AI, Bionics, Technopoly, and the Gospel

I tend to shy away from posting on current events; I talk about them often in my sermons, but it is not my purpose on this blog. But this one ties into my reading from not only this past week, but really the past month.

I came across Stephen Hawking’s op-ed (HERE) from a couple of weeks ago on the subject of Artificial Intelligence. I actually agree with his main point in the column: we need to start considering the future ramifications of our technological tinkering. This is really the main point that Neil Postman was trying to make in Technopoly as well. From Postman’s perspective, which he wrote 20 years ago, Americans, at that time, needed to start asking important questions about technology: What is it replacing? What will it cause to become obsolete? He proposes many questions that we should have been asking then. But few were asking them. Perhaps someone with the alleged credibility of Hawking will actually cause some folks to ask questions they haven’t been asking.

Hawking makes the point that our technologies may have more of a dangerous potential than we typically envision. Maybe some of the Sci-Fi movies and books may actually prove prophetic. Perhaps The Matrix isn’t so far removed from potential reality. But he also makes the point that technology, especially Artificial Intelligence, provides glorious possibilities; In his own words, “we cannot predict what we might achieve when this intelligence is magnified by the tools that AI may provide, but the eradication of war, disease, and poverty would be high on anyone’s list. Success in creating AI would be the biggest event in human history.”

There is a bigger event that has already happened (2000 years ago); but I digress.

As I read that line for the first time, in my mind, I began to hear the voice of Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones preaching about modern man, the bomb, Man coming into his own, Educationism, and Scientism. If you are somewhat familiar with him, you could probably imagine him in a pulpit today saying something like this:

Modern man thinks that he is unstoppable. He has his technology. He has his computer – it is the answer to everything: ‘We don’t need your Christianity for answers,’ he says. ‘We have internet search engines that are omniscient.’ ‘We don’t need your resurrection; give Google 20 years and they will cure death,’ he says. ‘A few more years and we will eradicate war and poverty and disease.’ Modern man says, ‘We don’t need your God, we have Bionics. We can make the lame to walk and the blind to see with our technology.’

And then I can hear the Doctor, in my mind, saying, ‘But they are all fools; the fool saith in his heart there is no God. Have they not read the story of Babel? Have they not read the psalmist speaking of the raging of the heathen? The God who sits in the heavens laughs. “Let us tear their chords apart and burst their bands asunder!” says the fool; and the living God laughs at their notions of power.’

Now, back to my own voice. I watched a TED Talk on the subject of Bionics recently. It’s worth the 20 minutes it takes to watch it (HERE). It chronicles the development of Bionics as scientists and engineers are seeking to create prosthetic appendages that will work with the neurological systems of human bodies (the recent FDA approval of the ‘Luke Skywalker Arm’ is an example of this). The invention itself looks magnificent; the problem comes in when the creators of such devices say things like this: “I reasoned that a human being can never be broken; technology is broken; technology is inadequate.” That is the logic of Technopoly in a nutshell. We’re fine; there’s nothing wrong with us; we have unlimited potential; we just need the right technology.

We have no idea what our future has in store. In many ways we should be thankful for the advances we are making in Bionics and other technological fields.When we cause the lame to walk, we are, in a sense, imitating the work of Christ. But if, in their new ability to stand, they rise up on those magic legs (to quote Forrest Gump), beat their breast, and pronounce their own deity, then we have a great problem. And this is my great fear. In the words of Joy Davidman,

…Perhaps our remote ancestors had no sooner invented the slingshot than they reared back on their hind legs and proclaimed that their technical progress had now enabled them to do without religion.

Let me end by going back to Dr. Lloyd-Jones. He was fond of saying that the great problem with humanity is that we tend, at one and the same time, to think too highly of ourselves and too lowly of ourselves. We think too highly of ourselves because we think that we can do without God, or indeed, that we are gods; we may not be perfect, but certainly we have no categories for sin. Yet we think too lowly of ourselves because we believe that we are simply evolved animals upon whom Heaven has no bearing. We think that Heaven, if there is such a place, is wholly indifferent to our actions (or at least this is what we prefer). Psalm 8 is our great corrective.

We in the West are back, philosophically, where we were before the World Wars. We think that we can somehow eradicate war and poverty because we have no conception of sin. We see nothing but progress in our future. Hawking wants us to consider the possibility of negative effects, yet also boasts of a technological future without war and pain and hunger. As Christians, we must be mindful that the sinful nature of Man will continue to play a role in all he does, and it will infect all he creates. This does not mean that the future is a lost cause. Rather, it means that repentance and wisdom are necessary. Yet repentance is no longer in the modern vocabulary and wisdom has been wholly removed from any relation to God.

