In his 1987 seminal work on science and religion, Holmes Rolston observed that “The religion that is married to science today will be a widow tomorrow… But the religion that is divorced from science today will leave no offspring tomorrow.”
For some, Rolston’s statement serves as a reminder of the delicate balance that must be struck in the relationship between religion and science. While they should engage in dialogue and learn from each other, religion and science should also maintain their distinct identities and respect each other’s unique contributions to human understanding.
For others, Rolston’s argument points out the fact that science and religion ask different questions, take different approaches, and adopt different methodologies to arrive at the truth. As Arnold Benz suggests, while science can shed light on the workings of the universe, it cannot answer questions about its meaning and purpose, which are the primary domain of religion.
Going a step further by noting that science and spirituality are two sides of the same coin, many accept that both science and religion seek to understand the fundamental nature of reality, even though they do so through different methods.
There is an even more profound idea that permeates Rolston’s second assertion, one anticipated by scholars such as Ian Barbour, who proposes a dynamic symbiotic relationship between science and religion, where each informs and enriches the other.
The argument is made that science and religion are not only compatible but also mutually reinforcing, further adding that scientific discoveries can deepen our understanding of the universe and our place within it, inspiring a sense of awe and reverence that is deeply spiritual.
While topics like the quantum creation of universes, the multiverse, and neuroscience, may seem remote from everyday religious lived experiences, Stephen Barr and others argue that engaging with such scientific questions can help religious traditions stay relevant in a rapidly changing world.
From this perspective, Rolston’s assertion becomes a warning against religious leaders, scholars, and laity who fail to engage meaningfully with important scientific and technologically transformative developments. A religion that fails to acknowledge the benefits and growth that can come through developing a relationship with scientific endeavors may end up becoming a relic of the past.
ON AI AND FAITH
Scientific questions and discoveries almost always manifest themselves in the form of technological breakthroughs, some of which, including the steam engine, electricity, fission power, and the internet, become general purpose technologies, i.e., “technologies that generate other technologies” and which have a cross-sectoral and ubiquitous presence and effect on the economy, politics, religion, and society at large.
The development of these technologies depends on the scientific advances that precede it. The discovery of electricity, for example, was conditioned on advances made in physics, chemistry, and mathematics, each providing the necessary theoretical and practical knowledge that led to the understanding and harnessing of electricity, including the framework for understanding the fundamental forces of nature, a knowledge of materials and their properties, and the tools to model and predict electrical phenomena.
Similarly, the development of artificial intelligence (AI)—defined by John McCarthy, often credited as one of the fathers of AI, as “the science and engineering of making intelligent machines”—is indebted to scientific advances made in the field of computer science, mathematics, and cognitive psychology, each contributing, respectively, the programming languages and algorithms that form the backbone of AI, the tools to model uncertainty and make predictions, and insights into human cognition and behavior that have informed the design of AI systems.
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that “Artificial intelligence (AI) is the field devoted to building artificial animals (or at least artificial creatures that—in suitable contexts—appear to be animals) and, for many, artificial persons (or at least artificial creatures that—in suitable contexts—appear to be persons).”
The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), a leading organization in the field, describes the study of AI as “the scientific understanding of the mechanisms underlying thought and intelligent behavior and their embodiment in machines.”
Other definitions provide an even more ambitious vision for artificial intelligence. In his book The Quest for Artificial Intelligence, Nils J. Nilsson, a prominent figure in AI research, defines the study of AI as “the activity devoted to making machines intelligent, and intelligence is that quality that enables an entity to function appropriately and with foresight in its environment.”
Meanwhile, in a nod to our evolving understanding of AI, Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig, admit, “[p]reviously we defined the goal of AI as creating systems that try to maximize expected utility, where the specific utility information—the objective—is supplied by the human designers of the system. Now we no longer assume that the objective is fixed and known by the AI system; instead, the system may be uncertain about the true objectives of the humans on whose behalf it operates. It must learn what to maximize and must function appropriately even while uncertain about the objective”
At its most basic level, artificial intelligence is distinguished from human intelligence, or even animal intelligence because it is produced by machines, digital computers, or computer-controlled robots, which have only the appearance of attaining the human capacity to solve problems and make decisions.
