caring friend. In doing so, she embodies the best of human empathy.

The reader joins Klara in her path to maturity and it is a delightful ride. As she observes and learns about the people around her, the human readers get a mirror to themselves. We see our struggles, our pettiness, our hopes and expectations reflected in this rich story. For the ones that read with an open heart, the book also offers an opportunity for transformation and growth.

Final Reflections

In an insightful series of 4 blogs, Dr. Dorabantu argues that future general AI will be hyper-rational forcing us to re-imagine the essence of who we are. Yet, Ishiguro presents an alternative hypothesis. What if instead, AI technology led to the development of empathetic servant companions? Could a machine express both rational and emotional intelligence?

Emotionally intelligent AI would help us redefine the image of God not by contrast but by reinforcement. That is, instead of simply demonstrating our limitations in rationality it could expand our potential for empathy. The novel shows how AI can act as a therapist or spiritual guide. Through empathetic dialogue, they can help us find the best of our moral senses. In short, it can help us love better.

Finally, the book raises important ethical questions about gene editing’s promises and dangers. What would it look like to live in a world where “designer babies” are commonplace? Could gene-editing combining with AI lead to the harrowing scenario where droids serve as complete replacements for humans? While Ishuguro’s future is fictitious, he speculates on technologies that already exist now. Gene editing and narrow AI are a reality while General AI is plausibly within reach.

We do well to seriously consider their impact before a small group in Silicon Valley decides how to maximize profit from them. This may be the greatest lesson we can take from Klara and the Sun and its dystopian world.

Klara and the Sun: Robotic Faith for an Unbelieving Humanity

In his first novel since winning the Nobel prize of literature, Kazuo Ishiguro explores the world through the lens of an AI droid. The novel retains many of the features that made him famous for previous bestsellers such as concentrating in confined spaces, building up emotional tension, and fragmented story-telling. All of this gains a fresh relevance when applied to the Sci-Fi genre and more specifically to the relationship between humanity and sentient technology. I’ll do my best to keep you from any spoilers as I suspect this will become a motion picture in the near future. Suffice it to say that Klara and the Sun is a compelling statement for robotic faith. How? Read on.

Introducing the Artificial Friend

Structured into 6 long sections, the book starts by introducing us to Klara. She is an AF (Artificial Friend), a humanoid equipped with Artificial Intelligence and designed commercially to be a human companion. At least, this is what we can deduce from the first pages as no clear explanation is given. In fact, this is a key trait in the story: we learn about the world along with Klara. She is the one and only narrator throughout the novel.

Klara is shaped like a short woman with brown hair. The story starts in the store where she is on display for sale. There she interacts with customers, other AFs, and “Manager”, the human responsible for the store. All humans are referred to by their capitalized job or function. Otherwise, they are classified by their appearance or something peculiar to them.

The first 70 pages occur inside the store where she is on display. We learn about her personality, the fact that she is very observant, and what peer AFs think of her. At times, she is placed near the front window of the store. That is when we get a glimpse of the outside world. This is probably where Ishiguro’s brilliance shines through as he carefully creates a worldview so unique, compelling, humane but in many ways also true to a robotic personality. The reader slowly grows fond of her as she immerses us in her whimsical perspective of the outside world. To her, a busy city street is a rich mixture of sights with details we most often take for granted.

We also get to learn how Klara processes emotions and even has a will of her own. At times she mentions feeling fear. She is also very sensitive to conflict, trying to avoid it at all costs. With that said, she is no push over. Once she sabotages a customer attempt to buy her because she had committed herself to another prospect. She also seems to stand out compared to the other AFs instilling both contempt and admiration from them.

Book cover from Amazon.com

The World Through Klara’s Eyes

She is sensitive, captivating and always curious. Her observations are unique and honest. She brings together an innocence of a child with the mathematical ability of a scientist. This often leads to some quirky observations as she watches the world unfold in front of her. In one instance, she describes a woman as “food-blender-shaped.”

