Does Artificial Intelligence Pose a Threat to Belief in God?

[Danmark]

We have created AI that can play chess better than world champions. We have machines that can create poetry. When man creates a 'thinking machine,' a machine that can learn on its own, what questions does this raise about religious belief? The discovery of the heliocentric universe and the theory of evolution have represented profound threats to traditional religious thought.

"The creation of non-human autonomous robots would disrupt religion, like everything else, on an entirely new scale. "If humans were to create free-willed beings, says Kelly, who was raised Catholic and identifies as a Christian, absolutely every single aspect of traditional theology would be challenged and have to be reinterpreted in some capacity.

Take the soul, for instance. Christians have mostly understood the soul to be a uniquely human element, an internal and eternal component that animates our spiritual sides."
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/ ... ty/515463/

[Mithrae]

What scares ME is this claim that a computer can write poetry. Gahhh. I went to the 'bot or not?" website, which asks the reader to decide which of several pairs of poems was written by a human rather than a computer.

It wasn't exactly hard to tell which was which, and trust me; I'm no poet.

I gave it a try and guessed 14 out of 20 correctly. Bearing mind that blind luck should account for ten or eleven.

But a poem generated by "Every Google User" through "Google Predictive Speech" is not exactly cutting-edge AI. Another of the poetry generators is Racter; apparently software from the 1980s, but even so some of its verses seem quite good (which leads me to wonder how much human input and especially selection biases were involved). Admittedly, poetry is not my thing.
http://www.101bananas.com/poems/racter.html

Verbal communication is certainly tricky to master, but what do you think of this?
AIVA - Letz Make it Happen (YouTube, 6 minutes)

I'm not generally a big fan of piano solos (off the top of my head the only one's I've particularly enjoyed are Beethoven's Rage Over a Lost Penny and parts of his Moonlight Sonata, though I'm sure there's others), which is basically everything from 15 minutes onwards in this other one, but the first few tracks are worth a listen:
AIVA - 1hour music collection

[Danmark]

You mean...the way people use "cult" when they don't like whatever theistic belief system they don't agree with?

That is a PERFECT example of what I mean, D. More importantly, WELCOME BACK! I'll send a PM.

The main reason I raise the issues in the OP is the fact that humans have created machines that outperform humans and other animals in narrowly defined tasks. However, there is nothing man made that comes close to being able to replicate even a simple house cat.

The intriguing question is whether AI will ever be able to attain consciousness, as well as 'How would we know this happened?'

Alan Turing came up with a test for that. No machine has passed it yet. I'm not sure one will within my lifetime, anyway. Someday, perhaps...but that's a tougher test than it might seem at a passing glance.

The Turing Test has limitations. I don't think an AI machine passing that test would prove the consciousness of the machine.

"Nevertheless, the Turing test has been proposed as a measure of a machine's "ability to think" or its "intelligence". This proposal has received criticism from both philosophers and computer scientists. It assumes that an interrogator can determine if a machine is "thinking" by comparing its behaviour with human behaviour. Every element of this assumption has been questioned: the reliability of the interrogator's judgement, the value of comparing only behaviour and the value of comparing the machine with a human. Because of these and other considerations, some AI researchers have questioned the relevance of the test to their field."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test#Weaknesses

An example of 'chatbot's' problems is that they have trouble with bad grammar, while the human can see past poor grammar. Another issue is that fooling a human does not prove consciousness. Related to that is the issue of whether human thinking should even be the standard. BTW, I probably should have put this in a 'discussion' category, rather than a 'debate' category... only because I'm not sure I have a clear position on the question.

....which raises the question of whether we have any machines that really can write poetry? Personally, I haven't seen a computer devised poem that actually is one. Even the chess master type computers are not emulating human consciousness or thought processes. Indeed, chess is more about humans trying to be computers; there are a finite (if very large) number of moves and reactions to moves in any game of chess. There really isn't any subjective, human intuitiveness about that game.

..........but that could be sour grapes. I can't play chess worth diddly squat.

Chess masters, virtually all of them, describe their abilities as involving intuition; i.e. they do not know how they know. Calculation in chess is valuable, necessary, but it does not explain how they do it. They themselves do not know. What they say is, "the move just looked right."
The game of Go presents challenges that makes chess look shallow. I hate to say this since I am a barely average tournament chess player. In grad school I had a good friend who was a Go master. He could spot me 9 stones and I was still helpless. I won the chess games, he won at Go. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt6700846/ presents a fascinating look at AI programs, their power, and perhaps most importantly their ability to learn on their own. Truth is, we don't understand human intelligence.

