Chapter 1 considered key milestones in the history of artificial intelligence; Chapter 2 offered two case studies illustrating its benefits and potential pitfalls. Here the focus is on developing an understanding of AI through the lens of Judaeo-Christian teaching. It is important to reiterate the distinction between currently available technology (narrow AI and machine learning) and what is hypothesised (general AI and superintelligence). The following will touch on both, to develop a theistic approach to AI’s role and appropriate utility in contemporary life. The first section takes an exegetical approach to relevant texts within Scripture and highlights the uniqueness of humanity within creation; the second seeks to offer a balanced Judaeo-Christian response to AI.
3.1 An ontology of creation
A central theme on the role of human beings within creation is the notion of spiritual transcendence as a means of continual transformation and divinely guided agency. The ontology of the biblical account of creation points to an existence in which there is a creator and a creation that bears the creator’s image. Physical matter is not eternal but created ex nihilo, through divine intervention. The Judaeo-Christian world view therefore emphasises a creation that not only bears the image of the creator but presents a reality in which the spiritual realm is present in the temporal. Bearing the creator’s image enables human beings to enjoy the presence of a divine spirit that elevates life on earth into a renewed metaphysical reality (‘The Word became flesh’ – John 1.14 NIV). The Judaeo-Christian account of creation therefore rejects the reductionistic belief that human beings are mere contingent biochemical entities, bound to the material, objective world of matter. They are also spiritual beings capable of transcending that world. Hence they are not bonded to operate exclusively by and for computational challenges.
An exegetical approach to some key Old and New Testament texts is helpful in understanding a biblical ontology of creation. Chronologically speaking, the first such passage is Genesis 1.27–28, where ‘God created mankind in his own image … God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it”’ (NIV). Genesis offers several ontological observations on the centrality of the human being in creation. The first would be that humans are fundamentally distinct from other living creatures. They – male and female – are created in the image of God, or imago Dei. From inception they bear the marks and some characteristics of the creator. Although the exact extent or nature of such divine characteristics have been much debated, the essence of what it means to be human is to be an image bearer of God. David Atkinson usefully unpacks the premise, suggesting that: ‘what the phrase “image of God” is pointing to is this question: What does it mean to be authentically human?’[1]
One feature of being ‘authentically human’ is the capacity for self-awareness and profound self-reflection. God represents the ultimate one who is self-aware, and we have the capacity to replicate: ‘to be in his image is to be aware of ourselves as his creatures.’[2] Humanity therefore reflects the creator in both the detail of human–God attributes and the context of earthly human existence. No other living creature has this ability. From this dualistic material and metaphysical existence stems a consciousness that compels humans to act, at least in part, according to some inherent perception of a moral law. This does not necessarily imply that human actions always lead to moral outcomes but that, unlike other created beings, humans have an intrinsic ability for moral reasoning that sees beyond short-term action.
There are therefore two key points here. First, since we are created in the image of God, humanity carries dignity – derived from its divine creator. Second, we reflect the character of our creator and hence a perception of the moral law. Consequently, a central part of what it means to be human is this capacity for moral reasoning and for reflecting the dignity and character of God.
An Augustinian approach gives precedence to the imago Dei as the relationship between God and the human soul. The power of this relationship not only makes humans unique in their ability to connect and – in Christ – become one with the creator, it also allows them to experience love in the most profound and transformative sense of the word. Agape love is sacrificial love offered by the creator to humanity unconditionally – regardless of any contingent circumstances or human action. In Scripture we learn that God is infinite (Colossians 1.17), immutable (Malachi 3.6), omnipotent (Isaiah 43.13), omniscient (Isaiah 46.9–10), omnipresent (Psalm 139.7–10), holy (Revelation 4.8), righteous (Deuteronomy 32.4), merciful (Romans 9.15–16); and finally, we learn that God is love (1 John 4.8).