Klara also has an acute ability to detect complex emotions in faces. In this way, she is able to peer through the crevices of the body and see the soul. In one instance, she spots how a child is both smiling at her AF while her eyes portray anger. When observing a fight, she could see the intensity of anger in the men’s faces describing them as horrid shapes as if they were no longer human. When seeing a couple embrace, she captures both the joy and the pain of that moment and struggles to understand how it could be so.

This uncanny ability to read human emotion becomes crucial when Klara settles in her permanent home. Being a quiet observer, she is able understand the subtle unspoken dynamics that happen in family relationships. In some instances, she could see the love between mother and daughter even as they argued vehemently. She could see through the housekeeper’s hostility towards her not as a threat but as concern. In this way, her view of humans tended err on the side of charity rather than malice.

Though being a keen human observer, it is her relationship with the sun that drives the narrative forward. From the first pages, Klara notices the presence of sun rays in most situations. She will usually start her description of an image by emphasizing how the sun rays were entering a room. We quickly learned that the sun is her main source of energy and nourishment. Hence it is not surprising that its looms so large in her worldview.

Yet, Ishiguro’s takes this relationship further. Similar to ancient humans, Klara develops a religious-like devotion to the sun. The star is not only her source of nourishment but becomes a source of meaning and a god-like figure that she looks to when in fear or in doubt.

That is when the novel gets theologically interesting.

Robotic Faith and Hope

As the title suggests, the sun plays a central role in Klara’s universe. This is true not only physiologically as she runs on solar energy, but also a spiritual role. This nods towards a religious relationship that starts through observation. Already understanding the power of the sun to give her energy, she witnesses how the sun restores a beggar and his dog back to health. Witnessing this event become Klara’s epiphany of the healing powers of the sun. She holds that memory dear and it becomes an anchor of hope for her later in the book when she realizes that her owner is seriously ill.

Klara develops a deep devotion toward the sun and like the ancients, she starts praying to it. The narrative moves forward when Klara experiences theophanies worthy of human awe. Her pure faith is so compelling that the reader cannot help but hope along with her that what she believes is true. In this way, Klara points us back to the numinous.

Her innocent and captivating faith has an impact in the human characters of the novel. For some reason, they start hoping for the best even as there is no reason to do so. In spite of overwhelming odds, they start seeing a light at the end of the tunnel. Some of them willingly participate, in this case the men in the novel, in her religious rites without understanding the rationale behind her actions. Yet, unlike human believers who often like to proselytize, she keeps her faith secret from all. In fact, secrecy is part of her religious relationship with the sun. In this way, she invites humans to transcend their reason and step into a child-like faith.

This reminds me of a previous blog where I explore this idea of pure faith and robots . But I digress.

Conclusion

I hope the first part of this review sparks your interest in reading this novel. It beautifully explores how AI can help us find faith again. Certainly, we are still decades away from the kind of AI that Ishiguro’s portrays in this book. Yet, like most works of Science Fiction, they help us extrapolate present directions so we can reflect on our future possibilities.

Contrasting to the dominant narrative of “robot trying to kill us”, the author opts for one that highlights the possibility that they can reflect the best in us. As they do so, they can change us into better human beings rather than allowing us to devolve into our worse vices. Consequently, Ishiguro gives us a vivid picture of how technology can work towards human flourishing.

In the next blog, I will explore the human world in which Klara lives. There are some interesting warnings and rich reflection in the dystopian situation described in the book. While our exposure to it is limited, maybe this is one part I wish the author had expanded a bit more, we do get enough ponder about the impact of emerging technologies in our society. This is especially salient for a digital native generation who is learning to send tweets before they give their first kiss.

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.

Does God Hear Robot Prayers? A Modern Day Parable

The short video above portrays Juanello Turiano’s (1500-1585 AD) invention, an automated monk that recites prayers while moving in a circle. It was commissioned by King Philip II to honor a Friar whom he believed had healed his son. The engineer delivered a work of art, creepy but surprisingly life-like, in a time where Artificial Intelligence was but a distant dream. This Medieval marvel now sits at the Smithsonian museum in Washington, DC. 

Take a pause to watch the 2 minute video before reading on.

What can this marvelous work of religious art teach us today, nearly 5 centuries later, about our relationship with machines?

In a beautifully well-written piece for Aeon, Ed Simon asks whether robots can pray. In discussing the automated monk, he argues that the medieval invention was not simply simulating prayer. It was actually praying! Its creation was an offer of thanksgiving to the Christian God and till this day continues to recite its petitions.

Such reflection opens the door for profound theological questions. For if the machine is indeed communicating with the divine, would God listen?

Can an inanimate object commune with the Creator?

We now turn to a short parable portraying different responses to the medieval droid.

A Modern Day Parable

Photo by Drew Willson on Unsplash

In an effort to raise publicity for its exhibit, the Smithsonian takes Turiano’s invention above in a road show. Aiming to create a buzz, they place the automated monk in a crowded square in New York city along with a sign that asks:

When this monk prays, does God listen?

They place hidden cameras to record peoples’ reaction.

A few minutes go by and a scientist approaches to inspect the scene. Upon reading the sign he quickly dismisses it as an artifact from a bygone era. “Of course, machines cannot pray” – he mulls. He posits that because they are not alive, one cannot ascribe to them human properties. That would be anthropomorphising. That is when people project human traits on non-human entities. “Why even bother asking why God would listen if prayer itself is a human construct?” Annoyed by the whole matter, he walks away hurriedly as he realizes he is late for work.

Moments later, a priest walks by and stops to examine the exhibit. The religious person is taken aback by such question. “Of course, machines cannot pray, they are mere human artifacts” – he mulls. “They are devoid of God’s image which is exclusive property of humans” he continues. “Where in Scripture can one find a example of an object that prays? Machines are works of the flesh, worldly pursuits not worthy of an eternal God’s attention” he concludes. Offended by the blasphemous display, the priest walks away from the moving monk on to holier things.

Finally, a child approaches the center of the square. She sees the walking monk and runs to the droid filled with wonder. “Look at the cool moving monk, mom!” she yells. Soon, she gives it a name: monk Charlie. She sits down and watches mesmerized by the intricate movements of his mouth. The child notices the etched sandals on his feet. She also pays attention to the movement of his arms and mouth.

After a while, she answers: “Yes, God listens to Charlie.” She joins with him, imitating his movement with sheer delight. In that moment, the droid becomes her new playmate.

How would you respond?

Prophetic Models : Why are Governments Telling Us to Stay Home?

In this blog, I explore the prophetic role of models in advising governments how to respond to the Covid-19 virus.

In a recent blog, I talked about the surprising upside of this crisis. In this blog, I explore the prophetic role of models in advising governments how to respond to the Covid-19 virus. While predictive modeling is already a vital part of decision making in both the private and public sector, this crisis revealed how impactful they can be. They are no longer just predictive but also prophetic models that can alter the future of a nation.

Don’t believe it? A few weeks ago, the British government was considering an alternative approach to lead the nation through this pandemic. The idea was to allow for the spread of the virus, instructing only the 70+ population and those with symptoms to isolate themselves. In this scenario, there would be no school closures, no working from home or even cancellation of mass gatherings.

The rationale was that by allowing the virus to spread, enough people would recover from it to develop herd immunity. That is, when enough people have either been vaccinated or contracted and recovered from the virus, they would protect those who had not, breaking the chain of transmission.

Yet, in March 16th, in a stunning reversal, Boris Johnson had a change of heart. He quickly joined other world leaders in calling for a suppression strategy instructing all citizens to practice social distancing. Why? In short, the government learned that as much as 24% of the population would need hospitalization which would quickly overwhelm the the nation’s healthcare system. It came from a revealing report by the Imperial College London. This report would later find its way across the ocean to inform American policy on the virus response as well.