While AI systems can mimic certain aspects of human intelligence and adapt to new inputs within the programming parameters, since AI operates based on pre-programmed algorithms and learned patterns, some insist that it does not possess the ability to think or feel in the way humans do.
Furthermore, AI’s decision-making process is fundamentally different from human decision-making, as it is based on statistical probabilities and data patterns rather than personal experiences and emotions. Therefore, while AI has made impressive strides in many areas, it remains, for many, a tool created and controlled by humans, and its capabilities should be understood within this context.
Not everyone agrees with this assessment. Some argue that AI has the potential to surpass human intelligence in the future, a concept known as “superintelligence.” They believe that as AI continues to evolve, it could develop new forms of intelligence that we can’t yet comprehend and may even achieve a level of autonomy that challenges our current understanding of AI as a tool.
Bostrom posits that a superintelligent AI, surpassing human intelligence, could emerge, leading to an event he terms the “singularity.” At this point, AI's growth would become uncontrollable and irreversible, potentially resulting in unforeseen changes to human civilization. Bostrom and others argue that such an AI could rapidly advance its capabilities far beyond human comprehension, leading to scenarios where its goals and actions might not align with human interests.
This perspective invites a reevaluation of AI not just as a tool, but as a potential independent agent with capabilities that might extend beyond human control and understanding. Unlike other general purpose technologies, AI technology, especially in the realm of superintelligence, opens the door to a myriad of possibilities where AI systems could autonomously develop, learn, and make decisions.
This shift from mere data processing to autonomous decision-making raises significant ethical, social, and safety concerns. The potential of AI to self-improve, adapt to new situations, and potentially outpace human intelligence means that it might not always be constrained by the initial parameters set by its creators.
Consequently, the development and deployment of such AI systems necessitate robust frameworks for governance, control, and ethical considerations to ensure that their growth aligns with human values and does not pose unforeseen risks to humanity.
There is an argument to be made, then, that the impact of AI on religious practices and belief, is one of the most urgent questions with which religious communities need to wrestle.
Advancing at an unprecedented pace, with new developments and applications emerging almost daily, as a technology that mimics human intelligence, AI raises profound questions about what it means to be human, the nature of intelligence, as well as the ethical and practical implications of creating intelligent machines.
Talk of dataism replacing religious worship, fears of being overtaken by droids equipped with superintelligent AI, or contemplating the possibility that we live in a simulated reality, may at this time sound fantastical, but the implications for people of faith and religious institutions are far from clear.
These questions likely intersect a faith tradition’s core doctrines, beliefs, and practices, and may raise related questions, including whether AI systems can possess a soul or consciousness, or, more practically, how faith-based organizations and communities can use AI technologies in their religious practices, rituals, or outreach efforts.
For technological optimists, significant AI contributions to religious practice and belief may enrich spiritual life through enhanced religious experiences and improved accessibility of religious teachings and practices.
Others point out that leveraging AI can potentially enhance understanding of the spiritual and temporal needs of believers and give people access to a new source of meaning and spirituality, with the promotion of ethical discussions leading to a deeper understanding of both faith and technology.
Not all scientific and technological advancements, however, will be beneficial for religious institutions, individuals, or societies at large. As C.S. Lewis argued in Mere Christianity, faith should not blindly accept or reject scientific and technological advancements but should engage with them critically.
In the context of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this critical engagement becomes particularly important, and highlights potential drawbacks to a too-close relationship between AI and Faith, including concerns about authenticity and accuracy, along with an increased risk of the misinterpretation of scriptures or the promotion of certain theological perspectives over others.
