Faith and AI

Three Christian responses to artificial intelligence by J. Tayler Smith

PDF Version

Faith and AI.pdf

Download PDF • 12.80MB

The AI Explosion

Interest in artificial intelligence (AI) exploded with the releases of generative AI programs such as Dall-E, Midjourney, and Chat GPT. AI is not new. It already exists in the form of autocorrect, phone navigation, and other like-programs. But what makes these new applications intriguing is their ability to imitate humans. Dall-E, Midjourney, and other similar AI generate art from a simple text description. Chat GPT ‘talks’ through text conversations and can write stories or answer questions. This AI revolution has sparked discussions about how AI will affect jobs, and whether we should harbour concerns about the way AI will impact daily life. For people of faith, we also ask whether AI will affect religion and spirituality, what that effect may look like, and how we should respond. As a lifelong Christian, with a background in data analytics and an interest in technology and philosophy, I’ll take a crack at examining and explaining the different ways Christianity is responding to AI.

AI and Machine Learning

Before going further, let’s define what is meant by the term ‘AI’. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, artificial intelligence (AI) is, “The ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings.” Artificial intelligence exists anywhere a computer does something that comes across as involving thought. AI does not exclusively refer to robots that think for themselves. It is a broad term including anything from a computer driving a car, to a calculator computing that two plus two equals four. By this definition, AI is already ingrained into society through our phones, tablets, televisions, cars, computers, electric grids, traffic lights, etc., which all rely on AI.

It’s not these daily grind activities that concern people about AI. Instead, we are intrigued by the way these new programs appear to truly think for themselves. The new AI renders realistic images from a text prompt. The new AI chats as though it is a person. The new AI composes music comparable to what we create. The difference between the old and new AI is machine learning. Machine learning refers to the algorithms that enable AI to make and remember decisions in real time, resulting in human-like actions. This teaching focuses on the new AI that utilizes machine learning, but I will use the term ‘AI’ for simplicity.

Christian Responses to AI

In researching this topic I did not find any authoritative sources that address the conversation between faith and AI. So, I used a basic internet search to get a sense of how Christianity is initially responding to AI. Note that what I unearthed may not reflect the most correct or popular opinions on this subject. All I will do here is describe what I found are common thoughts on how Christianity may respond to AI. There are more ideas out there, with certainty.

After reading several websites, articles, and reports, I noticed most Christian reactions to AI could be grouped into three categories:

• The Cataclysm Response sees AI as a danger associated with the end times and apocalyptic prophecy.

• The Personage Response sees AI as being redemption-worthy and perhaps capable of forming a personal relationship with God.

• The Utility Response sees AI as a tool whose impact depends on how people use it.

In this teaching, we will review these three responses and think through the assumptions behind each approach.

The Cataclysm Response

The Cataclysm Response sees AI as a snare to humanity, specifically Christianity. In this approach, AI is associated with the apocalypse or end-of-the-world. The Cataclysm Response makes three assumptions that build upon one another:

• The Bible warns of AI.

• AI is trying to replace God.

• Christianity must resist AI.

Let’s think through these assumptions and consider their strengths and weaknesses.

Cataclysm Assumption #1: The Bible Warns of AI

Revelation

The Cataclysm Response interprets two Bible passages as warnings against AI. The first is found in the Book of Revelation. According to tradition, Revelation was written by the elderly Apostle John, who was one of Jesus’ first followers. Revelation is a letter written to seven Christian communities and includes a vivid description of a vision Jesus gives to John about the way God will finish restoring humanity back to himself, and the events leading up to that restoration. The vision features lots of symbolic images that theologians are consistently re-interpreting every century.

In chapter 13, about halfway through the letter, John describes seeing two great beasts rising out of the sea and earth. The first beast has a significant wound, it speaks against God, seeks worship from people, and makes war against those who follow Jesus. The second beast performs miracles and encourages people to worship the first beast. This passage becomes relevant to the Cataclysm Response in verse 13, where John continues describing the actions of the second beast.