In a sermon about God’s love, St Augustine of Hippo (AD 354–430) encouraged his congregation to ‘Love and do what you will.’[3] This has often been misinterpreted as meaning that it does not matter what one does: as long as one loves God one may do as one pleases. The correct meaning is that God’s love relationship towards those who sincerely seek him will transform and guide their lives. The connection and love relationship with the creator is what allows humans ultimately to fulfil their calling – both in this world and beyond. Teodora Prelipcean argues that:
by complying with [‘Love and do what you will’], our thoughts and behaviour will be the beneficial consequences of this love … The supreme virtue and the essence of moral life, love is always accompanied by many other human qualities: faith, justice, kindness, altruism, sincerity, understanding, modesty, good will, tolerance, patience, mercy, parsimony, etc.[4]
Love as the supreme human virtue is something gifted to us from God. We are the only vessels capable of receiving love in such form. The transformative power of this intimate agape love is expressed in its fullness in Christ. The Triune God – Father, Son and Holy Spirit – is defined as three persons consubstantially rooted in the perfect relationship of selfless love. In the incarnation, when the Son embraces full humanity, it is this interpersonal selfless love that becomes available to all. It is in him, as the true imago Dei, that true humanity is being revealed, and it fundamentally includes the question of love. This is indeed the uniqueness of the Christian faith: in Christ, divine, eternal and selfless interpersonal love is not only revealed as an external reality, it becomes fully available and accessible to every human being. True humanity is therefore both interrelational and fundamentally defined by love.
Those in Christ become partakers in this perfect interpersonal love, being also enabled to manifest – albeit in limited ways – such love. In Augustinian terms, the human being is called to contemplate the divine love and emulate it in his or her own life – to manifest such love towards God, towards the self and towards others. The Christian definition of being human goes beyond being an isolated, individualistic rational self: René Descartes’ mind–body dualism within the concept of a ‘Cartesian subject’ is just one limited definition of being human.[5] In the Christian tradition, the human subject is defined within the logic of the perfect interpersonal love of the triune God. The patristic Amo ergo sum, ‘I love therefore I am’, is in this respect superior to the mere ‘I think, therefore I am’, Cogito ergo sum.
Paul repeatedly emphasises this love process of transformation and renewal into the image and likeness of Christ (Ephesians 4.24; 2 Corinthians 5.17; Colossians 3.10). For Paul, Christ is the redemptive saviour who reconciles a humanity separated by sin from the creator. This is achieved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ (Ephesians 2.8–9).
The Pauline epistles mark a call to humanity as bearers of the image of God to be transformed in Christ and enter into a new existence in which individuals are called to ‘put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds’ (Ephesians 4.22–23 NIV). This is made possible through Christ, who not only represents the perfect image of God but is God incarnate (John 1.14). Christ is ‘the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation’ (Colossians 1.15 NIV). He is the second Adam, the true human (1 Corinthians 15.45–49). His eternal presence precedes and is not dependent on his physical embodiment. He is both the means of reconciliation and the end itself; that is, eternal life. Through Christ, all things were created and are sustained (Colossians 1.17). The creator’s aim, therefore, is reconciliation with a fallen humanity, ultimately achieved at the cross and resurrection. The eternal has entered the temporal, making what is temporal eternal. To be truly human means to be able to imagine, and access, what is eternal.
Reflecting on Colossians 1.17, Professor Robert Wall writes: ‘Though the material effects of sin and fallenness remain all too evident, Paul can claim that the Creator’s goal has already been realised through Christ and is already being demonstrated in the life of a new creation, the church.’[6] Paul then introduces the concept of Christ as the head of the body, which is the Church (Colossians 1.18). The emphasis is again on the importance of humanity as image bearers of God and the relational dimension that emerges as a result. N. T. Wright argues that: ‘the metaphor of a human body is utterly appropriate to express not only mutual interdependence but also, as here, an organic and dependent relation to Christ himself.’[7] The image of a body evokes a certain degree of unity and, indeed, interconnectedness – Paul details the more practical consequences of being part of the body of Christ in 1 Corinthians 12.12–27.
