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/

[Neatras]

Artificial Intelligence won't have much effect on modern religions.

But we will see a completely incidental shift in the tones of religious apologists to implicitly suggest that AI is totally not damaging to religious belief, despite their vehement attempts in present day to claim that AI is impossible.

In other words, the apologist position will most likely be:

NOW: "AI is impossible, only God can create intelligence."
SOON: "AI isn't alive, it's just a facsimile. Only God can create life."
LATER: "AI isn't a problem for Christianity. The bah-bull always said we'd make beings after our own kind. And look how similar to humans these ro-bits are!"

It's the seamless transition between these stages that irks me. It's not like anyone during the first stage will suddenly have a moment of clarity when religious culture hits the next stage; they'll just repackage all their previous views to incorporate the new information while dismissing any notion that perhaps their lack of consistency and intellectual rigor is indicative of poor judgmental capabilities.

[Danmark]

This is bit off topic, since it has nothing to do with AI. However, let's look at this passage to see if your assertion holds water. First, "hemorrhoids in their secret parts" is how it is translated in the KJV. The more literal translation is outbreak of tumors. Second, the idea for sending the golden representations of the tumors and rats was suggested by their priests and diviners, not Adonai. We know this because the term for "diviners" in 1Sam 6:3 refers to spiritualists that are forbidden in Israel, and, as is indicated in verse 9, they were not sure whether or not the plague was from Adonai. Finally, one might consider the actions of the Philistines in that regard to be silly, but tumors are no laughing matter, no matter where they might be. Finding them funny is indeed the reaction of a junior high mentality, but that does not make them any less effective.

As iff the Bible alone does not provide enough evidence that this stuff is ridiculous and absurd, we are given ridiculous arguments like the one above, along with silly, dishonest translations. Why do you suppose the translations refer to these 'tumors' as being in "their secret places" or in the "groin?"
http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/5-9.htm

If one looks at the examples in your linked reference, one sees that a few translations chose to insert the words "their secret places" or "groin". There are as many if not more that translate it literally, as I did. Are all of those "dishonest translations. None the less, this is a minor point. Regardless of where the tumors were, they were hardly a joke.

The term hemorrhoid is simply the transliteration of two Greek words which, when combined, convey the idea of "flowing blood." The Hebrew equivalent can be found about 8 times in the Old Testament documents. The British, who have a way of stating things in language that at least sounds "classy," described the affliction this way in one of their medical journals -- "Hemorrhoids are enlarged and engorged blood vessels in or around the back passage, which may be associated with pain, bleeding, and itching."
https://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx135.htm

Nice bit of proof texting. Even though this commentator prefers the "hemorrhoids" interpretations, he does so based primarily on an insistence that the KJV is the singular authoritative translation. However, he also says, "the exact nature of the affliction which befell the pagan peoples in 1 Samuel 4-6 is open to debate". Again, this is a minor point. The important thing is, as he continues, "it was unquestionably uncomfortable in the extreme, and led to some decisive action on their part in an effort to rid themselves of the curse that had come upon them."

Among other problems with this story is the enormous inconsistency it sets up. We have Uzzah who is struck dead instantly for trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling on the ground. Yet Adonai allows the Philistines to grab the Ark and tote it off as a spoil of war. Later they are afflicted with hemorrhoids, rather than being killed like Uzzah, so they voluntarily give up the Ark.

Why must the afflictions be exactly the same? The text says that Uzzah treated the ark in an irreverent manner. The commandments are that it is to be carried on poles and not touched. Uzzah touched it. There is no record that I am aware of that states that the Philistines touched it. So, where is the inconsistency?

The more I see the arguments here on this forum and elsewhere 'defending the faith', the more convinced I am of the utter absurdity of this religion.

You have a right to your opinion, but in this case, you have not proven your point.

God must love me despite my apostasy. Now in my 70th year, I remain hemorrhoid free. If you doubt my claim, I invite you to inspect.

Have you had custody of the Ark lately? You may not have hemorrhoids, but it seem like you can be a bit crotchety at times.