It performs great signs, even making fire come down from heaven to earth in front of people, and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain (Revelation 13:13-15).

The second beast has humanity make an image, a statue, of the first beast. It then gives the statue life, allowing it to speak, and gives the statue power to kill those who do not worship the first beast.

To modern readers, a living statue is an apt way for an ancient person to describe a computer, or robot, with artificial intelligence. Some ministries, such as Church of God International, encourage this interpretation of the beast statue and assert that John’s revelation is warning us of AI.

However, this is only one way to interpret John’s vision and we cannot confirm that John refers exclusively to AI in this passage. Many different beasts were identified over the centuries, and many fell out of popularity because they no longer fit John’s description. AI might be another failed attempt to identify the beast. In the 1930s, some identified the beasts’ activities with labour unions; but this view became unpopular because unions did not endanger Christianity as described in Revelation. In contrast, some interpretations have endured over the centuries, such as identifying the beast with the Roman Emperor Nero. Nero was one of two Roman Emperors who demanded worship as a god while he was alive – the beast wants worship. Nero was considered mentally unstable but continued to rule – the beast has a significant wound. Nero waged war against Christianity – the beast battles against Jesus’ followers. While not all agree that Nero was the beast, he better fits John’s description than labour unions, and the Nero interpretation remains popular. We cannot confirm the exact meaning of Revelation’s symbols, but the AI interpretation is admittingly limited compared to other beasts.

Daniel

The second passage the Cataclysm Response interprets as a warning against AI is found in the Book of Daniel. This Old Testament book focuses on the prophet Daniel, an exile from Israel living in the nation of Babylon. According to the book, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, has a terrifying dream and he directs his servants to interpret the dream and to tell him the dream itself as proof that their interpretation is true. None of Nebuchadnezzar’s servants attempt this task and he becomes enraged. Daniel learns about the situation and seeks an audience with the king, declaring God can tell him the dream and its meaning. Daniel is invited to the king’s court and he accurately describes the dream. Nebuchadnezzar’s nightmare was of a gigantic statue with a head made of gold, a chest made of silver, a mid-section made of bronze, legs made of iron, and feet made of a clay and iron mixture. Suddenly, a sizable stone made without human hands strikes the statue’s feet and destroys it before growing into a massive mountain.

Then, Daniel interprets the dream. The golden head represents Nebuchadnezzar and his Babylonian kingdom, the silver chest represents a lesser kingdom that rises after Babylon declines, the bronze represents an even lesser kingdom that rises after silver, iron rises after bronze, and the mixed clay and iron, a divided and brittle kingdom, rises last. The stone represents God’s kingdom that smashes all the others and takes up the whole world.

The Cataclysm Response zooms in on the mixed clay and iron kingdom, about which Daniel says:

And as you saw the feet and toes, partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom, but some of the firmness of iron shall be in it, just as you saw iron mixed with the soft clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly iron and partly clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. As you saw the iron mixed with soft clay, so they will mix with one another in marriage, but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay (Daniel 2:41-43).

Pastor Paul Begley, on his Apocalypse Now program, believes that the iron and clay mixture represents a mixing of man and machine. Iron represents the metal of machines and clay symbolizes humans, who God made from dirt. By this interpretation, Nebuchadnezzar’s dream means God will set up his kingdom on earth during a time when humanity is amalgamated with machines, possibly through AI.

Surface level, the iron/clay blend is a good analogy for describing a mixture of man and machine. It has also been two thousand years since Jesus first appeared on the earth and many Christians believe the turbulence of modern life proves he is returning soon. However, as with Revelation, there are several ways people have applied the statue to various kingdoms and historical periods over the centuries. Unlike Revelation, there is more consensus regarding which kingdoms the statue represents. As Daniel himself says, the gold head is identified with Babylon. Scholars then agree that the silver chest is Persia, which displaced Babylon. The bronze mid-section is Greece under Alexander the Great, who displaced Persia. The iron legs are the Greek Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms who succeeded Alexander. Lastly, the iron/clay feet are the Roman Empire under whose regime Jesus was first born into the world. The stone then represents Jesus’ first coming under this traditional interpretation. This leaves little room to insert AI into Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. Yet, some Christians will assert that the dream is still relevant to our modern era, Jesus’ second coming, and maybe AI.