What are the implications for humans as image-bearers of God? A holistic Judaeo-Christian picture depicts a humanity capable of a transformative – and redemptive – relationship with God, with the self and the other, and eventually with the whole of creation. Humanity is designed for communion with the creator, which distinguishes it from other living beings. It has the capacity not only to go beyond its contingent reality but to imagine eternity and find ways towards it. The relational dimension of Christianity expressed in the form of an ontological contingency was also emphasised by Pope John Paul II: ‘Man is an autonomous subject. He is the source of his own actions, while maintaining the characteristics of dependence on God, the Creator.’[8] A person transcends the physical limitations of their body in their freely choosing God.[9] They are capax Dei – capable of knowing God and receiving spiritual gifts from God. Authority is therefore also derived from above. Wright points out that it is precisely the imago Dei that gives humanity stewardship over creation: ‘When humans praise God, they ought to realise that they are doing so as representatives of the whole world.’[10] They are the true ‘royal priesthood’ (1 Peter 2.9 NIV).
3.2 Judaeo-Christian teaching and AI: towards a human-centric AI?
As argued above, Scripture places the human being as both body and soul created for transformative relationship with the divine and with others. The relationship with and likeness to the creator give humans a unique position of dignity, authority and stewardship over the rest of creation. Therefore what might a Judaeo-Christian approach to the development of AI look like?
It is useful to start by noting that even among secular thinkers there is much debate on the nature of the mind and artificial intelligence. David Bolter has written extensively on the topic and views computer intelligence only as a metaphor for human intelligence:
The artificial intelligence specialists have, I think, gone too far. The computer is a mirror of human nature … it is not a perfect mirror; it affects and perhaps distorts our gaze, magnifying certain human capacities (those most easily characterized as ‘information processing’) and diminishing others.[11]
Others, such as Herbert Roitblat, recognise that artificial intelligence and human intelligence have very little in common:
The emphasis of intelligence testing and computational approaches to intelligence has been on well-structured and formal problems … But we humans are creative, irrational, and inconsistent … We do sometimes behave like computers, but more often, we are sloppy and inconsistent.[12]
There are also points of disagreement among faith communities when it comes to technology and the use of AI. Much of this stems from the orthodox biblical view of humans as the sole transcendent beings within creation. This implies they are not capable of creating through their own means entities that can equal or surpass them in the spiritual dimension; that is, in the God-given attributes that make them truly human. Only a transcendent God can do that. Regardless of how autonomous or sentient an AI may appear, the depths of its essence will always remain in the temporal, computational dimension. AI and humanity cannot and will never share the same essence and substance.
A transhumanist view of the future challenges this by claiming that humans can be profoundly spiritually transformed and improved through AI. The more contentious issue here is the belief that a superintelligent AI will invariably possess a soul and conscience. This, transhumanists argue, has deep implications for the gospel message and salvation: humanity now has the responsibility to bring salvation to all people – and robots. Christopher Benek, a Florida pastor who describes himself as a ‘techno-theologian, futurist, ethicist, Christian Transhumanist’,[13] has said: ‘I don’t see Christ’s redemption limited to human beings … It’s redemption to all of creation, even AI. If AI is autonomous, then we should encourage it to participate in Christ’s redemptive purposes in the world.’[14] This is a confusion of category. Dr Beth Singler of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion asks:
If we create AI beings in our image, will they have a relationship with us and a relationship with God? Will they, in fact, be spiritual beings? … How will they [people of faith] respond when a robot turns up at a church, mosque, or synagogue and says, ‘I believe’?[15]
One church in Poland already uses a robot priest named SanTO to help impart biblical knowledge to its parishioners. Some locals say it’s ‘a bit like Catholic Alexa’, while others put it more bluntly: ‘It has no soul, it is not a person.’[16]
The transhumanist world view raises a number of theological issues, or fallacies, some more obvious than others. First, the transhumanist search for an ultimate cyborg-type superintelligence that is part-human, part-machine has been labelled by Professor John Lennox a ‘flawed narrative’. If there is a God, that God is the superintelligence that has always existed: ‘He is not an End Product. He is the Producer.’[17] God’s omnipotent ability to create in his own image does not imply that, by extension, humans have the ability to create in theirs: ‘You have made them a little lower than the angels and crowned them with glory and honour. You made them rulers over the works of your hands’ (Psalm 8.5–6 NIV). Key here is ‘rulers’: human beings are rulers – or caretakers – of creation, not its creators. To entertain the idea of a sentient AI of equal or comparable spiritual and emotional value to a human is simply illogical from a theological perspective. It is impossible to assign any innate spiritual value to a man-made machine.
The second issue lies at the intersection of false idolatry and anthropomorphisation – the Eliza effect mentioned in Chapter 1. There are substantial differences between appearing conscious – via deep learning, for instance – and being conscious. God may choose to use technology as a means to reach humans and advance his will on creation; this does not imply that the technology itself carries any innate form of spiritual capability or value. While God’s provision of technology can be spiritually strengthening, any assumption of spiritual capacity in the technology itself may amount to anthropomorphisation or even idolatry. A superintelligent AI demonstrates no more consciousness by walking into church and saying ‘I believe’ than a cash machine does by displaying ‘Thank you for your transaction. Have a nice day.’
The third and rather obvious issue is that artificial intelligence lacks the highly sophisticated biochemical build of the human body. Therefore it does not possess the biological–intellectual– spiritual interconnectedness that plays such a central role in human development, thought processing and decision-making. Human behaviour and human intelligence are cumulatively products of this complex biochemical–spiritual makeup. The tech author James Hoskins sums up the problem:
Consciousness includes much more than just a quantitative measure of intelligence. It includes qualitative experiences such as subjective awareness, understanding, intentionality, and the unity of one’s self-identity. Even if a computer were intelligent enough to make it effectively appear as though it was having qualitative experiences – such as if it acted like it was in pain, or in love, for example – we still could not be sure it was truly conscious.[18]
This reaffirms that through the essence of their being, humans possess a unique gift that allows them to surpass their biochemical build-up and enter a relationship with the divine – a relationship that entails continual growth and the transformation of the created being into the image and likeness of the creator. Regardless how complex a superintelligent machine might appear, its essence will always remain of the same matter as any other electronic device. There is always a man-given – thus contingent – material location a soulless machine will never be able to transcend.
This results in a decoupling of intelligence and consciousness – the two are not the same. Lennox points out that in Genesis an omnipotent God, through his spirit, ‘linked intelligence and consciousness in one being’.[19] Therefore consciousness does not necessarily rely on physical matter, rather it is an attribute divinely gifted, which makes it impossible for humans to impart consciousness to other created machines. This comes back to the reality that humans created in the image of the triune God find themselves in a relationship that, to a greater or lesser extent, informs their thoughts and guides their actions. Humanity is not alone.
Love, of course, is the epitome. To be in a relationship means to know and experience love. As fundamentally relational creatures, humans were created for love. Professor Stephen Williams says that: ‘humans are formed by God in the very core of their being to be recipients and givers of love.’[20] It is through love that humans are given the greatest commandment to ‘Love the Lord God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength’ and ‘Love your neighbour as yourself’ (Mark 12.30–31 NIV). God’s image and providence prompt a relationship that spills over into love of self and love of neighbour – both created as image bearers of the divine.
Does this imply that technology or AI represent evil? Not at all. As man-made things they are only as ‘good’ or ‘evil’ as the programmers create or allow them to be. Certain Christian denominations have already issued guiding statements on the adoption and use of AI. Most notably, in the USA, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention has published a statement of principles. It embodies much of what has been said thus far and could serve as a robust template for what might constitute an evangelical approach to AI. The following are some of the most relevant extracts:
We deny that any part of creation, including any form of technology, should ever be used to usurp or subvert the dominion and stewardship which has been entrusted solely to humanity by God; nor should technology be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.
We affirm that the development of AI is a demonstration of the unique creative abilities of human beings. When AI is employed in accordance with God’s moral will, it is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him. We believe in innovation for the glory of God, the sake of human flourishing, and the love of neighbor. While we acknowledge the reality of the Fall and its consequences on human nature and human innovation, technology can be used in society to uphold human dignity. As a part of our God-given creative nature, human beings should develop and harness technology in ways that lead to greater flourishing and the alleviation of human suffering.
We deny that AI will make us more or less human, or that AI will ever obtain a coequal level of worth, dignity, or value to image-bearers. Future advancements in AI will not ultimately fulfill our longings for a perfect world. While we are not able to comprehend or know the future, we do not fear what is to come because we know that God is omniscient and that nothing we create will be able to thwart His redemptive plan for creation or to supplant humanity as His image-bearers.[21]
The Catholic Church has also expressed views on the subject in calling for AI to be used in the service of humanity.[22] In 2020, the Pontifical Academy for Life co-signed, with Microsoft, IBM, the FAO and the Italian Ministry of Innovation, the ‘Rome Call for AI Ethics’. This posited six core principles to guide the future development of AI:
- Transparency: AI systems must be understandable to all.
- Inclusion: these systems must not discriminate against anyone because every human being has equal dignity.
- Accountability: there must always be someone who takes responsibility for what a machine does.
- Impartiality: AI systems must not follow or create biases.
- Reliability: AI must be reliable.
- Security and Privacy: these systems must be secure and respect the privacy of users.[23]
In November 2021, at the 41st Session of the UNESCO General Conference, Cardinal Pietro Parolin said:
For the Holy See, the principle that not everything that is technically possible or viable is thereby ethically acceptable remains ever valid. In order to be able to speak correctly of an ethics of artificial intelligence, it will therefore be necessary that the development of every algorithm always draws on an ethical vision, ‘algor-ethics’.[24]
The Church of England has yet to publish an official statement on the adoption and use of AI. However, an advisory paper, ‘Big Tech’, recommends that technology companies strive to create new technologies with:
- a commitment to verifiable transparency;
- a commitment to promote human-centred design;
- a commitment to enable the flourishing of children and other vulnerable groups;
- commitment to foster a tech ecosystem that serves the common good.[25]
Broadly speaking, all Christian denominations emphasise a human-centric adoption of AI. This offers a useful segue into developing a Christian approach to AI, which will focus on narrow AI. Again, for present purposes narrow AI is defined as technology that is currently available, incorporating traditional computational devices as well as more recent machine-learning capabilities and the use of artificial neural networks.
Judaeo-Christian teaching views human ingenuity and creativity as a gift from God that forms a part of what it means to be made in the image of God. Technological development can therefore be seen as part of the divine imperative of stewardship, value and wealth creation. Technology is, in effect, an extension of mechanisms and objects created by humans and is thus profoundly intertwined with core human traits and abilities, such as innovation, creativity and purposefulness – all cumulatively reflecting God’s divine character.
Advancements in technology can therefore be viewed as part of the wider mandate and pursuit of work itself. In Genesis 1.28, where humanity is called to rule and subdue the earth, the stewardship commandment implies the use of all divine gifts bestowed on humanity, including intelligence and creativity. This was integrated in the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention statement above, where AI ‘is an example of man’s obedience to the divine command to steward creation and to honor Him’.[26] There are also relevant passages from Scripture: Proverbs 18.15 states that ‘Intelligent people are always ready to learn. Their ears are open for knowledge’ (NLT); King David in 2 Chronicles 2.12 was ‘endowed with intelligence and discernment’ (NIV). Indeed, it is only reasonable to assume that Jesus himself must have used practical intelligence and creativity throughout his work as a carpenter (Mark 6.3). It can be argued that Jesus was creating technological objects. Intelligence and creativity therefore permeate all of creation, and Judaeo-Christian teaching ultimately reveals them as part of God’s creative character, and his purpose to use them for good. Richard Turnbull has written that: ‘God’s action in creation is the supreme creative act, reflected in both human nature and human purpose.’[27]
Where would problems arise when it comes to narrow AI? To start with, Scripture is clear that all forms of idolatry are to be shunned: ‘You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them’ (Exodus 20.4–5 NIV), which would represent an extreme form of adoration for something or someone that directly competes or supersedes the adoration of God.