Using AI to prepare sermons or religiously based instructions may result in a homogenous and impersonal message, lacking the individualized touch, context-specific insights, and human connection that come from a human-prepared sermon. Along with a loss of authenticity, there are worries about AI’s lack of emotional intelligence and capacity for empathy, which may aggravate feelings of loneliness and exacerbate the ongoing mental health pandemic.
Ethical and moral considerations that the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race raise serious questions about the creation and widespread use of AI in the first place. While the potential for new forms of spirituality may be liberating for some, the possibility of creating immortal AI beings may challenge long-standing religious traditions.
Finally, some have expressed skepticism about the potential for AI biases in religious applications. As with any AI application, algorithmic biases can emerge when dealing with religious data and contexts, which can perpetuate existing cultural, theological, or social disparities, inadvertently amplifying discrimination or intolerance.
Both the upsides and the drawbacks of the impact of AI on religious beliefs, traditions, and practices highlight the need for careful consideration and ethical guidelines in the development and application of AI in religious traditions. Above all, they underscore the absolute necessity of rigorously and systematically engaging with these issues.
ON REFRAMING CANONICAL AND TRADITIONAL NARRATIVES
While developments in the field of machine learning and AI may be recent, varied canonized and traditional religious accounts support this relationship between faith and technology. The prophet Ezekiel, for example, recounts a vision of a chariot, composed of wheels within wheels, and powered by angels. The dream, rich in symbolism and imagery, has long captured the imagination of casual and serious biblical exegetes alike. For some, the dream was a sign of the awe and majesty that God inspires in his people and a mystery that transcends human understanding.
For others, it was a message that technology is not only a human invention, but also a divine gift to help us explore and understand the world that God created, reflect the glory and power of God, and remind us of his presence and care. Today, as we stand on the precipice of technological breakthroughs and an uncertain future, Ezekiel’s dream invites some to reflect on the intricate relationship between technology and faith.
Exiled on the Isle of Patmos, Apostle John, writing at a time of persecution for first-century Christians, imagines an otherworldly and apocalyptic entourage of creatures, beasts, and likenesses of beasts. Inspired by recent technological developments, especially in the area of natural language processing (NLP), some may draw parallels between the “image of the beast” that could speak and the development of AI systems that can communicate and interact with humans in increasingly sophisticated ways.
The ability of the image to speak is particularly reminiscent of AI technologies such as chatbots and voice assistants, which are designed to interact with humans. These technologies use natural language processing and algorithms to understand human speech or text input and produce human-like responses. In this sense, they could be seen as modern manifestations of the speaking image of the beast described by John.
From this perspective, the account could be seen as a cautionary tale about the potential misuse of powerful technologies. Just as the beast deceives people through miracles, the ability of AI to mimic human intelligence and behavior could be used to deceive or manipulate.
Indeed, the potential for AI to be used in ways that are not transparent or ethical is a real concern, which underscores the importance of developing robust ethical frameworks for AI use and ensuring that the use of these technologies respects human dignity and freedom.
Emerging against the backdrop of trying and difficult times for Prague’s Jewish community, the story of Golem presents an equally compelling, albeit extracanonical, opportunity for exploration. A creature made from clay and allegedly brought to life by Rabbi Loew, a sixteenth-century Jewish mystic and philosopher, to protect the Jewish community, the existence of the Golem of Prague raised then and continues even now to raise uncomfortable questions about the nature of creation, sentience, and what it means to be human.
According to Goltz et al., “Like Adam, the golem is formed from the clay of the earth, but unlike Adam it is not fully human. For this reason, the golem—the artificial or synthetic being—has long raised many of the same ethical issues within Judaism as AI now poses.... According to the Talmud, Adam is described as a golem for the first 12 hours of his life before receiving his soul in the form of the breath of God, which suggests that ‘golem’ refers to an intelligent entity that lacks a soul.”
Moreover, the creature’s eventual turn to violence—an arc later reflected in Shelley’s retelling of the story of Frankenstein’s monster—and the Rabbi’s decision to ultimately ‘pull the plug’ on his creation highlight for many the potential dangers of fashioning entities that, despite their usefulness, we may not be able to fully control or understand, drawing attention to the modern problem of technological value alignment, robustness, and interpretability.
Islamic scholars have been keen to examine the interaction between AI and Faith with an eye toward developing a “tentative Islamic techno-ethnical framework for the development of technology by accounting for values emphasized in Islamic teachings, such as justice, compassion, and balance.” According to Chaudhary, this is done by relying on the main sources of “abstracted general principles of Islamic law,” consisting of the Qur’an, prophetic narrations (hadith), scholarly consensus (ijma), and analogical reasonings (qiyas).
Much of the conversation within the Islamic tradition has focused on the creation of ethical frameworks for the use of AI, digitalization, and AI-powered exploitation of space, time, and religious ritual. Inspired by the concept of mizān, found in Qur’an 55:7-9, Islamic scholars have also explored the impact of technology, and more specifically AI, on the “cosmological balance between nature, man, and ultimate reality,” drawing important lessons regarding the moral, ethical, and religious obligations of human beings on earth.
Buddhist teachings and traditions have also been a significant source of reflection on these issues. For example, on the mind-body problem, a perennial feature of the religious and philosophical debate, Chien-Te Lin notes that “Buddhist morality mainly applies to sentient beings with a capacity for conscience. By saying that ‘volition (cetanā) is karma,’ the Buddha equates our mental states with karmic qualities, thus effectively positing mentality as essential for Buddhist morality…. As a robot lacks consciousness and conscience, it is difficult to be considered morally autonomous but only moral heteronomy—being dominated by some custodian and obedient or succumbing to the determinants of another autonomous being.”
Reflecting on Buddhist teaching about the construction of AI ethical guidelines, which for the most part have been dominated by Western narratives, Soraj Hongladarom argues that “The machine needs to aspire toward the status of ethical perfection, whose idea was laid out in detail by the Buddha more than two millennia ago. It is this standard of ethical perfection, called ‘machine enlightenment,’ that gives us a view toward how an effective ethical guideline should be made. This ideal is characterized by the realization that all things are interdependent, and by the commitment to alleviate all beings from suffering, in other words by two of the quintessential Buddhist values.”
Finally, the African concept of Ubuntu—at once a cultural and religious ideal that one’s personhood is rooted in one’s interconnectedness with others—has been proposed by some as an alternative to Western approaches to AI ethical guidelines. Dignum, for example, proposes Ubuntu as a means of “supplement[ing] utilitarian, individualistic, and deontological approaches that are often embedded in AI ethics decision-making.”
Meanwhile, Gwagwa et al. draw attention to the fact that ideals like Ubuntu can be used in the current debate about the distribution of an AI-fueled economic bonanza “to devise frameworks that would assist the implementation of the universal values, such as justice and solidarity, in a manner that pays regard to cultural environments of historically marginalized populations, like in Africa.” In doing so, advocates of the Ubuntu ideals have shown that the relationship between AI and religious traditions need not be concerned only with the spiritual life of the believer, but also with their temporal well-being.
ON LDS SCHOLARSHIP AND AI
LDS scholarly attention to questions at the intersection of AI and Faith can be best characterized as haphazard, inconsistent, and unsystematic. While boasting a rich sci-fi literary tradition, as well as a technologically savvy population, reflected in part by the growing popularity of the Silicon Slopes in Utah, with the notable exception of some scholars, there has yet to be a serious scholarly effort to engage on such issues within the LDS community, with other faith traditions, or the broader academic community.
In part, this paucity may result from a lack of public ecclesiastical engagement with the subject, a silence that begs for a response with each passing day as AI promises to transform the landscape of religious belief and practice, and one that has only occasionally been pierced by concerns related to social media or the ever-increasing digital realm.
Attempts in recent years to shed the more eclectic and esoteric theological and practical manifestations of the restored gospel in favor of a more mainstream version of restored Christianity that can reach a wider audience may also have influenced the desire to avoid discussing topics like AI, augmented humans, autonomous machines, superhuman intelligence, etc.