Prophetic Models that Changed it All

Intrigued by this news and having built predictive models myself for the last 6 years, I decided to go to the source for further investigation. I was interested not only in the findings but also examining the researchers’ methodology and other insights overlooked by articles reporting on it. In the next few paragraphs, I summarize my investigation paying particular attention to the forecasting model that the report was based on.

The model analyzed the predicted outcomes of two strategies: suppression and mitigation. The first one is the more aggressive strategy adopted by places like China and many European countries in suppressing virus transmission through rigorous social distancing in order to reverse epidemic growth. The second, aims only to slow growth, mitigating its worse effects by quarantining only at risk populations and those presenting symptoms.

The model went on to analyze the impact of a combination of NPIs (non-pharmaceutical interventions) by the governments. Mitigation focused on applying case isolation, home quarantine and social distancing only for those who are 70+. This strategy would cut fatalities in half but still result in over 1 million deaths in the US and overwhelm ICU beds 8 times over at highest peak demand! Therefore this option was deemed unacceptable.

Estimating the Impact of Suppression

Image by Pete Linforth from Pixabay

While saving lives continues to be at forefront, the focus turned to a scenario in which the country’s health care system could withstand the increase in cases during the virus peak infection phase. The model simulations found that a combination of 1) general population social distancing; 2) schools and university closures; 3) home quarantine; and 4) case isolation of those infected was the best alternative to achieve this goal. These measures would have to be in place for a sustained period of time.

How long? The scientists ran a few scenarios but the most feasible one was where social distancing and school and university closures were triggered by threshold. That is, when the number of ICU cases must be at 60, 100 or 200 per week before the policies go into effect. This scenario assumes this triggering would be in place for a period of two years or until a vaccine is developed. The numbers below for the suppression scenario assume a trigger of 400 ICU cases per week.

Strategy Estimated Deaths GBEstimated Deaths US
Do Nothing510K2.2M
Mitigation255K1.1M
Suppression39K168K
Estimated fatalities based on the Report Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand.

As shown in the table above, the model predicts significant decreases in fatalities. In doing so, it makes a clear case as to why these governments should apply these drastic measures.

Certainly, the model’s scope is limited. It does not look into the economic impact these shut downs or the indirect fatalities of those that cannot use an overwhelmed health care system. It also does not take into account every mitigating factor that could accelerate or hinder the virus spread. With that said, it is robust enough to make a compelling case for action. That is all we can expect from a good prophetic model.

Models as Modern Prophets

The Hebrew scriptures tells us of prophets who warned their communities of impending doom. One good example of that is the short book of Jonah. In the story, God summons Jonah to speak to the city Nineveh. After a few detours, one which involved spending some time in a fish’s belly, the prophet arrives at the city. There he delivers a simple message: “Change your ways or face destruction.”

Just like a modern forecasting model, the prophet was showing the people of Nineveh a picture of the future if they remained in their ways. He was giving them the “do nothing” or “keep status quo” scenario. He also offered an alternative scenario, where they changed their minds and opted for righteous living. In this scenario, the city would save lives and retain their prosperity.

To the prophet’s own chagrin, the city actually listened. They changed their ways and therefore altered their future. They weighed the consequence of doing nothing versus changing and decided to opt for the latter. Hence, the story tells us that God spared the city who heeded the prophets’ forecast of impending doom.

The model described above played a similar role of warning about the cost of doing nothing. Yet, instead of fiery sermons, it used the mighty power of number. As modern prophets, the scientists from the Imperial College warned leaders in Britain and the US of a collapsed healthcare system and mounting casualties. Prophetic models vividly described the cost of doing nothing and also paint a picture of their altered future. In the model’s assessment, action was imperative and thankfully, these political leaders, like those of Nineveh, listened.

What if the Model is wrong?

Just like in the case of Nineveh, the risk of listening is that the initial prediction could be wrong all along. In fact, the good prophet does their job best when they challenge decision makers to prove their numbers wrong. The point is not to forecast outcomes accurately, even though that is an important part of a rigorous model. The main point is to paint a believable picture of an undesirable future enough to move people to action.

Successful prophetic models are not the one that predict accurately but the ones that lead the community towards a better future. Furthermore, the mounting casualties of the last weeks give proof that this pandemic is not just your average cold. I can’t even imagine how worse they would have been without the concerted global effort of social distancing. Yet, when this crisis is over, many will look at the diminished numbers and wonder if it was all worth it.

This is where I can point to this imperfect but rigorous model to say that the policies put in place will likely save 2 million lives in the US and 500 thousand in Britain!

If that is not a good outcome, I don’t know what is.

Compelling Traits of An Emerging Christianity: Part 1

When you start off on a journey, it often feels lonely. You wrongly assume that you are the exception and everybody else is staying behind. As most often is the case, any spiritual journey starts with a crisis, an enduring dissatisfaction and a stinging sense of loss. One also feels a stranger in their familiar environment which incidentally can lead to believe that they are alone in experiencing this internal turmoil.

Hence it is refreshing and emboldening when that sojourner meets others undergoing the same struggle. It is no surprise that a significant portion of people like me, who grew up in evangelical homes, are now, even if at differing degrees, experiencing dislocation in their faith journeys.

People will react to a crisis on a myriad ways. Some will dig their heels holding stronger to familiar convictions, others will abandon them completely. A third group will try to find their way through this crisis by traversing the tension of holding on to past convictions while also opening themselves to new pathways. This is where I find myself. Thankfully, as I can now attest, I am not alone.

In this blog, I want to cover three main traits that are converging to form an emerging Christianity which this third group is seeking. I don’t know if one can speak of a movement yet but more of coalescing of streams that are finding commonalities in these three areas. In each one of them, Christians are rejecting false binary choices to embrace living in the tension of seemingly opposite poles. By holding themselves in those tension points, they are finding room to grow, hope and transcend.

Thinking Less of Heaven to Do more on Earth

Dr. N. T. Wright is likely the most influential bible scholar of our times. He is one of the few scholars that achieved pop star status while still being highly respected in academia. His books have become a staple for many wanting to better understand the New Testament the Christian faith in general. I had the privilege to see him speak once in Pasadena, when I was a student at Fuller.

After hearing his lecture, I was struck by how emphatic he was about challenging Christians to stop focusing on the after-life. The thrust of his argument through multiple books is that the early Christians were not looking for a disembodied heaven but yearning for that reality to come down to earth. While this is not in itself a novel point, it does get to the heart of a detour historical Christianity took in the last few centuries.

Inspired by NT Wright’s writings and others, I see an emerging Christian spirituality that is progressively de-emphasizing the afterlife to become more engaged in the here and now. To me, this has been nothing short of a life-changing. While still going to church, the focus of my service now has shifted to my family and my community. Whether it is volunteering in my kid’s school or other non-profits, giving to organizations that are doing humanitarian work to spending quality time with my children, my focus has changed.

This does not mean that I no longer believe in heaven or denounce any church affiliation. It just that it is no longer the exclusive avenue and focus of my service. I stopped worrying about trying to get more people in heaven and instead started to work to make earth more like heaven. I am also finding more meaning in these activities rather than seeing them as means to a more important spiritual end.

Integrating with Science to Find Nature

I have written before about the importance of theology engaging with science. There is growing interest in this intersection as seminaries bring scientists in for dialogue. Biologos, an organization started by a Christian Physicist and director of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, is at the forefront of this movement. While still small, the trend has great potential. It starts by rejecting the false option between thinking and believing and forsaking the unproductive ideological battle over the origins of life. Once these steps are in place, the interaction between faith and science can yield exponential fruits.

This is not limited to seminaries and technical schools but is also taking shape in other ways. For example, there is an increased acceptance of mental health issues within the evangelical community. This became front and center a few years ago when megachurch pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren lost his son to suicide. As Christians become open to an area that in the past was seen through an exclusively religious lens, I see them growing in understanding and accepting the blessings of scientific inquiry. It is no longer a threat to faith but part of God’s action on earth.