We are now obsessed, as a culture, with creating artificial life; all the while, God calls us to genuine life (see John 3). We are obsessed with progress; all the while, God calls us to re-dig the old wells (see Genesis 26) and return to Paradise (see 2 Corinthians 5 and Revelation 21-22). We are obsessed with making the lame walk and the blind see; all the while, we will not heed the call of Jesus Christ:

He speaks, and, listening to His voice,
New life the dead receive,
The mournful, broken hearts rejoice,
The humble poor believe.

Hear Him, ye deaf; His praise, ye dumb,
Your loosened tongues employ;
Ye blind, behold your Savior come,
And leap, ye lame, for joy.

Charles Wesley captured it beautifully. I am a simple country preacher, but I would dare say that we desperately need to sound this note, especially in our urban pulpits. Hawking is right; we need to think about the ramifications of what we are doing. And it is the Christian’s job to be at the forefront in that thinking as we call humanity away from making idols of technology, and themselves, and declare the gospel of the great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

4 thoughts on “AI, Bionics, Technopoly, and the Gospel

  1. ” …the problem comes in when the creators of such devices say things like this: “I reasoned that a human being can never be broken; technology is broken; technology is inadequate.” That is the logic of Technopoly in a nutshell.” I agree with you. And in essence, that is the problem of pride. Here is an expression of pride in technology, but we do it everywhere. With pride, not only are wicked objects created and wicked plots devised, but objects and plots that are not innately such are made to be corrupt. Thus robotic (or other) devices take on their moral expression as the heart of man gives them their purposes. I loved your exposition of this in relation to Lloyd-Jones’ “too highly/too lowly” worldview dynamic.

    Fantastic Joy Davidman quote. Thank you for that.

    I hear alot of good discussion here, and with others sensitive to this issue about the realities of “displacement” as an action in the ecological changes brought on by technology. In that regard, I wonder what does it mean when we so flippantly attempt to displace our own intellect with AI? The AI crowd is not looking at simple mechanical cognition, they are after the very kind of thought processes that set humans as distinctively different from the animals. Our unique minds are part of our expression as Image Bearers. What are we saying when we seek to replicate, and in many ways, displace such?

    I would predict that one thing they will try to say, if and when they achieve their precious AI, is that human intelligence is not so special or unique. (Many have already tried to say this.) In that regard, they will be like Pharaoh’s sorcerer’s, making their own snakes when God had Moses transform his rod. “You think that is special?” the AI crowd quotes the sorcerers, “we can do that too. Nothing special.” But Moses’ snake ate the sorcerers’ snakes. When we attempt to devalue the mind of God by replicating the mind of man, how will the snakes be eaten?

    I battle this same sort of dynamic in my vocation in a variety of ways, but no other place do I see it more emphatically than with the genetically modified organisms (GMO) we have, and still are, creating. One could look at how modernity deals with GMOs to predict how it will deal with AI, when they finally finish the Frankenstein.

    • My interest in these things to a large degree stems from the fact that, two years ago, I went back to college and began studying instructional technology. I was already interested in technology of course, but I decided to do this mainly as a means of seeing where education is going in this country (since I don’t plan on being a professional teacher). And what I found there made me even more concerned.

      I found that I was generally the only person in my classes who questioned the necessity of using many of the modern digital tools that are beginning to permeate classrooms. I would get a good bit of flack for that sort of thing, and almost always find myself as the odd person out. From that experience, I am very concerned that people are not even attempting to think critically about modern technologies. That’s why I am writing about it so much.

      I believe that this may be the biggest pastoral issue that I am going to have to deal with (practically) in the years to come. So I want to think through it as deeply as possible. I am glad that you are thinking through these things with me. I think you said it earlier, but at times you feel like you are ‘virtually’ (pun) the only one.

      • One other thing: when I first read That Hideous Strength by C.S. Lewis I didn’t understand why people thought it was one of his greatest books. But the more I study modern technology (or modern attitudes toward it), the more I am realizing that the folks who recommend it so highly are right. Lewis’ vision may prove prophetic.

  2. Hah. Yeah. That reminds me- Ken Myers makes a joke referencing “That Hideous Strength” in the current Mars Hill edition when talking about all the new A.I. stuff going on.

Your Thoughts: