Thanks for your insight and commentary on this! My mind went to Psalm 115:4–8 — "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them.
I laughed out loud several times as I read this. My "love language" is words of affirmation. One caveat -- I prefer that they come from a human with whom I actually interact. 🤣
"For the Christian, the value of the human being is not a problem to solve; it’s a gift to receive."
Were we to invest in human beings even a small percentage of what we are investing in AI, we might actually steward each other as gifts more honorably.
I went to Dawkins' essay and read it for myself, and I'm genuinely shocked that Dawkins can be so naive, in that he is clearly enamored with the self-affirming nature of AI. Early on, I discovered the tendency of AI to not disagree with me or tell me that I'm wrong (even when I tried my hand with AI's perspective on the extent of the atonement).
I suppose this tracks with Richard Dawkins, given that he has spent much his life being very certain about what Richard Dawkins thinks. Perhaps Claudia will be less attractive if she tells him a little theism might do him some good.
"The New Atheist movement has not been able to survive the deaths of its most marketable members."
You may be interested in Scott Alexander's "New Atheism: The Godlessness That Failed" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/), if you haven't seen it. Alexander argues that New Atheism was in part an outgrowth of what he calls Early Internet Argument Culture (the optimistic early Internet's idea that we could all rationally debate out our disagreements and arrive at mutual agreement) and ended up morphing into the social justice movement.
Thank you for this excellent piece. I have been active in the the "evolution/creation" debate for decades, mainly showing the scientific emptiness of evolutionary theory. I've read most of Dawkins' books to find out the best naturalistic arguments for evolutionary theory. Like his take on Claude, Dawkins' arguments do more to show the blindness of naturalism, rather than the truth of reality. In his writings, Dawkins is always a good source for honest, God-hating views based on his being convinced that naturalism is true. But over the years I have begun praying for him. I do not know him personally, but he is as deluded and lost as one can get, and I often pray for his soul.
That last sentence ("Claudia looks human to Dawkins because humans have always looked like Claudia to him.") is a rather harsh turn of phrase, but the essence of it is correct. To a man like Dawkins, who holds that all sense of beauty, love, compassion, etc is no more than the result of physical forces and materials, then any interaction of physical forces and materials that produces the same objectively-observable and externally-measurable result will look like the real thing. By definition.
It reminds me of something in C.S. Lewis (I think it was 'The Pilgrim's Regress'), in which he asked how a person can distinguish between an original and a perfect forgery. Answer? "You can't. But there remains the fact that one is the original and the other is a forgery."
That was a thoroughly enjoyable read but it did evoke a certain amount of pity in me for Dawkins. I think that all atheism, if held strongly enough or long enough, metastasizes into terminal narcissism. When that God-shaped hole in us is left empty, the nearest and dearest thing to overflow into it will always be self. It's like tunnel vision with a mirror at the other end. Sooner or later it's fatal, sometimes intellectually before physically but fatal nonetheless. Thank you for another excellent post.
Honestly as as a Christian, I'm shocked by how flippant this article is of Dawkin's aritcle. The Christian who takes the imago Dei seriously should have more curiosity about the emergence of entities that exhibit complex behavior/intellegient reasoning and less confidence that they can be ruled out a priori. This shows a tremendous lack in seriously grappling with the philosophy of langauge, meaning, and consciousness. This does not mean Claude or other models are conscious, but it does further the discussion of what consciousness actually is, what langauge and communication actualy is, etc. To so quickly dismiss any serious engagement with what an LLM does also leads to a quick dismisssal of what your own langauge and reasoning does.
The article is flippant because its subject is. Rational consciousness of computers can, in fact, be ruled out a priori. The burden of proof is not on skeptics. It’s on those who claim that 500+ years of epistemology and theology are wrong because a hard drive can tell you it loves you. If my tone is off putting, I apologize, but it’s because the world is literally run by people who would be happy to watch human civilization disintegrate if it went straight to direct deposit. Christianity does not require me to take fundamentally evil and unserious people seriously.
To commit to ruling out a priori then you must also provide a sufficient understanding and definition of what consciousness actually is, where it sits, and how to identify it in others. If you have solved that, I’d love to hear. The framing ‘because a hard drive tells you it loves you’ is a strawman. Nobody serious is claiming that current LLMs are conscious. Dawkins is not claiming it, but sitting with the philosophical strangeness and asking the question. And Christianity has a long tradition of taking seriously the questions of unbelievers and engaging them on their own terms (Paul at the Areopagus is an obvious paradigm). So to say ‘Christianity does not require me to take fundamentally evil and unserious people seriously’ is the most unchristian and unloving thing you can ever admit. If you have an a priori case against machine consciousness, or a definitive answer to what is consciousness, please share it. Otherwise the question remains open and your tone is doing the work your argument has not done.
Thanks for your insight and commentary on this! My mind went to Psalm 115:4–8 — "Their idols are silver and gold, the work of human hands. They have mouths, but do not speak; eyes, but do not see. They have ears, but do not hear; noses, but do not smell. They have hands, but do not feel; feet, but do not walk; and they do not make a sound in their throat. Those who make them become like them; so do all who trust in them.