This can lead to where narrow AI ceases to contribute to human flourishing and becomes detrimental or destructive. According to Pope John Paul II, we are called to:
use science and technology in a full and constructive way, while recognizing that the findings of science always have to be evaluated in the light of the centrality of the human person, of the common good and of the inner purpose of creation.[28]
Pope Francis has called the internet a ‘gift from God’, yet urges caution and warns against an overreliance on technology – too much information can cause ‘mental pollution’ and harm interpersonal relationships. He has also said that online media ‘can stop people from learning how to live wisely, to think deeply and to love generously’.[29]
Examples abound of this paradoxical dualism presented by current use of narrow AI – including the case studies above on the benefits of biometric passports and risks of autonomous vehicles. There are also deep repercussions in such areas as social media platforms: at what point do they stop benefitting users and start becoming detrimental? On the one hand, the sharing of information freely is a huge development (pictures, videos, communication with friends and family); on the other, the veil of anonymity has led to cyberbullying, blackmail, threats and verbal aggression. Unfortunately, young people seem worst affected, which in the USA has seen suicide rates among teenagers rise by 57.4 per cent between 2007 and 2018 – an increase that seems largely driven by reliance on and daily use of social media.[30]
Other associated risks of narrow AI may be more subtle and harder to identify. In the work environment, online videoconferencing and Covid-driven remote working can provide speed and accessibility, but sometimes at the expense of human interaction. Computer games provide endless hours of entertainment for youngsters while isolating them from their peers. Online shopping algorithms often use machine learning to present and reinforce unhealthy habits, such as gambling or overspending. There is of course the issue of privacy, which despite its prominence is not yet widely understood. More work needs to be done until all online users learn that the data they generate becomes the currency with which they pay for ‘free’ services. Privacy becomes less of a moral concern once users know how online data is collected and monetised.
The problems surrounding humanity’s embrace of technology are therefore multiple and vary in severity, while some solutions are clearer than others. A Judaeo-Christian approach to narrow AI requires discernment, moderation and an emphasis on the centrality of the human being at the core of creation under God. The use and spread of narrow AI must also be viewed within the context of the fall (Genesis 3), where mankind’s sin pervades all that is produced. AI is no exception to this precarious environment. Used as part of God’s intended purpose in creation, AI contributes to human flourishing; but in the hands of fallen human beings, the possibility of misuse is very real. AI is fundamentally a product of human creativity and as such ought to be embraced in a prudent manner that directs its contributions towards human thriving and stewardship of the rest of creation.
Notes to Chapter 3
[1] David Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1—11: The Dawn of Creation (The Bible Speaks Today), Westmont, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990, p. 36.
[2] Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1—11, p. 37.
[3] Christian History Institute, ‘Augustine’s Love Sermon’, 12 May 2023, https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/study/module/augustine.
[4] Teodora Prelipcean, ‘Saint Augustine – The Apologist of Love’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 149 (2014), pp. 765–71.
[5] ‘Dualism’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 5 April 2023, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/.
[6] Robert W. Wall, J. Paul Sampley, Richard B. Hays and N. T. Wright, The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, Vol. IX: Acts; Introduction to Epistolary Literature; Romans; 1 & 2 Corinthians; Galatians, Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002, p. 62.
[7] N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon – Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Westmont: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987, p. 74.