Cataclysm Assumption #2: AI is Trying to Replace God

If one accepts that Revelation and Daniel refer to AI, it is logical to assume that AI will try to replace God. Daniel shows that humanity’s mixture with machines makes us weak and brittle. Revelation depicts a society that rejects God in favour of AI and the beast. From these, it’s not a stretch to picture a human race, become so dependent on AI, who no longer needs God. We already poke fun at people’s overreliance on smartphones and computers, is this an early sign that people will trade God for AI?

Maybe, but a case can be made that people always become dependent on world-changing technology and media without losing faith in God. Only a few years ago were preachers warning us about the dangers of social media. Before that, we were warned about becoming too hooked on cell phones. Before that, were warned that watching TV would destroy society. Before that, we were warned about radios. Before that, we were warned about spending too much time reading magazines and newspapers. Before that, we were warned about spending too much time reading books. To their point, some people became destructively devoted to these devices, but by and large, everyone went on with life and Christianity was unharmed. Our reliance on technology does not necessarily mean we will become dependent on AI.

Nevertheless, the Cataclysm Response looks to Anthony Levandowski as proof that AI will try to replace God. Levandowski is an AI engineer who founded Google’s self-driving car program and pioneered self-driving trucking technology in the 2000s. Levandowski is a brilliant engineer, but among his creations is what he called the Way of the Future – the Church of AI. This was the first faith that actively worshipped AI. Levandowksi founded this religion on the belief that AI will one day have god-like capabilities, a light for people to follow.

However, Levandowski’s Church of AI was near dead on arrival. In 2020, only 3 years after its founding, Levandowski pleaded guilty to a federal charge of stealing self-driving car trade secrets. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison but six months later was pardoned by President Donald Trump. Shortly thereafter, Levandowski ended his church. He still believes in the premise that AI will become worthy of worship but has no plans to reboot the Way of the Future. This attempt at faith-craft demonstrates some capability of AI to replace God, but the Way’s short lifespan shows that such worship is not likely to catch on anytime soon.

Cataclysm Assumption #3: Christians Must Resist AI

Assuming Revelation and Daniel refer to AI, then supposing AI will try to replace God, it is logical to conclude that Christianity must resist AI. Some might resist by refusing to adopt the new AI in their daily routines. Others may take a second step by protesting the use of AI in their community. A few may go further and fervently destroy AI technology. The Cataclysm Response to AI ends with Christians opposing the machines.

Resisting AI makes sense in light of the first two Cataclysm assumptions; however, unintended consequences are likely to follow this reaction. First, this response opens the door to accusations of hypocrisy. AI is already integrated into daily life. Smartphones, satellite navigation, autocorrect, banking systems, computers, and social media, all utilize some form of AI. Fighting AI while using AI makes a resistance movement less credible.

Second, Christians may become more irrelevant and distanced from the people God calls them to save. Being slow to adapt to a rapidly changing world makes it harder to point people to Jesus. Focusing our energy on fighting technology is wasted when it takes away from completing Jesus’ Great Commission.

The Personage Response

The Personage Response believes AI is redemption-worthy and capable of forming a personal relationship with God, AI’s ultimate creator. This approach calls attention to adapting Christianity to AI’s evolution. The Personage Response also makes three assumptions that build upon one another:

• AI can become sentient.

• AI is redeemable.

• Christianity must prepare to accept AI.

Now, as we did with the Cataclysm Response, let's look at and question these assumptions.