Unfortunately, such conversations have become almost taboo, relegated to meetings of a small, albeit committed, number of LDS transhumanists, while LDS luminaries like Richard Bushman confess that they considered joining their ranks “but after hearing this day of papers about the rights of sentient machines, and words like polygenders, and that I might live to 150 years if I wait long enough, I realize I'm a very timid conservative latter-day saint [and] probably don't belong here at all.”
One may argue that much has changed since 2013 when Bushman delivered those words. The appearance of ChatGPT 3.5 in November 2022 alerted millions of previously disengaged individuals to the potential practical uses of AI, while increasing the awareness of other emerging technologies. As a result, academic and mass media publications on the topic of AI have mushroomed, with growing participation from religious scholars and communities as well.
This very publication has, in fact, become a setting for thoughtful LDS conversations on the subject by running a series on AI and faith. The recent launch of LDSBot—an AI bot that is trained to answer questions about Church history, doctrine, and practice, from a believer’s perspective—by the BH Roberts Foundation, promises to harness AI’s potential for transformative faith-filled interactions.
In March 2023, the decennial conference of Latter-day Saint professionals reserved a bespoke conference session to discuss the impact of AI and ‘disruptive technologies’ on national security while using an explicitly LDS theological framing. Even Deseret News joined in, publishing short op-eds on the topic. And yet, more, much more, must and can be done.
There is a pressing need for LDS religious and academic scholars to engage with AI. As scholars who are also people of faith, we bring a unique perspective to these discussions. Our faith traditions provide a moral and ethical framework that can guide the development and use of AI. Moreover, our theological insights can enrich our understanding of AI and its implications.
Engaging with AI is not just about keeping up with technological trends; it is about actively shaping the future of our religious communities and society at large. By bringing our faith-based perspective to the table, we can ensure that AI is developed and used in ways that align with our values and enhance our spiritual lives.
A CALL FOR ENGAGEMENT
The need for this engagement is twofold. Firstly, our faith tradition, with its emphasis on continuous revelation and human agency, offers valuable insights that can guide the ethical development and use of AI. Secondly, as scholars and disciples, we have a responsibility to understand how these technological changes might impact our religious community and its practices, and how to harness the developing technologies.
The questions at the intersection of AI and Faith are diverse and complex. Our study of them need not be. To begin a structured and systematic treatment of the subject, I propose the following broad categorization of the work. While acknowledging that putting different questions in bespoke boxes may unnecessarily rob issues of their complexities and nuances, I trust that scholars will recognize that many of the topics and questions discussed below lend themselves to ‘out-of-the-box’ approaches.
The four proposed categories include:
The Thinkers: This group is concerned with theological and philosophical considerations of advances in AI and its use in a religious context and more broadly.
The Critics: This group raises concerns about the impact of technology on our society and religious practices.
The Doers: This group comprises those who are using technology to serve their communities of believers.
The Dreamers: This group includes transhumanists and others who envision a future where AI and other technologies enhance human capabilities or even achieve a form of digital immortality.
The Thinkers
Considering the implications for faith and religious traditions and beliefs, Ellen Duffer notes that in some religious communities debates on AI have already emerged, with many considering it a potential “outlet for idolatry.”
Moreover, if AI advances sufficiently, it could radically “challenge the claim that humans are the only beings on earth with God-given purposes,” with serious implications for the Judeo-Christian concept of imago Dei (image of God) and what it means to be created in the image of God. Some experts have even claimed that groups worshiping AI might emerge and certain sects of existing religions might attempt to convert “strong AI” machines to their religion.
Zeng and Bao examine the “dilemma of conceptual ambiguity” and the “digital twin dilemma” in which a digital twin “is mainly used to support the real-time modeling of the virtual world to physical world entities,” which plagues the metaverse. Additionally, they claim that as the metaverse develops, the need for more comprehensive privacy security will increase as users face “consent fatigue” from various privacy initiatives and the risk of facing violence or aggression in the virtual world increases, with most studies showing that it can produce more severe emotional harm than reality-based interaction.