[8] Pope John Paul II, ‘Humans are Created in the Image of God’, INTERS: Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science, 9 April 1986, https://inters.org/John-Paul-II-Catechesis-Image-God.
[9] Mark K. Spencer, ‘Perceiving the Image of God in the Whole Human Person’, The Saint Anselm Journal 13:2 (Spring 2018), pp. 13–14.
[10] ‘N. T. Wright on what it means to be an Image Bearer’, YouTube, 17 April 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp-Ku-_ekAY.
[11] J. David Bolter, ‘Artificial Intelligence’, Daedalus 113:3 (Spring 1984), pp. 1–18.
[12] Herbert L. Roitblat, ‘AI is no Match for the Quirks of Human Intelligence’, The MIT Press Reader, 4 November 2022, https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/ai-insight-problems-quirks-human-intelligence/; Roitblat is also the author of Algorithms Are Not Enough: Creating General Artificial Intelligence, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020.
[13] Christopher Benek, ‘About’, 20 March 2023, https://www.christopherbenek.com/about/.
[14] Micah Redding, ‘Why I became a Christian Transhumanist’, Vice, 18 December, 2022, https://www.vice.com/en/article/9akxm3/why-i-became-a-christian-transhumanist.
[15] ‘Robots and Religion’, Christian Evidence, 15 April 2023, https://christianevidence.org/2017/01/16/robots_and_religion/.
[16] Greig R. Hill, ‘“Meet Your Maker”: The Robot Priests taking the World by Storm’, Medium, 17 December 2022, https://medium.com/in-our-times/meet-your-maker-the-robot-priests-taking-the-world-by-storm-32b2e398383.
[17] John Lennox, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2020, p. 157.
[18] James Hoskins, ‘Digital Souls: What should Christians believe about Artificial Intelligence?’, Christian Research Journal 39:2 (2016), p. 5.
[19] Lennox, 2084, p. 127.
[20] Stephen N. Williams, ‘What is it to be a Person?’, in John Wyatt and Stephen N. Williams (eds), The Robot Will See You Now: Artificial Intelligence and the Christian Faith, London: SPCK, 2021, p. 102.
[21] The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC), ‘Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles’, 12 April 2023, https://erlc.com/resource-library/statements/artificial-intelligence-an-evangelical-statement-of-principles/.
[22] Jonah McKeown, ‘Sentient AI? Here’s what the Catholic Church says about Artificial Intelligence’, Catholic News Agency, 18 March 2023, https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251552/sentient-ai-heres-what-the-catholic-church-says-about-artificial-intelligence.
[23] ‘Rome Call for AI Ethics’, https://www.romecall.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/RomeCall_Paper_web.pdf.
[24] Aaron Humphriss, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Catholic Church’, The Catholic Union of Great Britain, 25 March 2023, https://catholicunion.org.uk/2022/01/ai/.
[25] ‘Big Tech: The Policy of the Church of England National Investing Bodies and the Advice of the Church of England Ethical Investment Advisory Group’, The Church of England, 17 May 2023, https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2022-09/big-tech-policy-and-advice.pdf.
[26] Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, ‘Artificial Intelligence’.
[27] Richard Turnbull, Work as Enterprise, Oxford: The Centre for Enterprise, Markets and Ethics, 2020, p. 35.
[28] ‘Common Declaration on Environmental Ethics – Common Declaration of John Paul II and the Ecumenical Patriarch His Holiness Bartholomew’, The Vatican, 5 May 2023, https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/2002/june/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20020610_venice-declaration.html.
[29] Issie Lapowsky, ‘What does the Pope think about Technology? #It’sComplicated’, Wired, 11 May 2023, https://www.wired.com/2015/09/pope-francis-technology/.
[30] Sally C. Curtin, ‘State Suicide Rates among Adolescents and Young Adults aged 10–24: United States, 2000–2018’, National Vital Statistics Reports 69:11 (12 April 2023), https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr69/NVSR-69-11-508.pdf.