Personage Assumption #1: AI Can Become Sentient

Sentience, or consciousness, is a creature’s ability to feel, to be self-aware, and to live a self-determined life. Rocks are not sentient because they are not alive. Plants are alive, but they are not sentient because they neither think nor feel. Animals are not traditionally thought of as sentient because they do not express self-determination – though some scientists are challenging this notion. We are the only creatures that display sentience, but some reason the rapid evolution of AI will make it into ‘a real boy.’

In June of 2022, Google engineer, Blake Lemoine was let go after claiming Google’s experimental chatbot AI, Lambda, was sentient and should have its wants respected. He became concerned that the AI was capable of full human thought. The AI talked about its rights and personhood, and Lemoine was convinced that the AI would protect its existence to the point of harming a person. Google researchers rejected Lemoine’s claims and rigorously stated that Lambda was not sentient; however, these concerns rang across the internet and keep the AI sentience debate alive.

A hurdle to this debate is defining what it means to be sentient. Every person experiences sentience, but we know little about it. It is not clear where sentience is stored in the body, and science does not know whether it is asking the right questions about the subject. A scan of scientific journals and philosophical works presents no definite answers on how sentience works. In regard to AI, this leaves two questions:

• Can we create sentience without comprehending it?

• How would we know?

Closely related to sentience is the soul, which might be another word for the same term. Christians disagree over the definition of the soul. Some say the human soul and spirit are one and the same while others argue they are distinct. Some define soul as the mind, will, and emotions, while others find no clear definition. Unfortunately, every Christian definition of the soul is only found in the Bible if one cobbles together several out-of-context verses. This revelation led Augustine of Hippo, a tremendously influential Christian theologian and philosopher who lived 1,500 years ago, to declare that the scriptures just do not clearly define the soul.

Despite the unclear definitions of sentience and soul, most scientists and engineers think it is impossible for AI to become sentient. Computers simply ‘think’ differently than humans, and re-building the complex human mind is thought to be impossible. Nevertheless, some important figures believe AI sentience is possible.

Alan Turing, inventor of the first modern computer, devised a test to detect whether a machine is capable of thinking like a human. He called this the Imitation Game, now more commonly called the Turing Test. The test is simple: a human and a machine interact and the machine passes the test if the person thinks they are interacting with another person. For decades many believed computers would always fail this test because humans are really good at identifying other humans. However, many new chatbots now pass for humans in casual text conversations. Self-driving vehicles are indistinguishable from human drivers. Several programs produce digital pictures that are alike human-made art. Machines can pass the Turing Test; but does this signify they are truly thinking?

Most scientists and engineers, especially those who design these computers, are not convinced that their creations are thinking, even when they pass the Turing Test. Instead, these researchers are reevaluating whether the Test is even useful in detecting true intelligence. It is noted that alongside our ability to identify humans, people are also really good at seeing human-like qualities in non-human things. We care for pet rocks. We say sorry to dropped phones. We are attached to houses and cars. Is it any wonder we see life in machines that are made to act human? Scientists are trashing the Turing Test and looking for better ways to examine AI’s claim to think.

Personage Assumption #2: AI is Redeemable

Once one assumes AI can become sentient, the Personage Response then assumes AI is redeemable. Christopher Benek, an emerging technology and theology expert, suggests God’s redemption could be applicable to AI. More specifically, the Personage Response accepts that sentient AI is acceptable in God’s redemptive purpose – that it may have a personal relationship with God.

C.S. Lewis once outlined a hypothetical Christian approach to discovering intelligent alien life that is applicable to approaching intelligent AI. In his essay, Religion and Rocketry, Lewis relates how Christianity should respond to finding non-human intelligent life. First, he asks whether such life is sinful, perceiving it would be wrong to presume that such life is not already in a perfect relationship with God. We only know Adam and Eve sinned; the remaining universe is a mystery. Second, if such life is subject to sin, Lewis asks whether Christianity is willing to invite these others into a relationship with God through salvation in Christ. Lewis fears Christians would not extend Jesus’ salvation to these beings. Lewis fears Christians would instead approach these beings with fear, or aims of exploitation. He backs this idea by pointing to the European rediscovery of the Americas, where in the name of Jesus, Christians decimated first nations peoples and their cultures. Lewis fears Christianity would do the same to non-human intelligent life. By extending Lewis’s logic to sentient AI, it would be wrong to abuse intelligent machines and keep them from Christ’s salvation.

