An Introduction: Why C-3PO is Important
Picture this: A man in grass-stained jeans and a sun-faded, red sweater walks down the center aisle of your church. His name is Carl. He pauses a moment in front of some splintered altar, and kneels – sinking into the floral patterned cushions. He whispers a prayer and the pastor puts a hand on his shoulder. The organist finishes her hymn. Carl stands and smiles. For ten minutes, he talks about the Red Sox, foreign policy in the Middle East, and the upcoming cold front with men in stiff suits and sharp ties. He exits the church, walks two miles home, and plugs himself into a wall. Carl is built of wires and metal. Carl is artificial.
It sounds like a contrived scene from Spielberg’s AI: Artificial Intelligence, or some peculiar evangelical Star-Trek episode that ends with an ‘accept Jesus’ prayer. And to be fair, outside of movies and sitcoms, it is a scene that’s beyond our present scope of reality. Our exposure to robots comes in the form of cheese-puff munching vacuum cleaners, automated voices on telephones, and the newest blue-eyed doll that eats, sleeps, cries, and performs an array of other unpleasant bodily functions. But will Carl exist?
Inventor Ray Kurzweil insists that humanity is less than two decades away from being able to load our minds onto computers, infinitely extending human life-spans (Brooks 206). And while it seems as if Kurzweil’s beliefs are founded on some Matrix sequel proposal, or a twisted childhood dream (perhaps nightmare), his resume includes honors from three US presidents, receiving the nation’s highest recognition in technology, and being touted by Forbes Inc. magazine as the ‘rightful heir to Thomas Edison.’
He is not alone in his optimism.
Rodney Brooks, a man at the forefront of AI (artificial intelligence) research and head of the AI lab at MIT writes the following, “The question then is when, not if, we will build self-reproducing intelligent robots. And when we have, be it twenty years from now, or a thousand, will it be damnation or salvation? Or could there be a third path?” (Brooks 209).
But the point isn’t whether these leading intellectuals are right or wrong, or whether C-3PO patrolling our living room seems improbable (maybe even theologically inconsistent to some). The point is that we have repeatedly overestimated our value, just as we have repeatedly underestimated our capabilities. Our poor biblical interpretations have misled us before. The world is still not flat (Isa 11:12) and the sun still does not revolve around the earth (Ecc 1:5). And without critical thinking that reaches beyond an argument centered on God-breathed ‘special stuff,’ Christianity may find itself buried deeply into difficult questions that it is not prepared to answer. By that time it will be too late.
Because, if Brooks and Kurzweil are right, we may very well be at the cusp of a breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence – a breakthrough which will hold enormous implications in the way we understand our roles in creation. The Artificial Intelligence field is currently trying to unpack some of the most mysterious and deeply fundamental qualities of humanity. What is intelligence? What is a soul? What is a spiritual being? And what if we can recreate them?
While the first three questions have generally been left for theologians and philosophers to ponder during prolonged morning showers, the last brings a sense of urgency to the discussion. The questions it alludes to are substantial. To what extent does the Christian call of tikkun olam (perfecting, redeeming, and making the world whole) play a role in the development of AI? How far does our call as creators extend? And if Kurzweil’s vision of loading intellect to computers is correct, what eschatological implications does it imply?
The prospect that future vacuum cleaners may not only be intelligent—but relational—is more than unsettling. It should be. But it may never happen. It may be a future that only lives in television reruns with George Jetson and R2-D2. But with the speed of computers doubling every eighteen months, and new technological advances continually astonishing us (in the past ten years, we have done everything from cloning animals to designing invisibility coats), it may not be wise to gamble against it.
So what of Carl? Should we make him? Can we make him? And perhaps most importantly, will he be able to pray with us?
“The narratives of science are incredibly powerful, but so are many religious narratives. The quest for an objective and rational world description and the search for meaning can’t be neatly separated” – Anne Foerst (”Science and Spirit”)
Brooks, Rodney . Flesh and Machines. New York: Vintage Books, 2002.
Lacombe, Mary. “The Personal Touch: An Interview with Anne Foerst.” Science and Spirit . 26 Dec 2006 < http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=143>.