To me, the integration with science has translated into a greater preoccupation with nature. The emergence of eco-theology, namely a theology that seeks to connect humans to God through the natural world, is another promising trend. Theological reflection must transcend the human-divine axis to include all living beings. This goes beyond creation care to recognizing God’s action through animals, plants and whole ecosystems. A vision that limits salvation to individual guilt removal is ill-equiped to face the challenges and questions of our age. Salvation must encompass the whole cosmos.

The theological encounter with nature is also not just limited to action to protect the environment. It must address the sinful alienation brought upon a technological vision that separates rather than integrates humans into their habitats. The path toward a new Christian spirituality must walk through the green pastures of nature and eventually arrive at PanEntheism.

From Strict Monotheism to PanEntheism

PanEntheism, not to be confused with pantheism, proclaims the reality of divine presence in the material world. Unlike pantheism that saw nature itself as God, Panentheism keeps God’s transcendence while also affirming God’s immanence. Forgive my theologese, what that means is that it declares God to be beyond this universe but also present in it: A God who is both distant but also near. Confusing? Good, theological thinking thrives in the uncomfortable tension between opposing ideas.

To be clear, this is not a move away from monotheism, but bringing monotheism closer to physical reality as prescribed in the first trait above. It is about taking religion from something “out there” to the dusty mess of daily living. Some theologians, such as Moltmann, have associated that presence more specifically with biology. That is, the Spirit of God is present anywhere there is life, intelligent or not. Yet, such view is not a recent novelty but goes back in history to Francis of Assisi and to Dutch reformed theologian and politician Abraham Kuyper.

When taken seriously, panEntheism can have paradigm shifting implications to the Christian faith. In a sense, it recognizes that even before there were sacred scriptures, God was moving and speaking through the natural world. On the one hand, it magnifies further the largesse of the Creator who stands outside (and in) time. On the other hand, it should caution us in our attempts to divide the world between insiders and outsiders of God’s club. Even a tradition that is 2,000 years old is only a speck in the history of the cosmos.

In my view, this does not diminish the revelation brought forth by the Christian faith, maybe, shall I humbly say, it only fulfills it. It complements it, bringing its implications further into its conclusion:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 

Colossians 1:15-17

What is Theology? (Hint: it is NOT what you think)

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.

AI Theology Goes to NY: Sandy e Junior and the Power of Music

This blog started with a dare. My father-in-law, a faithful reader of the blog, challenged me to write a post about my recent trip to New York I took with my wife. We were there for one night to watch the one and only US concert of the Brazilian band Sandy e Junior in the Barclay’s center. He wanted to see if I could tie that experience with theology or AI.

Daniel, challenge accepted! Let’s see how it goes.

That’s the look of excitement of spending 30 hours with no kids. This picture also clears up who married up. I am a lucky man!

Our trip really started in the Atlanta airport. Arriving with plenty of time, enjoying a kid-free trip, we decided to walk to the concourse rather than catching the train. It made for a pleasant 25 minutes walk, helping us reach and surpass the 10K steps goal for the day. Not only that but we also greatly enjoyed an exposition on African art and learned about the history of Atlanta. It is very well done and a great way to pass time while waiting for a flight. Next time you are stranded in the Atlanta airport, I highly recommend it.

After less than two hours of flight we saw this in our window and knew we were close. Even with all the smog, NY still boasts some stunning views. We have not been in the big apple for over 15 years and a lot has changed since then.

Picture of New York’s skyline from the plane.

A Brazilian Enclave in the Big Apple

After finding some exquisite cuisine for dinner in Brooklyn we headed to the arena. The walk there in the rain was an unexpected treat. It reminded us of a family tradition: dancing in the rain. This is something we started doing before we had kids and have passed on to them. Now every time it rains, our girls ask: can we go out there to dance? Nope, we did not dance in the crowded sidewalks and car congested streets of Brooklyn. However, getting soaking wet prior to the concert was the closest to it. It was a preparation for what was to come.