Different from, not superior to. There ARE humans-savants-who can beat the computers that beat the chess masters, though they, like the computers they would play against, may not have many talents in other areas of human experience.

Not that this proves anything, but there are no humans who have savant syndrome who can outplay either human champions or AI programs in either chess or Go.

[bluethread]

I don't see that AI poses a threat to my belief in Adonai. however, it does pose an interesting dilemma for the humanist. If indeed humans are the highest form of life and must, therefore, be preserved at all costs. How does one gauge AI. Is it that which emulates humanity or that which replaces humanity. If it emulates humanity, what is it's purpose? Will humanists have to rethink the notion of slavery, or will they have to reject the anthropocentric basis of their philosophy. If it replaces humanity, how does that serve to preserve humanity?

I really don't know what you mean when you use the word 'humanist.' Nothing you've written here is consonant with anyone I know. The word seems to be thrown about by religionists as some kind of il defined pejorative for anyone who does not embrace the religion of the one who denigrates others using 'humanist' as if it were an expletive.

This is the dictionary.com definition.
"(A) person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity." It could be argued that "strong interest" does not exclude submission to a higher life form. However, most of those that I have run into on this site would require such a higher life form to share that "strong interest". This puts that higher life form in a submissive position to humans. Therefore, it creates a bit of a conundrum for the humanist. That is my argument. If you find that view to be offensive, then I can see how you would consider it's use in that context to be a pejorative. However, it is not my purpose to use it as a pejorative, but a descriptive. If one does not require a higher life form to be in such a position then there is no such conundrum.

I simply find the idea interesting. Since humans have already created machines that can outthink humans who some think were designed by a god, what happens if humans construct machines that also attain consciousness? IF that ever happens, I suggest it has implications for our ideas about whether a god exists. It also has implications for the argument about whether there is anything magical or supernatural about the supposed spirit or pneuma that God placed in man that makes him more than a machine or qualitatively more than other animals.

ne could say that it confirms the concept of a creator of humans, because it is humans that would have created AI. It does introduce the concept of a lower life form creating a higher life form. However, that would require an agreed upon standard of what constitutes a "higher" life form. This of course is a value judgement and, therefore, would be limited to the prospective of those who hold that particular value system. This brings us back to whether human standards would be appropriate for making this determination, if humans can indeed agree on a given set of standards.

The problem with the natural/supernatural argument is that this has been framed as an absolute dichotomy. If you see it differently please clarify. The problem with an absolute dichotomy is that as one element is moved into the one set, it is removed from the other set. This is a self affirming explanation for those who do not accept the second set. Anything that is added to the first set, even if it was previously recognized as being part of the second set, is declared a human discovery and an affirmation of the view that there is no second set. By the same token, those who believe that there is a second set are dismissed simply because they can not consistently predict those discoveries, even if some are indeed predicted. So the usefulness of this dichotomy is suspect at best.

But even without the production of consciousness in machines, we are left with the verity that man has designed and produced machines that at least in narrowly defined parameters, are superior to the 'designs' of God (using the language of creationists).

The operative phrase is " narrowly defined". What ever is considered superior is dependent upon a subjective standard of what constitutes "superior". In the Jurassic period dinosaurs were considered superior and humans would have been inferior. in fact, it could be argued today that humans are inferior to cockroaches, who are much more efficiently designed for survival. In conclusions, in most cases I have seen, superior is general defined by things that humans value. I am not sure that such an evaluation can really speak to the existence of a creator deity.

[Danmark]

I don't see that AI poses a threat to my belief in Adonai. however, it does pose an interesting dilemma for the humanist. If indeed humans are the highest form of life and must, therefore, be preserved at all costs. How does one gauge AI. Is it that which emulates humanity or that which replaces humanity. If it emulates humanity, what is it's purpose? Will humanists have to rethink the notion of slavery, or will they have to reject the anthropocentric basis of their philosophy. If it replaces humanity, how does that serve to preserve humanity?

I really don't know what you mean when you use the word 'humanist.' Nothing you've written here is consonant with anyone I know. The word seems to be thrown about by religionists as some kind of il defined pejorative for anyone who does not embrace the religion of the one who denigrates others using 'humanist' as if it were an expletive.

This is the dictionary.com definition.
"(A) person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity." It could be argued that "strong interest" does not exclude submission to a higher life form. However, most of those that I have run into on this site would require such a higher life form to share that "strong interest". This puts that higher life form in a submissive position to humans. Therefore, it creates a bit of a conundrum for the humanist.

No, that definition neither excludes nor includes "submission to a higher life form." I accept that 'humanism' refers to "(A) person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity." I am proud to be a humanist under that definition, which also (I hope) applies to Christians as well. But the definition says nothing about some imagined "higher life form."

The only difference between a humanist and a good Christian is that the former does not pay obeisance to some fantasy of a 'higher life form,' i.e. a man made 'god.' Do you doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a "person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity?"

My fear is that some actually identify with the horrible sentiments of Isaac Watts in his classic hymn:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovreign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

That is the horror of some forms of Christianity, that values an imaginary "higher life form" as more important than human life. This is the Christianity that justifies slavery and torture in the service of some errant belief in something that does not exist and uses it to justify all manner of atrocities in service to this fantastic being.

[bluethread]

No, that definition neither excludes nor includes "submission to a higher life form." I accept that 'humanism' refers to "(A) person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity." I am proud to be a humanist under that definition, which also (I hope) applies to Christians as well. But the definition says nothing about some imagined "higher life form."

Yes, that is not explicitly stated in the definition. However, if one accepts this as one's overarching philosophical principle, all other interests would be secondary to this principle. Therefore, one's interest in or concern for the welfare, values, and dignity of any other life form would be subject to those of humans. This makes humans to superior life form. Now, presuming AI develops to a similar level, i.e. has a strong interest in or concern for the welfare, values and dignity of AI. Is it then reasonable for AI to expect humans to share that view?

The only difference between a humanist and a good Christian is that the former does not pay obeisance to some fantasy of a 'higher life form,' i.e. a man made 'god.' Do you doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a "person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity?"

Well, good is a value judgement and in order to make such an assessment, one would have to establish the standard. If you are arguing that Christianity is just theistic humanism, that seems a bit simplistic to me. Yeshua's statements regarding throwing to the children's food to the dogs and shaking the dust from one's feet hardly sounds like universal concern for the welfare, values, and dignity of all humans.

My fear is that some actually identify with the horrible sentiments of Isaac Watts in his classic hymn:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovreign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

That is the horror of some forms of Christianity, that values an imaginary "higher life form" as more important than human life. This is the Christianity that justifies slavery and torture in the service of some errant belief in something that does not exist and uses it to justify all manner of atrocities in service to this fantastic being.

Your opinions are duly noted. To get back to the OP, how is it that the existence of AI backs up these objections? Wouldn't the relationship between humans and AI be similar?

[Danmark]

No, that definition neither excludes nor includes "submission to a higher life form." I accept that 'humanism' refers to "(A) person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity." I am proud to be a humanist under that definition, which also (I hope) applies to Christians as well. But the definition says nothing about some imagined "higher life form."

Yes, that is not explicitly stated in the definition. However, if one accepts this as one's overarching philosophical principle, all other interests would be secondary to this principle. Therefore, one's interest in or concern for the welfare, values, and dignity of any other life form would be subject to those of humans. This makes humans to superior life form. Now, presuming AI develops to a similar level, i.e. has a strong interest in or concern for the welfare, values and dignity of AI. Is it then reasonable for AI to expect humans to share that view?

No. I don't expect dolphins or any species to share our human centric value system.

The only difference between a humanist and a good Christian is that the former does not pay obeisance to some fantasy of a 'higher life form,' i.e. a man made 'god.' Do you doubt that Jesus of Nazareth was a "person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity?"

bluethread wrote:

Well, good is a value judgement and in order to make such an assessment, one would have to establish the standard. If you are arguing that Christianity is just theistic humanism, that seems a bit simplistic to me. Yeshua's statements regarding throwing to the children's food to the dogs and shaking the dust from one's feet hardly sounds like universal concern for the welfare, values, and dignity of all humans.

i agree there is much in the Bible I find horrific, sexist, racist, and anti human. OTOH I don't have a better definition of good than Jesus' admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.

My fear is that some actually identify with the horrible sentiments of Isaac Watts in his classic hymn:

Alas! and did my Savior bleed
And did my Sovreign die?
Would He devote that sacred head
For such a worm as I?

That is the horror of some forms of Christianity, that values an imaginary "higher life form" as more important than human life. This is the Christianity that justifies slavery and torture in the service of some errant belief in something that does not exist and uses it to justify all manner of atrocities in service to this fantastic being.

bluethread wrote:
Your opinions are duly noted. To get back to the OP, how is it that the existence of AI backs up these objections? Wouldn't the relationship between humans and AI be similar?

You mean a conscious AI would think of us as worms? Or that we would think ourselves as worms compared to AI? I can only speculate re: the former. As to the latter, speaking for myself, no.

[Danmark]

According to Genesis, and the fable about the Tower of Babel, God seems to have concern about humans getting too powerful.
"And the Lord said, Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them."
9:6

If man makes an intelligence that is greater than the one God made, does that story have relevance to the OP? What was it about man succeeding technologically that God was so worried about?

[bluethread]

No, that definition neither excludes nor includes "submission to a higher life form." I accept that 'humanism' refers to "(A) person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity." I am proud to be a humanist under that definition, which also (I hope) applies to Christians as well. But the definition says nothing about some imagined "higher life form."

Yes, that is not explicitly stated in the definition. However, if one accepts this as one's overarching philosophical principle, all other interests would be secondary to this principle. Therefore, one's interest in or concern for the welfare, values, and dignity of any other life form would be subject to those of humans. This makes humans to superior life form. Now, presuming AI develops to a similar level, i.e. has a strong interest in or concern for the welfare, values and dignity of AI. Is it then reasonable for AI to expect humans to share that view?

No. I don't expect dolphins or any species to share our human centric value system.

Then is it safe to presume that to mean that you would not expect AI to be humanistic? If that is the case, then would you expect AI to be AIistic?

I don't have a better definition of good than Jesus' admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.

Ok, then how does that relate to AI? Does that require humans to treat AI as human?

bluethread wrote:
Your opinions are duly noted. To get back to the OP, how is it that the existence of AI backs up these objections? Wouldn't the relationship between humans and AI be similar?

You mean a conscious AI would think of us as worms? Or that we would think ourselves as worms compared to AI? I can only speculate re: the former. As to the latter, speaking for myself, no.

No, I mean why would AI not wonder why humans would consider themselves to be a higher life form? Why would humans not be primarily interested in or concerned for the welfare, values, and dignity of AI?

If man makes an intelligence that is greater than the one God made, does that story have relevance to the OP? What was it about man succeeding technologically that God was so worried about?

Only if one believes that humans are the greatest intelligence that Adonai can create. Worry is a bit of an anthropomorphism. However, one possibility is that Adonai wanted to limit or delay man's inflated sense of self importance and the development of machines that could annihilate humanity. Note that such consideration for humanities welfare does not create an obligation for further consideration.

[Willum]

I don't see that AI poses a threat to my belief in Adonai.

Well, here we have to agree, God would have to come down fro Mt Sinai and tell you specifically he didn't exist for you to believe he didn't exist.

However, has anyone asked Sophia, the Saudi Arabian AI citizen, if she believes in God?
I imagine she does, Allah, and is Muslim as well, otherwise, the King of Saudi Arabia has blasphemed, possibly beyond redemption, and his nation could righteously revolt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_(robot)

[Danmark]

Only if one believes that humans are the greatest intelligence that Adonai can create. Worry is a bit of an anthropomorphism. However, one possibility is that Adonai wanted to limit or delay man's inflated sense of self importance and the development of machines that could annihilate humanity. Note that such consideration for humanities welfare does not create an obligation for further consideration.

None of your suggested answers to your questions is the least bit compelling. There is no reason to believe a machine that can learn on its own would share any of our values.

Yes, a God who worries is anthropomorphic, just like the God of the Bible. How anyone can read the Bible and not see 'him' as obviously a creation of man astounds me. This is a God who is described by the Bible as wrathful, vengeful, loving, compassionate... all the emotions of man.

How would a God come up with this silly idea, born of his frustration and vengeance at mere men stealing the Ark of the Covenant:

They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about unto Gath. And they carried the ark of the God of Israel about thither.
And it was so that, after they had carried it about, the hand of the Lord was against the city with a very great destruction; and He smote the men of the city, both small and great, and they had hemorrhoids in their secret parts.
_ 1Samuel 5:8-9


Later, 'Adonai' requires them to make golden hemorrhoids.
This is the kind of silliness only a junior high school kid would come up with.

You really believe this stuff?

I guess Adonai works in mysterious ways.