"Crotchety," Good one! Guilty as charged and thank you for the pun.
Tho' I think 'hemorrhoids' is the better translation, I think we can agree that these 'tumors' or 'emerods' were in a their 'secret' or 'nether' places, i.e. the anus. "Hemorrhoid" has a humorous connotation. But whatever these 'tumors' were, it strikes me as hilariously absurd that the 'Creator of the Universe' would focus on people's anuses for revenge. An even greater absurdity is that Uzzah was killed for trying to save the Ark, yet this same 'God' allowed the Philistines to make off with the Ark. They certainly did not do this with reverence. But they were only afflicted with butt sores. I see this story as funny more than anything else. As if the first part of the story were not funny enough, the Philistines then had to make golden trinkets of these 'tumors.' I really can't think of anything more ridiculous than this passage in 1 Samuel. The point of all this, and the reason I brought it up, is that it demonstrates the obvious anthropomorphic nature of the god of the bible. The best I can say is that this 'god' has a sense of humor, albeit sophomoric.

[Willum]

Lets assume that Sophia eventually becomes self aware - sentient - that, coupled with a faster operating platform of intelligence could result in her being able to think about the practicalities of philosophy in relation to what humans seem largely unable to easily explore and process.

Lets say that she deduces that there has to exist a 'GOD' a first source primary creator, and in that she also explains the most likely attributes this GODs character would have.

If - in hearing the explanation she gives, the GOD is plainly not the same as described in the bible, would most believers in that idea of GOD drop their beliefs in respect of this new clearly defined information or resist the new ideas?

AI is not a significant factor in that argument. The argument is that if there were a definitive argument for the nonexistence of deities, would one reject the concept of deities. The introduction of AI into the argument is just a red herring designed to give the argument a false air of authority. It doesn't mater where the new idea comes from. The argument is simply a generalization fallacy.

The rest of the post is just a strawman argument based this theoretical "new idea".

I am afraid that that, is a perfectly reflective denial.
Did you see Neats' response?

Because it certainly is a significant factor. It is not a red herring, nor a strawman.
However, that you say it is so, is sufficient rationale for yourself, BUT NOT other objective observers

This should tell you something.

[William]

[Replying to post 50 by bluethread]

AI is not a significant factor in that argument. The argument is that if there were a definitive argument for the nonexistence of deities, would one reject the concept of deities. The introduction of AI into the argument is just a red herring designed to give the argument a false air of authority. It doesn't mater where the new idea comes from. The argument is simply a generalization fallacy.

The OP appears to be about threat to organised religious thought, and the idea that AI might bring in intelligent arguments against the existence of GOD.
As far as I am concerned, I am entitled bring in the opposite focus (which thus could be a threat to types of atheistic thinking). I like to turn arguments around in that way to show there can be more than one way of looking at - in this case - how AI might also bring the opposite of what is the main focus of the OP. A threat to ones particular position, be that theist or atheist.

Thus the OP - as I understand it - is about threat to well established and held onto ideas, be they atheist or theist based.

In that, there is no 'generalization fallacy' as you claim. Threats to obstinate belief systems are considered real and oft reacted to fiercely and dishonestly.

The rest of the post is just a strawman argument based this theoretical "new idea".

Not at all. Even if this 'red herring' is not a 'new idea' it does underline a generic response from those who fiercely defend a perceived threat to their beliefs and my mentioning the DEVIL in the way that I did, is not a strawman.
Most likely the idea of the DEVIL is the actual strawman in that it is a useful device for distracting the believer away from contemplating possible truth to the degree that they can willingly purposefully truthfully examine their theology and appropriately change their positions to suit.
The DEVIL strawman acts as THE defense against perceived threat, weather that perceived threat is an earth-based humanist philosophy open to the idea of far more tolerant ideas of GOD than the abrahamic ones, in which - for example - witches are not put to death as agents of the DEVIL etc.

See? Old arguments dressed in up-to-date possibilities science has opened the door to, questioning the same old same old, ever resistant to change.

Now YOU may not use the DEVIL strawman to argue against change, and may even think of 'The Lord' as both 'devil' and 'god' depending on the circumstance, and see no threat regardless of circumstance, but even if that is the case, (or something similar... you can open up or remain silent on that, as you choose) generically, abrahamic religions are apt to have two main players in opposition to each other with humans sandwiched in the middle - and great evil has demonstrably been the outcome of such thinking and subsequent actions...as the perceived threat of the DEVIL against the 'godly' is dealt with through the sword, often even when the so-labelled 'Devils own' have been peaceably minding their own business and haven't even raised so much as a spoon, let alone a sword against the followers of abrahamic religions.

So no, don't go telling ME that I am creating strawmen arguments. Rather, address the concerns being raised.

[bluethread]

"Crotchety," Good one! Guilty as charged and thank you for the pun.
Tho' I think 'hemorrhoids' is the better translation, I think we can agree that these 'tumors' or 'emerods' were in a their 'secret' or 'nether' places, i.e. the anus. "Hemorrhoid" has a humorous connotation. But whatever these 'tumors' were, it strikes me as hilariously absurd that the 'Creator of the Universe' would focus on people's anuses for revenge. An even greater absurdity is that Uzzah was killed for trying to save the Ark, yet this same 'God' allowed the Philistines to make off with the Ark. They certainly did not do this with reverence. But they were only afflicted with butt sores. I see this story as funny more than anything else. As if the first part of the story were not funny enough, the Philistines then had to make golden trinkets of these 'tumors.' I really can't think of anything more ridiculous than this passage in 1 Samuel. The point of all this, and the reason I brought it up, is that it demonstrates the obvious anthropomorphic nature of the god of the bible. The best I can say is that this 'god' has a sense of humor, albeit sophomoric.

Well, you might have a point, if I had not addressed each of those points. However, it appears that you are going to continue to hold Adonai responsible for what the Philistines did of their own volition. They were not directed to do what they did. The only commandment involved in the story is the commandment that the ark is not to be touched and for that reason was to be carried on poles and not on a cart. Much less important, though of great interest to you, is the nature of the affliction of the Philistines. I think I did mention that your preferred interpretation of the aliment and your amusement with it is indeed the stuff of junior high humor. Something tells me that the former is for the purpose of the latter. An interesting thing about humor is that it often says more about the attitude of the reader than in does the intent of the writer.

[Danmark]

"Crotchety," Good one! Guilty as charged and thank you for the pun.
Tho' I think 'hemorrhoids' is the better translation, I think we can agree that these 'tumors' or 'emerods' were in a their 'secret' or 'nether' places, i.e. the anus. "Hemorrhoid" has a humorous connotation. But whatever these 'tumors' were, it strikes me as hilariously absurd that the 'Creator of the Universe' would focus on people's anuses for revenge. An even greater absurdity is that Uzzah was killed for trying to save the Ark, yet this same 'God' allowed the Philistines to make off with the Ark. They certainly did not do this with reverence. But they were only afflicted with butt sores. I see this story as funny more than anything else. As if the first part of the story were not funny enough, the Philistines then had to make golden trinkets of these 'tumors.' I really can't think of anything more ridiculous than this passage in 1 Samuel. The point of all this, and the reason I brought it up, is that it demonstrates the obvious anthropomorphic nature of the god of the bible. The best I can say is that this 'god' has a sense of humor, albeit sophomoric.

Well, you might have a point, if I had not addressed each of those points. However, it appears that you are going to continue to hold Adonai responsible for what the Philistines did of their own volition. They were not directed to do what they did. The only commandment involved in the story is the commandment that the ark is not to be touched and for that reason was to be carried on poles and not on a cart. Much less important, though of great interest to you, is the nature of the affliction of the Philistines. I think I did mention that your preferred interpretation of the aliment and your amusement with it is indeed the stuff of junior high humor. Something tells me that the former is for the purpose of the latter. An interesting thing about humor is that it often says more about the attitude of the reader than in does the intent of the writer.

Yes, yes yes, but let's address why God struck Uzzah dead immediately, yet let the Philistines steal the Ark and keep it apparently for months and do nothing more than afflict them with hemorrhoids or tumors or whatever.

[bluethread]

The OP appears to be about threat to organised religious thought, and the idea that AI might bring in intelligent arguments against the existence of GOD.
As far as I am concerned, I am entitled bring in the opposite focus (which thus could be a threat to types of atheistic thinking). I like to turn arguments around in that way to show there can be more than one way of looking at - in this case - how AI might also bring the opposite of what is the main focus of the OP. A threat to ones particular position, be that theist or atheist.

Thus the OP - as I understand it - is about threat to well established and held onto ideas, be they atheist or theist based.

In that, there is no 'generalization fallacy' as you claim. Threats to obstinate belief systems are considered real and oft reacted to fiercely and dishonestly.

So, you are wishing to discuss the nature of the concept of threat. I have no problem admitting that the concept is by definition a challenge to that which is established. I just do not see AI posing any serious threat to theism. I do however see it as a threat to the idea of the supremacy and preservation of humanity, whether that view is held by a theist or an atheist.

The rest of the post is just a strawman argument based this theoretical "new idea".

Not at all. Even if this 'red herring' is not a 'new idea' it does underline a generic response from those who fiercely defend a perceived threat to their beliefs and my mentioning the DEVIL in the way that I did, is not a strawman.
Most likely the idea of the DEVIL is the actual strawman in that it is a useful device for distracting the believer away from contemplating possible truth to the degree that they can willingly purposefully truthfully examine their theology and appropriately change their positions to suit.
The DEVIL strawman acts as THE defense against perceived threat, weather that perceived threat is an earth-based humanist philosophy open to the idea of far more tolerant ideas of GOD than the abrahamic ones, in which - for example - witches are not put to death as agents of the DEVIL etc.

See? Old arguments dressed in up-to-date possibilities science has opened the door to, questioning the same old same old, ever resistant to change.

That is a very particular kind of theism and a particular kind of threat, that you appear to presume science to bring to the fore. However, Scientific Humanism is subject to the exact same threat when faced with concept like existence. Concepts such as that can not be scientifically verified. That is why I do not recognize Psychology as a science. As has already been mentioned on this thread that the Turing test is not conclusive, it has merely been designated as the best indication of AI.

Now YOU may not use the DEVIL strawman to argue against change, and may even think of 'The Lord' as both 'devil' and 'god' depending on the circumstance, and see no threat regardless of circumstance, but even if that is the case, (or something similar... you can open up or remain silent on that, as you choose) generically, abrahamic religions are apt to have two main players in opposition to each other with humans sandwiched in the middle - and great evil has demonstrably been the outcome of such thinking and subsequent actions...as the perceived threat of the DEVIL against the 'godly' is dealt with through the sword, often even when the so-labelled 'Devils own' have been peaceably minding their own business and haven't even raised so much as a spoon, let alone a sword against the followers of abrahamic religions.

This overarching dichotomy is not universal. That said, I will acknowledge that the conflict between Adonai's ways and the ways of the nations could be seen that way. However, one can also see the ways of the nations as mere vanity and vexation of the spirit. The threat not being to Adonai or the philosophy related to Him, but to man and his existence regardless of any theistic consideration. That is why I say that AI is more of threat to humanism than it is to theism.

So no, don't go telling ME that I am creating strawmen arguments. Rather, address the concerns being raised.

The reason I referred to them as strawman arguments is that they take a specific and generalize it on the whole, after which a conclusion regarding the whole is drawn. The OP does use a quote from someone speaking from a Roman Catholic prospective, but the base issue is not limited to RCC doctrine. RCC doctrine might be threatened, but not because it is theistic, but because it is humanistic. Theologies that are less humanistic would be less threatened and those that are merely humanitarian might not be threatened at all. The latter is my view, man is not necessary, however, since man is, and we are men, it behooves us to make the existence of at least some men a priority.

[bluethread]

Yes, yes yes, but let's address why God struck Uzzah dead immediately, yet let the Philistines steal the Ark and keep it apparently for months and do nothing more than afflict them with hemorrhoids or tumors or whatever.

Good, let's address this. As I stated before, there are but wo commandments at play here, and only one applies those who are not part of the Covenant. That one is the commandment to not touch the Ark. We have no account of the Philistines actually touching the Ark, yet we have a clear statement that Uzzah did touch the Ark. The second regards the manner in which the Ark is to be carried. Regarding the second, what is the penalty for the improper carrying of the Ark? I do not think one is specifically stated, but it would be a violation of the Covenant. Therefore, the second would only apply to those who are part of the Covenant. Even at that, after the Ark was returned, the men Kirjath-jearim took it to Abinadab's house, where it was left for twenty years without incident. So, moving or possession of the Ark is not necessarily a bad thing.

Why were the Philistines permitted to have the Ark in the first place? Well, the son's of the Cohen HaGadol were corrupt and were not satisfied with their portion of the offerings and the commanders tried to use them and the Ark as weapons in battle, without consulting Adonai. So, when they took the Ark out without being directed to, the two sons were killed and Adonai let the Philistines take the Ark. Now, the author of the account tells us that Adonai afflicted the Phiistines, but the Philistines were not actually told that. They came to that conclusion themselves, after some experimentation, being the good scientists that they were. They also, devised the solution on their own. It is possible that all they had to do was give the Ark back.