As we approached the arena, it felt like we were in another country. Just noticing the way people dressed and conducted themselves, we knew there were Brazilians all around us. You see, Brazil is fairly diverse country making it difficult to spot what the typical Brazilian looks like. However, you can often tell by subtle clues. For example, women will wear their purses crossing their shoulder instead on the side. We could also hear a lot of Portuguese being spoken around us. Before crossing the street, I man behind us warned in Portuguese to stay way from the puddle anticipating cars to splash unsuspecting pedestrians. Good reminder, that we heeded willingly though unnecessary since we were already soaked.

When we got inside we felt like we were in Brazil. Everybody was speaking Portuguese except for the stadium’s staff. It felt like we were going back to our adolescence. We both grew up in Brazil. I left as a teenager and Priscila when she married me. It also reminded us of the time we met, when I was 17 and she was 15 years old. A trip back in time to a distant but crucial moment in both of our lives.

Mandatory selfie with my beautiful wife in front of the venue. Notice that I still haven’t figured out where the camera is. One day I’ll learn!

An Unique Sister-Brother Duo

Sandy e Junior are quite unique artists in the Brazilian music scene. Children of a famous sertanejo (Brazilian country music) singer, they walked into the spotlight very early in life. Their first appearance was in 1989 at the tender age of 6 and 5. From then on, they enjoyed a successful career as a duo until 2007 when they parted ways. This concert marked their 30 year anniversary of their launch in ’89. It was a reunion tour which planed for a few concerts in Brazil but quickly expanded into an international tour. Though in their mid-30’s, they already boasted three decades of career and over 20 million albums sold – a rare feat for any Brazilian artist!

Picture of the Duo captured in the NY concert

Their longevity is not the only aspect that stands out. In an industry crowded by divas and big personalities, it is quite refreshing to see self-effacing, humble and authentic artists perform. They showed genuine gratitude and recognition for the fans efforts to be there and faced the opportunity to play in an international stage not as a right but as a responsibility. Both of them are still married to their first spouses and have kids. Yes, sometimes good guys and gals do become famous.

Their songs centered mostly on young love and heart break. Because they grew up doing this, their music reflects their different developmental stages. From kid’s crushes, painful teenage breakups to long-lasting friendship; it is all there in a pleasant mixture of songs to an overall pop sound. Sandy is the lead singer while Junior sings harmony and plays multiple instruments. The closest I comparison I could think would be if Taylor Swift teamed up with a Jonas brother.

The Power of a Shared Experience

As expected for this reunion show, the fan base was quite varied in age. Given their long career, you could see both those who have grown up with them as well as their children coming to the concert. I must confess I was a very late comer to their fandom. My wife was a fan from her teenage years in the 90’s while I scoffed at their association with sertanejo. It was an unfair prejudice that I regret. In our house now, Priscila had already made fans out of all our kids and I was the only hold out. After this concert that is no longer the case and I have the picture to prove it.

No turning back, a true fan for life.

Priscila’s passion for the duo rubbed on me. Often, I would turn to look at her face fully immersed into the music experience. It was like I had my teenager Priscila back, almost twenty years later after marriage and kids. Her genuine delight was contagious and captivating making me fall in love again.

She was not alone. We were surrounded by committed fans who stood up and sang along for the whole two hours plus of concert time. Looking at their faces you could see memories of crushes, heart breaks and kids play all coming back. It was as if that experience was transporting them to an earlier and simpler time, a precious memory from their younger years.

The fact that it was in the US made the experience all the more memorable. Many of them, like us, have left their childhood place along with friends and family. They now live in a country where they were no longer sure they were welcome. Many carry the toll of the lonely immigrant life punctuated by hard work and isolation. All of that was forgotten for two hours while they sang their memories at the top of their lungs. The last song invited the whole arena to jump. Twenty thousand fans (including myself) gladly obliged bouncing our sorrows away.