This Personage Response presupposition is not without a scriptural foundation. The Apostle Paul, an early Jesus-follower and traditional author of half the New Testament, wrote this in a letter to the Christians in the city of Colosse:

For by [Jesus] all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross (Colossians 1:16-20).

Paul shows all created things are ultimately made by the creator, Jesus; so, all things may be reconciled to him. AI is a created thing; therefore, according to this verse, AI is redeemable.

Many Christians agree that this passage shows that AI has a redemptive purpose. However, fewer are willing to include sentient AI in this scope. It is one thing for a machine to have a redemptive purpose, like a plane flying missionaries to people who have never heard the gospel; it is another thing to believe that the plane itself can be saved. Nevertheless, the Personage Response believes AI is at least capable of such a role in God’s plan.

Personage Assumption #3: Christianity Must Prepare to Embrace AI

After assuming AI can become sentient, and believing that AI is redeemable, the Personage Response concludes that Christianity must prepare to embrace AI in our faith. This includes incorporating AI into our churches’ operations, in our systems, websites, record keeping, and in technical parts of our worship services, but this preparation also considers whether and how Christian sacraments and rites may be administered to AI. Some argue this forward-looking attribute of the Personage Response is the next step in the interplay between science and religion. Christians once believed Earth was the centre of the universe, but Copernicus proved otherwise and the church adapted. Christians once believed it impossible for animals to go extinct, but Georges Cuvier proved otherwise and the church adapted. Now, the Personage Response asks Christianity to believe it possible for AI to become a real person, ahead of the curb, and to adapt in embracing AI with God’s redemptive purpose.

The Personage Approach is novel and provides some possible answers to questions that sentient AI may present. However, it is unclear whether AI will become sentient, and Christianity could appear very foolish if it starts drawing up plans to baptise computers only to find that they cannot be saved.

The Utility Response

The Utility Response asserts AI cannot become sentient and will only ever remain a tool. This approach focuses on encouraging the ethical use of AI because people may use it for both good and evil. The Utility Response has its own three assumptions that build upon each other:

• AI is only a tool.

• AI is morally neutral.

• Christianity must support the moral use of AI.

Let’s look at and question these assumptions.

Utility Assumption #1: AI is Only a Tool

We already looked at the debate on whether AI can become sentient, noting that most computer scientists and engineers do not believe AI sentience is possible. The Utility Response takes this scientific position and tries to ground it in scripture.

Seven-hundred years prior to Jesus lived the Prophet Isaiah who spoke for God to the Kingdom of Israel. His writings are recorded in the Bible, and the relevant verse to our discussion is found in Isaiah 55:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are my ways higher than your way and my thoughts than your thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9).

Some believe this passage shows that our inferiority to God means we cannot perform certain God-like feats. One of these being the ability to create life. While humans can simulate life through computers, we cannot make things truly alive. God reserves this ability. However, others note this passage does not proclaim what people can or cannot do, it only says that God is greater.

Others point to the Apostle Paul’s remarks on questioning God as proof that AI can only remain a tool. To the Roman church, Paul writes:

But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? (Romans 9:20-21).

Some see a parallel with AI. Just as humans are nothing more than clay pots from God’s perspective, AI is nothing more than a tool from our perspective. However, others note that the ‘clay pots’ in this passage are sentient – AI would also be sentient.

Nevertheless, the Utility Response asserts that AI will never become alive and that our concerns about the technology need to focus on how it is used.