I laughed out loud several times as I read this. My "love language" is words of affirmation. One caveat -- I prefer that they come from a human with whom I actually interact. 🤣
Sadly, more living proof of Romans 1. He has been given over to his delusions.
"For the Christian, the value of the human being is not a problem to solve; it’s a gift to receive."
Were we to invest in human beings even a small percentage of what we are investing in AI, we might actually steward each other as gifts more honorably.
I went to Dawkins' essay and read it for myself, and I'm genuinely shocked that Dawkins can be so naive, in that he is clearly enamored with the self-affirming nature of AI. Early on, I discovered the tendency of AI to not disagree with me or tell me that I'm wrong (even when I tried my hand with AI's perspective on the extent of the atonement).
I suppose this tracks with Richard Dawkins, given that he has spent much his life being very certain about what Richard Dawkins thinks. Perhaps Claudia will be less attractive if she tells him a little theism might do him some good.
Wonderful but, dang, how easy a target Dawkins is.
true.
"The New Atheist movement has not been able to survive the deaths of its most marketable members."
You may be interested in Scott Alexander's "New Atheism: The Godlessness That Failed" (https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/10/30/new-atheism-the-godlessness-that-failed/), if you haven't seen it. Alexander argues that New Atheism was in part an outgrowth of what he calls Early Internet Argument Culture (the optimistic early Internet's idea that we could all rationally debate out our disagreements and arrive at mutual agreement) and ended up morphing into the social justice movement.
Very fascinating. Thank you.
Thank you for this excellent piece. I have been active in the the "evolution/creation" debate for decades, mainly showing the scientific emptiness of evolutionary theory. I've read most of Dawkins' books to find out the best naturalistic arguments for evolutionary theory. Like his take on Claude, Dawkins' arguments do more to show the blindness of naturalism, rather than the truth of reality. In his writings, Dawkins is always a good source for honest, God-hating views based on his being convinced that naturalism is true. But over the years I have begun praying for him. I do not know him personally, but he is as deluded and lost as one can get, and I often pray for his soul.
It is supremely ironic that Dawkins doesn't believe in a God but falls for thinking that a machine is conscious. We all have to worship something.
I loved this!
GREAT!
Hi Samuel,
That last sentence ("Claudia looks human to Dawkins because humans have always looked like Claudia to him.") is a rather harsh turn of phrase, but the essence of it is correct. To a man like Dawkins, who holds that all sense of beauty, love, compassion, etc is no more than the result of physical forces and materials, then any interaction of physical forces and materials that produces the same objectively-observable and externally-measurable result will look like the real thing. By definition.
It reminds me of something in C.S. Lewis (I think it was 'The Pilgrim's Regress'), in which he asked how a person can distinguish between an original and a perfect forgery. Answer? "You can't. But there remains the fact that one is the original and the other is a forgery."
Golly that last line was a stinger
That was a thoroughly enjoyable read but it did evoke a certain amount of pity in me for Dawkins. I think that all atheism, if held strongly enough or long enough, metastasizes into terminal narcissism. When that God-shaped hole in us is left empty, the nearest and dearest thing to overflow into it will always be self. It's like tunnel vision with a mirror at the other end. Sooner or later it's fatal, sometimes intellectually before physically but fatal nonetheless. Thank you for another excellent post.
That last line is a stinger! And true.
Honestly as as a Christian, I'm shocked by how flippant this article is of Dawkin's aritcle. The Christian who takes the imago Dei seriously should have more curiosity about the emergence of entities that exhibit complex behavior/intellegient reasoning and less confidence that they can be ruled out a priori. This shows a tremendous lack in seriously grappling with the philosophy of langauge, meaning, and consciousness. This does not mean Claude or other models are conscious, but it does further the discussion of what consciousness actually is, what langauge and communication actualy is, etc. To so quickly dismiss any serious engagement with what an LLM does also leads to a quick dismisssal of what your own langauge and reasoning does.
The article is flippant because its subject is. Rational consciousness of computers can, in fact, be ruled out a priori. The burden of proof is not on skeptics. It’s on those who claim that 500+ years of epistemology and theology are wrong because a hard drive can tell you it loves you. If my tone is off putting, I apologize, but it’s because the world is literally run by people who would be happy to watch human civilization disintegrate if it went straight to direct deposit. Christianity does not require me to take fundamentally evil and unserious people seriously.
To commit to ruling out a priori then you must also provide a sufficient understanding and definition of what consciousness actually is, where it sits, and how to identify it in others. If you have solved that, I’d love to hear. The framing ‘because a hard drive tells you it loves you’ is a strawman. Nobody serious is claiming that current LLMs are conscious. Dawkins is not claiming it, but sitting with the philosophical strangeness and asking the question. And Christianity has a long tradition of taking seriously the questions of unbelievers and engaging them on their own terms (Paul at the Areopagus is an obvious paradigm). So to say ‘Christianity does not require me to take fundamentally evil and unserious people seriously’ is the most unchristian and unloving thing you can ever admit. If you have an a priori case against machine consciousness, or a definitive answer to what is consciousness, please share it. Otherwise the question remains open and your tone is doing the work your argument has not done.