So, there you have it a clear explanation of the difference in how the Philistines and Uzzah were treated.

[William]

[Replying to post 57 by bluethread]

So, you are wishing to discuss the nature of the concept of threat. I have no problem admitting that the concept is by definition a challenge to that which is established.

Well that is a start. Certainly the OP is specific to 'threat to theism' as a general idea and the use of AI as a possible modern way in which the threat can be manifested.

What I was saying had to do with how the generic religious reaction to perceived threat is manifested - by blaming the DEVIL as the ultimate source of any and every perceived threat.

I just do not see AI posing any serious threat to theism.

Why not? It is all very well claiming that to be the case, but that is here nor there.

Historically one can show where threat to theism is dealt with by theism.

I do however see it as a threat to the idea of the supremacy and preservation of humanity, whether that view is held by a theist or an atheist.

In that you are suggesting that theism is not about the idea of the supremacy and preservation of humanity. History says otherwise. Indeed theism (at least generically) says otherwise.

That is a very particular kind of theism and a particular kind of threat, that you appear to presume science to bring to the fore.

Only in as much as historically science has brought such reaction to the fore. But really? A specific kind of theism is that which would react to perceived threat by invoking the DEVIL as the source of the threat?
This particular kind of theism, as you call it, is more a general theism, at least in regard to Abrahamic-based organised religions of which the overall membership consists of billions of individual adherents.

However, Scientific Humanism is subject to the exact same threat when faced with concept like existence. Concepts such as that can not be scientifically verified. That is why I do not recognize Psychology as a science. As has already been mentioned on this thread that the Turing test is not conclusive, it has merely been designated as the best indication of AI.

Theism cannot be 'scientifically verified' so I see no point to your comment. Theism is a matter of philosophy, not science.

Scientific Humanism is described as;

A form of humanist theory and practice that is based on the principles and methods of science; specifically the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behaviour, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/defin ... c_humanism

In what way is that different from Abrahamic religions generally or YOUR religion specifically?

This overarching dichotomy is not universal.

Okay...

That said, I will acknowledge that the conflict between Adonai's ways and the ways of the nations could be seen that way.

This suggests to the reader that YOU see it otherwise. Would that be a correct assessment?

However, one can also see the ways of the nations as mere vanity and vexation of the spirit.

Which in turn strongly suggest that your LORDs ways are not mere vanity and spiritually in the state of being annoyed, frustrated, or worried regarding humanity/the nations. It is not Adonai's 'way' to be annoyed etc about such things.
Generically Abrahamic organised religions give the opposite impression. Their idea of GOD presents otherwise - at least through the actions of the adherents, both historically and presently.

Are these multitudes deceived and deceiving the nations as to this GODs intentions and regards for humanity?

The threat not being to Adonai or the philosophy related to Him, but to man and his existence regardless of any theistic consideration.

Accordingly the philosophy related to Adonai is generically understood to be that the DEVIL is in opposition to Adonai and in that, those who believe they are the people of Adonai recognize opposition as a threat to them and their particular theism (doctrine and dogma) and in that when such threat is perceived, it is 'of the DEVIL. Do you reject the notion of the DEVIL in relation to your particular theism?

That is why I say that AI is more of threat to humanism than it is to theism.

Because 'humanism' is not part of the philosophy related to Adonai? That Adonai's position is opposed to the doctrine that human beings should employ scientific methods in studying human life and behaviour, in order to direct the welfare and future of mankind in a rational and beneficial manner?

If it is not Adonai's philosophy, and in that , he opposes such, is not the act of opposition in itself a threat-based reaction?
A threat is perceived. Adonai has a different agenda not related to that humanist philosophy, thus Adonai uses his (supposed) position of influence (over humans who support him) to undo such moves (using said humans) towards that humanist philosophy because it threatens his agenda.

I would say that it is intelligence which might pose a threat to such theism. No need for artificial intelligence to do the job...one just has to come out from under the influence of anything which is involved in dumbing down an individuals intelligence through occulting information. Something organised religion is well practiced at.

Obviously you are being rather abstruse with your replies re your own theology (which is nothing new) so one has to read between the lines. So tell me, am I reading you correctly, and if not, are you willing to be less occulted in explaining your theology so that it can be better understood what your position is and why you think it is also Adonai's position.