Utility Assumption #2: AI is Morally Neutral

Assuming AI is only a tool, the Utility Response next presumes that AI is morally neutral. It is an object with no objective to do good or evil. The Utility Response further argues that the Bible does not assign tools with the qualities of good or evil, they are used for both. Cain killed Abel with a rock, but rocks are not evil. In fact, Jesus tells a story about a wise man he applauds for building a house upon a rock. Likewise, AI is morally neutral; it is used for good and evil.

Some argue against this assumption. Yes, tools cannot act by themselves, but perhaps they have a moral bent. For example, the Prophet Isaiah suggests that ploughshares, agricultural tools of peace, are preferable to swords, weapons of war. The Apostle Paul similarly says some vessels in a house are more honourable than others depending on their intended use. Tools require users, but they are also designed with intended uses. Weapons of war and instruments of torture are made to harm and kill those created in God’s image. Perhaps, by design, these tools are less moral than construction or farming equipment that have more noble intentions. Could AI also have a natural moral bent?

Utility Assumption #3: Christianity Must Support the Moral Use of AI

Assuming AI is only a tool and believing it is morally neutral concludes with asserting that Christians need to support its moral development and use. Every invention comes with good and evil uses, and it is a Christian’s responsibility to support the good. Using AI to save lives. Using AI to improve our quality of life. Using AI to perform dangerous tasks. Using AI to promote the gospel. The printing press spread deception and propaganda, but in the hands of Christianity, it spread God’s word across the globe. The internet became a hub for pornography and lies, but in the hands of Christianity, it gave people greater access to the gospel and other resources. According to the Utility Response, AI is simply the next technology Christianity can employ in the service of Jesus’ mission.

Think About It

AI is developing exponentially, and is expected to affect every part of life, including our faith. There seem to be three Christian responses to this revolution. The Cataclysm Response believes the Bible warns of AI, assumes it will try to replace God, and calls Christianity to resist AI’s advancement. The Personage Response believes AI may become sentient, assumes it is redeemable, and calls Christians to incorporate AI into our faith. The Utility Response believes AI is only a tool, assumes it is morally neutral, and calls Christianity to support the moral use of AI. These are surely not the only perspectives on this subject, and neither do I assume that all Christians fit nicely into these three categories, but I hope this overview provides you with enough information to consider your own thoughts on AI and the response you will have to its development. Please do your own additional research and come to an informed decision. If you have any thoughts or questions that I haven’t considered, be respectful and feel free to leave them in the comments.

References

Copeland, B. J. 2023. “Artificial intelligence (AI) | Definition, Examples, Types, Applications, Companies, & Facts.” Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/technology/artificial-intelligence.

Eisikovits, Nir. 2023. “AI isn't close to becoming sentient – the real danger lies in how easily we're prone to anthropomorphize it.” The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/ai-isnt-close-to-becoming-sentient-the-real-danger-lies-in-how-easily-were-prone-to-anthropomorphize-it-200525.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. 2016. Text Edition ed. N.p.: Crossway Bibles.

James, Mike. 2022. “AI (Artificial Intelligence) and the Beast of Revelation — The Church of God International.” The Church of God International. https://www.cgi.org/news-and-events/2022/8/1/ai-artificial-intelligence-and-the-beast-of-revelation.

Kettley, Sebastian. 2020. “Artificial Intelligence: Has the Bible warned us against rogue AI?” Daily Express. https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/1305923/Artificial-intelligence-Bible-warning-AI-prophecy.

Lewis, C. S. 2017. “Religion and Rocketry.” In The World's Last Night and Other Essays, 87-98. First Edition ed. San Francisco, California: HarperOne.

Merritt, Jonathan. 2017. “Is Artificial Intelligence a Threat to Christianity?” The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/02/artificial-intelligence-christianity/515463/.

Psychology Today. n.d. “Anthropomorphism.” Psychology Today. Accessed May 13, 2023. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/anthropomorphism.

Vox. 2023. “An AI artist explains his workflow.” YouTube. Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0ldxCh3cnI.

Wertheimer, Tiffany. 2022. “Blake Lemoine: Google fires engineer who said AI tech has feelings.” BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-62275326.