Theology, AI, anything?

There was nothing about AI in that night. After all, I do have other interests in my life and don’t walk around only thinking about how the world relates to AI! Yet, there was ample opportunity for theological reflection. I could talk about the fact that music has the power to transport us into other dimensions in time and space. I could also speak of the nostalgia, the struggle of the immigrant life and the never-ending pervasiveness of love. You see, to me all of this is part of theology.

I am recently reflecting on a theology that embraces the world. I have recognized that my Christian formation, unfortunately, have often led me to despise the world around me and minimize experiences that were outside of religious contexts. Because of that, I was grateful to be part of this intoxicatingly human experience. It left me enriched by having my horizons opened and a bit convicted by my past prejudice. I also felt closer to my wife, the very relationship that continues to teach me most about God.

Learning to embrace the world reminds me that God does not sit “out there” in a “separate” infinite world but pours through in the richness of human experience, in the materiality of this earth, in joy, pain and sorrow.

All of it is sacred.

AI Theology Goes to Brazil – Part 2: Pure Energy

In the previous blog, I described my first talk in Caratinga where I addressed how to transmit our faith to our kids in a technological era. It was a good way to break into the series of talks that followed.

The following day, I delivered a talk in the evening to a wider audience of students, professors and admnistrators of the university. After being introduced, I walked up to the stage with with sunglasses doing a robotic walk, to Information Society’s “What’s on Your Mind”. (Yes, I went there! For those old enough, who can forget Leonard Nimoy’s voice saying “Pure Energy” in the intro – it’s a classic. Also, I do remember that being a big hit in Brazil. What happened to all the great music of the 80’s and 90’s? That’s a topic for another blog.) For an introvert like me, that was a tremendous risk and one that that could have gone badly. Thankfully, the audience was gracious with my clumsy attempt waiting to hear what I had to share.

After outlining a short introduction to what Artificial Intelligence is I then moved on to examples of how it is changing relationships, jobs and religion. I wanted to audience distinguish between general and narrow AI and also the difference between replacement and augmentation. On relationships, I talked about the promises of algorithmic match making and shared the example of the virtual wife hologram, now available in Japan. For jobs, I talked about how many job functions would be affected noting that it would come not as in total replacement but in automating tasks. For fun, I shared the story of the robot run hotel in Japan where robots ended up being fired for annoying customers! In other words, AI changes would be more complex than what is portrayed in science fiction.

Finally, on religion, I shared a blessing from Robot Pastor with the audience. First, I assured seminarians that robot competition was not an issue for them. Instead, I encouraged those training for the ministry to view technology not as a threat but an ally to their efforts. Historically, religious leaders have often displayed knee-jerk resistance to new technologies. Could we react differently this time? I also mentioned how AI could amplify their efforts in counseling parishioners or even just getting their message out.

That’s me with sunglasses getting ready to speak.

The main message of the talk was that narrow AI was coming to change our lives, how would we respond? I encouraged the audience to replace fear with courage, engaging AI with a broader view that seized on opportunities while monitoring risks. On the latter, I mentioned the perils of using face recognition for policing and how such uses required a broader democratic discussion from the civil society. Interestingly enough, after my talk, a local lawyer told me of a recent effort to coordinate camera footage from many areas in the town for law enforcement. I was not speaking of a distant future but of the here and now.

The question and answer time proved very thought provoking. The students asked insightful questions. One that impressed me was how far computers were from approaching the human brain capacity. Others asked more directly about how AI would hinder belief in God and religious adherence. In my view, the questions demonstrated some critical thinking and deep intellectual engagement with the topic. That is, the students were awake and listening. That is not always the case in events like these where they are required to go for class credit.

Maybe “pure energy” and a robotic walk was all it took to hook them in. Maybe not. Either way, my hope was to spark conversation on the topic. Judging by their questions, the dialogue had begun. In the 21st century, we are now all “Information Societies.”