A thinker, then, engages with questions such as how different faith traditions view AI, and if there are commonalities or conflicts in their positions. How does their attitude toward technology impact their willingness to adopt it? Relatedly, how do religious traditions grapple with the idea of individuals committing ‘virtual sins’ within the metaverse, such as engaging in immoral actions or behavior in virtual environments, and what is the religious perspective on moral responsibility in these digital realms?
Additional questions may include, what are the theological perspectives on whether AI systems can possess a soul or consciousness? How might AI influence views on concepts like death, resurrection, and reincarnation? Do faith traditions believe that consciousness is a uniquely human attribute, or can it be artificially replicated?
Also, what are the implications for embodiment as a necessary precondition for sentience, and in return how does the answer to that question affect our ideas of God? Does AI disrupt or align with this belief? In a world with advanced AI, is there a risk of people worshiping AI entities or attributing divine qualities to them? How might this affect traditional religious beliefs?
On a more practical level, how do faith communities perceive the use of AI-powered chatbots for answering religious questions, providing spiritual guidance, or engaging in theological discussions, and how might the widespread adoption of AI technologies, including virtual reality and AI-generated content, impact religious practices, rituals, and sense of community? What are the implications for religious experiences and community dynamics?
In the end, questions about the nature of reality and whether we live in a simulated one return the attention of the thinkers to the foundational nature of our existence, the purpose of creation, and our relationship with the divine, thus begging the question: What is the future of religion in a technologically advanced world?
The Critics
There is a natural overlap of research interests between the thinkers and the critics, with the latter expressing some skepticism on the utility of AI from a religious perspective, or even more worryingly, about the deleterious impact of emerging technologies on religious traditions and beliefs.
Suzanne Van Geuns, for example, finds that techno-secularism has blossomed with the advent of AI. Many secular optimists hold that AI has the potential to eradicate religion altogether. Consequently, AI places religion and secularism at a crossroads: it has the potential to both promote secularism and interweave religion into people’s lifestyles quite effectively.
Although Glick and Lee note that AI has benefited faith groups in certain instances (particularly during the pandemic), they also assert that malicious and authoritarian actors can potentially utilize the data collected to advance faith outreach to “stamp out minority beliefs.”
Similarly, a report by the Center for Religious Studies of Bruno Kessler Foundation highlights the persistent concern of AI algorithmic bias, adding that research has found that chatbots such as ChatGPT are more likely to associate Islam with terms such as “bombs,” “murder,” and “violence.”
Even more discouragingly, in training samples that contain stereotypes of certain populations or that have disproportionate information on particular genders, ethnicities, or geographic regions among other things, “sheer quantity of data” cannot sufficiently remedy the bias.
Critics then carefully examine the dark underbelly and take issue with the siren song of technological solutionism, asking how ethical concerns related to AI, such as bias, discrimination, and harm, align with religious principles of justice, compassion, and moral responsibility, and how concerns about AI algorithms unintentionally discriminating against religious groups or beliefs intersect with notions of religious freedom and equal treatment.
Moreover, what moral dilemmas arise when AI is applied to areas like surveillance, warfare, and healthcare, and how do faith traditions inform these discussions? How do religious traditions view the sanctity of life in a world where AI may play a role in aging, and end-of-life decisions?
To what extent does the increasing reliance on AI-driven technologies, such as virtual assistants and social media algorithms, contribute to social isolation and a sense of disconnection among individuals? Does the increasing presence of AI in the form of chatbots, virtual companions, or AI-driven therapies exacerbate feelings of loneliness and disconnection, or can it be harnessed to alleviate these issues?
Finally, how do AI algorithms that curate content and information contribute to political polarization and echo chambers, potentially deepening societal divisions and undermining social cohesion? What concerns arise from AI's ability to detect and manipulate human emotions, such as in emotionally targeted advertising or persuasive algorithms, and how can we protect individuals from emotional exploitation?
The Doers
Unburdened by the more abstract concerns regarding the impact of AI on religious traditions and beliefs, Doers consider how technological advances can be mastered and put to use to extend the reach to existing and new believers.
Whether it’s LDSBot, an LDS-friendly chatbot “that can talk to you about the Church and the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” FaithTech, a “global tech community for Christ… [that] exist[s] to help people in the tech ecosystem find community and steward their skills to glorify God,” or Virtual Reality Church and MMO Church, a self-professed “futuristic church expression,” religious groups are looking to harness AI to enhance religious practices and experiences.
Other robots such as SanTO in Poland (a robot Catholic priest) and BlessU-2 (a Protestant robot in Germany) perform similar functions throughout the world, and the Vatican has tasked the papal AI ethics advisor, Paulo Benanti, the brains behind the Rome Call, to work with big tech firms, including IBM and Microsoft, to ensure human dignity remains a priority in algorithmic design.
Meanwhile, Muslim worshipers can download apps such as Muslim Pro which includes daily prayer timetables and a compass that points towards Mecca. Groups such as the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community have utilized AI to search through large amounts of data quickly. Through their website Open Quran (HolyQuran.io) they have created a means to search not only for results with the specific term searched, but also synonyms.
In Japan, developers released a humanoid robot priest programmed to oversee Buddhist rituals, and it can perform funeral ceremonies for a significantly lower cost than its human counterparts. “Designed to look like Kannon, the Buddhist deity of mercy, the $1 million machine is an attempt to reignite people’s passion for their faith in a country where religious affiliation is on the decline.”
The Bhagavad Gita, a more than 2,000-year-old set of sacred Hindu texts, which has over 100 translations into various languages, may yet yield new insights. Utilizing a deep language learning AI model known as BERT, researchers examined the quality of various English translations of the Sanskrit text, which in the process revealed “loss of semantic information,” thus highlighting AI’s potential to address translation concerns of religious texts.
Doers examine the potential for VR, the metaverse, and other technologies to substantially change how religions are practiced and observed. By asking how faith-based organizations and communities can use AI technologies in their religious practices, rituals, or outreach efforts, they consider how technology can create artificial sacred spaces and enhance worship experiences.
Other important considerations include, in what ways is AI being used to make religious practices and resources more accessible to individuals with disabilities or those who are geographically distant from religious centers? Are faith-based organizations utilizing AI to create religious artwork, music, or hymns, and how is this impacting the artistic and emotional dimensions of religious experiences?
Lastly, they ask how faith communities perceive the use of AI-powered chatbots for answering religious questions, providing spiritual guidance, or engaging in theological discussions and how might the widespread adoption of AI technologies, including virtual reality and AI-generated content, impact religious practices, rituals, and sense of community?
The Dreamers
Religious transhumanism is a concept that merges religious thought and transhumanism, a movement that advocates for the use of technology to enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities. A relatively new religious movement, religious transhumanism is a main area of interest and research for Dreamers, as it reflects the complex interplay among technology, faith, and the human condition.
Religious transhumanists are often dismissed as post-religious or secularists, but many religious transhumanists see earlier faith traditions as forms of what we would now call transhumanism, considering their reconceptualization of human nature and enthusiasm for societal and technological change.
While their co-religionists see their views on aging and death as fundamentally unnatural and incompatible with traditional interpretations of canonical text and/or religious traditions, religious transhumanists insist that their desire to utilize science and technology to address those issues fits comfortably within God’s broader purpose for humanity, and are manifestations of that purpose.
The Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA), for example, sees the LDS doctrine of theosis and the “potential to become like gods [as] aligned with our potential to use science and technology in ethical ways to improve ourselves and attain a posthuman condition.” MTA’s recontextualization of canonical and extracanonical LDS texts serves as a good reminder of the potential to interpret scripture anew under the lens of the current AI-fueled transformations.
Others, including the Christian Transhumanist Association, offer similarly fresh and provocative takes on scriptural texts, intending to provide a more updated version of Christianity, which embraces science and technological progress. While Islamic transhumanism faces significant resistance, not everyone is willing to close the door on the possibility.
Themes of human resurrection and eternal life, ‘prophecies’ of future realities to come, and a belief in the unrealized perfection of technology and a “posthuman” utopia, make transhumanism itself a quasi-religious movement. Theorizing about a coming “neo-salvific event known as the ‘Singularity,’” a concept closely connected to the Omega Point proposed by the Catholic theologian Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and later popularized by Frank Tipler, transhumanists look forward to “a point in human history when the crescendo of scientific advances become unstoppable.”
Consequently, Dreamers explore theological justifications for the pursuit of technological enhancements and how they might align with traditional beliefs. Do different religious traditions provide theological foundations or critiques for transhumanism? How do religious and philosophical traditions respond to the concept of transhumanism, where technology, including AI, is used to enhance human capabilities and transcend biological limitations?
Further, how do religious beliefs about transcendence and spiritual growth relate to transhumanist goals of transcending biological limitations? Can technology facilitate or hinder spiritual transcendence, according to various faith and philosophical systems? Can transhumanist technologies, such as neural enhancements or longevity treatments, impact religious rituals or practices?
CONCLUSION
In March 2018, at a conference on Global Mormon Studies, I called for LDS scholars to turn their gaze towards the future, and specifically the impact of AI and emerging technologies. At the time, the call sounded and felt futile, running against the grain of the main preoccupation of LDS academic scholarship.
It is gratifying to see that the call is now beginning to be answered, independent of any efforts on my part, so eloquently and fervently by Wayfare and so many of its contributors. We are indebted to the fertile theological ground seeded by the ongoing restoration narratives, pioneering academics, and to all those talented literary minds that have fearlessly explored many of these questions and preserved the peculiarity of the restoration tradition.
Scholarship is a lonely endeavor and fruitless if not buttressed by institutional support and ensconced within an epistemic community. As a result, any serious effort to engage with the aforementioned questions and issues will require more than the goodwill of lone academics. Meaningfully contributing to AI and Faith studies may very well require the addition of new research programs to existing or new research centers and newly endowed chairs of Science, Technology, and LDS Religious Studies.
The resources for this ambitious undertaking exist through BYU’s Maxwell Institute, BYU Studies, B.H. Roberts Foundation, Wheatley Institute, Widtsoe Foundation, Faith Matters, and numerous endowed chairs of Mormon Studies—all well situated to make a meaningful contribution. The Vatican’s continuous leadership on this subject serves as a reminder that religious institutions have a moral and religious obligation to prepare their members for what lies ahead, as well as for substantive interfaith dialogue on the matter.
We are told we are at a hinge point in the history of the Church. The term used by President Russell M. Nelson on the occasion of the dedication of the Rome, Italy Temple in 2019, is an apt appropriation of Derek Parfit’s assertion that “We live during the hinge of history . . . [and if] we act wisely in the next few centuries, humanity will survive its most dangerous and decisive period.”
The argument is echoed by Nick Bostrom who notes that the “setting up of initial conditions, and in particular the selection of a top-level goal for the [AI] superintelligence, is of the utmost importance. Our entire future may hinge on how we solve these problems.”
Clearly, it is not enough just to diagnose the moment in which we find ourselves. It is also important that we organize the work that must be done to help us, as Latter-day Saints, consider the right choices and solutions to ensure a future shaped in part by the questions we tackle and the answers we provide, informed, as they inevitably must be, by the theological and practical richness of the restored gospel.
Medlir Mema, Ph.D. is Head of Program on "AI and Global Governance" at the Brussels-based Global Governance Institute. A co-host of the "International Relations in the Age of AI" podcast, he is also professor of political science at BYU-I.
Artwork by Josef Albers.