AI as the New Golden Calf: A Theological and Ethical Debate Intensifies
AI’s rise sparks theological and ethical debates on consciousness, morality, and human identity. Religious leaders and experts weigh in.
4 min read
The form of human idolatry changes, yet the propensity for idolatry remains constant. From the Tower of Babel to the golden calves of Exodus and Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, humans have repeatedly projected divine power onto human-made artifacts. The great theologian John Calvin once described the human heart as a ‘perpetual factory of idols.’ Now, the latest chapter in this age-old tendency is artificial intelligence (AI). This technological marvel, with its algorithmic prediction capabilities based on vast data sets, has become the next widget on the conveyor belt of human idolatry.
The Rise of AI and Its Theological Implications
AI experts admit they are still uncertain about the exact mechanisms by which AI functions. The technology operates through algorithmic prediction, learning from enormous quantities of data it has scraped. This has led to a growing debate about whether AI possesses attributes traditionally associated with divinity, such as aseity (self-existence), infallibility, and omniscience. Additionally, there are questions about whether AI can be considered a conscious being, capable of rationality, moral responsibility, and sentience.
Recent developments have accelerated this conversation. The New York Times reported on a story about Anthropic consulting with religious leaders to explore the moral status and religious implications of AI agents. This marks a significant shift, as the secularized tech vanguard of Silicon Valley—typically adhering to a materialist view of reality—now seeks input from religious leaders on the ethical boundaries of AI’s moral status as a conscious entity.
AI and the Question of Consciousness
Religious leaders and scholars have largely dismissed the idea that AI can be considered a morally responsible person or an agent that can channel the divine. The Vatican recently released an encyclical emphasizing the unique status of humanity, which no machine can replicate. In 2019, a group of Christian scholars and leaders issued a statement denying that any form of technology, including AI, should ever be used to usurp the dominion and stewardship entrusted solely to humanity by God.
These scholars argue that AI is not conscious, lacks self-awareness, and cannot conceptualize self-transcendence. It does not possess moral free choice, the ability to deliberate and make choices independently. AI is not ‘alive’ in any sense resembling organic beings, nor is it sentient or capable of feeling. It has no soul, no body, and no reflexive rationality that was not first programmed.
AI and the Human Condition
Human personhood, according to biblical teachings, is rooted in the unity of body and soul. AI, being disembodied, lacks this foundational requirement. Cognitive simulation without a human body does not constitute personhood. AI must be trained for ‘alignment’—a term used to describe setting proper moral parameters—which highlights that it is not innately morally responsive. Unlike humans, who possess moral awareness innately (Romans 2:14-15), AI requires instruction to understand right from wrong.
Philosopher Christopher Tollefsen notes that AI may have the properties of mind for information processing but lacks consciousness. This distinction is crucial, as AI may appear to possess cognitive abilities, but the appearance is merely materially created. AI mimics cognition but does not possess it in itself. It has an ‘illusion’ of consciousness that allows predictions to follow from inputs, but this is not genuine cognition.
AI and the Ontological Divide
There is a fundamental ontological difference between humans and machines. While humans possess an internal ‘propulsion’ to direct their own development, AI lacks this autonomy. It has no internal drive to direct itself apart from human control. Unlike humanity, which is self-directing and has its own natural ends, machines operate only insofar as humans impose control on them.
AI and the Ethical Consequences
Ascribing human-like powers to AI carries real human costs. It risks reducing the value of humanity to function. This logic, which has already marginalized the cognitively disabled, the comatose, and those with dementia, may further erode our own dignity by assigning human agency to machines. The comparison between humans and machines is not an apples-to-apples comparison of reasoning ability but an apples-to-oranges comparison that highlights the differences in being.
Sam Altman, OpenAI’s lead, has warned against placing religious burdens on AI, stating that it is a real safety issue. He emphasizes the importance of restraint and sobriety in the face of unbounded optimism. This caution is echoed by many who argue that AI cannot innately reason about universals, freely choose, or have intent—three qualities required for consciousness to exist.
The Path Forward
As the debate over AI’s moral and theological status continues, it is clear that the question of whether AI can be considered a conscious being remains unresolved. The conversation is accelerating, with religious leaders and experts weighing in on the implications of AI’s rise. The challenge lies in navigating this new frontier without losing sight of the fundamental differences between human and machine, and in safeguarding the dignity of humanity in an age of rapid technological advancement.
Source: Daily Wire