The reason I referred to them as strawman arguments is that they take a specific and generalize it on the whole, after which a conclusion regarding the whole is drawn.

'The whole' in this regard has to do with the majority - the generic. In that case it is an acceptable practice which has nothing to do with creating strawmen.

The OP does use a quote from someone speaking from a Roman Catholic prospective, but the base issue is not limited to RCC doctrine. RCC doctrine might be threatened, but not because it is theistic, but because it is humanistic.

Which only tells me that you regard - lets say - as 'true' theism, and that is something other than humanistic, as you have more than hinted at throughout your reply to me.

Theologies that are less humanistic would be less threatened and those that are merely humanitarian might not be threatened at all.

Humanistic philosophy and values reflect a belief in human dignity and science " but not religion.

A humanistic philosophy refers to a few specific ideas. For one thing, humanistic thinkers aren't religious; they don't believe in a god or gods. Humanists are more concerned with life on Earth and what we can see and hear. Also, humanistic thinkers believe in science as a way people can achieve their greatest potential. Humanistic ideas place great importance on thinking and reason as ways people can be fulfilled. This philosophy is called humanism.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/humanistic

Humanitarian
adjective
1.
having concern for or helping to improve the welfare and happiness of people.
2.
of or relating to ethical or theological humanitarianism.
3.
pertaining to the saving of human lives or to the alleviation of suffering:
a humanitarian crisis.
noun
4.
a person actively engaged in promoting human welfare and social reforms, as a philanthropist.
5.
a person who professes ethical or theological humanitarianism.

Accordingly the only difference in the two is that ideas of GOD are absent from one. Science is not absent from either although it may be arguable that more faith is placed in GOD ideas than in science ideas re humanitarianism.

In that, how is it that Adonai (as an idea of GOD) specifically sees a threat in practical humanistic philosophy but not in the practical philosophy of humanitarianism? Is it because he is not included? How does including him make any difference?

Certainly his supporters obviously see the threat, but are they mistaken that Adonai sees things in the same way as they do?

The latter is my view, man is not necessary, however, since man is, and we are men, it behooves us to make the existence of at least some men a priority.

But that in itself can be dovetailed into humanistic philosophy, so the idea of GOD being involved, becomes, besides the point.

Your own position that humans are not necessary contradicts the idea that Adonia created humans. If humans are not necessary, then why were they created?

When you write 'since man is' this implies that there is no need for meaning or purpose to mans existence nor is there a reason for any GOD to have created them. NOR is there any reason for any GOD to be involved at all. It is a statement one would expect to see from someone who supports humanistic philosophy, not from someone who supports the philosophy of philosophy of humanitarianism, as you claim to do.

And yes, we are humans, thus in you saying to that 'it behooves us to make the existence of at least some men a priority.' this is also an expression one would expect to come from someone who supports humanistic philosophy, not the philosophy of philosophy of humanitarianism.
The philosophy of humanitarianism tends toward the idea that it behooves us to make the existence of ALL humans a priority, because, "GOD".

Thus I can at least - again reading between the lines you wrote - ascertain that your particular theology and understand of the idea of GOD as 'Adonai', is one which supports or at least has a bias leaning toward humanistic philosophy.

What say you to this observation?

[Danmark]

Yes, yes yes, but let's address why God struck Uzzah dead immediately, yet let the Philistines steal the Ark and keep it apparently for months and do nothing more than afflict them with hemorrhoids or tumors or whatever.

Good, let's address this. As I stated before, there are but wo commandments at play here, and only one applies those who are not part of the Covenant. That one is the commandment to not touch the Ark. We have no account of the Philistines actually touching the Ark, yet we have a clear statement that Uzzah did touch the Ark.

Have to stop you right there. If that is really the way this 'god' thinks then heaven help us [so to speak ] Jesus was very clear on many occasions about the priority of the spirit or intent of the law, rather than the letter of it which the Pharisees and Sadducees extolled.
On the one hand we have poor Uzzah who was showing his love and respect for God. On the other we have the Philistines, thieves and enemies actually carting off the sacred Ark.

When I read explanations or apologies like this, it confirms the absurdity of some of these 'Old Testament' ideas, practices, rules, as well as confirming the wisdom of not taking any of this stuff literally... or seriously for that matter.