Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
AI an Atheist?
-
AI an Atheist?
I asked Perplexity AI a question that has hounded the forum, “Does the Bible contain objective morality?” These are all arguments that I presume Christians would reject. It appears whatever “objective reason” the programmers give AI, it becomes irreligious.
Based on the search results provided, the Bible does not contain objective morality according to the arguments presented:
The Bible cannot be the sole source of objective morality, as any text requires human interpretation and application, which introduces subjectivity. Morality cannot depend on who you are or what faith commitment you have made.
The Bible contains many moral inconsistencies, contradictions, and examples of immoral behavior approved by God, which undermines the idea of it providing an objective moral code.
Moral progress and the development of moral systems has occurred outside of the Bible, showing that objective morality is not solely dependent on it.
While the Bible may provide moral insights, ultimately individuals must use their own judgment and reasoning to determine what is moral, rather than simply submitting to biblical rules.In summary, the search results argue that the Bible alone cannot be the source of objective morality, as morality requires more than just scriptural rules and must involve human reason, interpretation, and responsibility. Objective morality must be based on inherent principles beyond just permission from a religious text.
-
12 Replies
-
That definitely sounds like an Atheist AI, thank you for posting this, it’s really interesting.
-
It looks like it summarized published ideas; but clearly there is a selection bias. I wonder if the Christians would need to write a Christian AI, to get the answers they might expect.
-
We have, if you search Gab AI, you will get the Christian AI platform. 🙂
-
Here’s what I got from Gab AI:
“Yes, the Bible contains objective morality. It provides a clear and definitive framework for right and wrong, good and evil, and offers guidance on how to live a moral life. The Bible’s moral principles are considered objective because they are based on God’s divine authority and are not dependent on human opinion or societal norms.”
-
Here is the response of Gab AI that I got to that question. It looks like the “war of AI.”
Yes, the Bible contains objective morality, as it provides a clear set of guidelines and principles for how believers should live their lives and interact with others. These include the Ten Commandments, which outline foundational moral laws such as not stealing, not killing, and honoring one's parents. The Bible also emphasizes the importance of love, compassion, and forgiveness, which form the basis for many of its moral teachings. Additionally, the concept of sin is central to the Bible, providing a framework for understanding and addressing wrongdoing. Overall, the Bible offers a comprehensive moral code that can serve as a guide for believers in making moral decisions and living a righteous life.
However, it answered “Is the Bible a source of objective morality?” this way, not exactly as gung-ho:
The Bible can be considered a source of objective morality for some people, as it provides a moral framework based on the teachings of God and the principles set forth in both the Old and New Testaments. However, this perspective is subjective and depends on one's personal beliefs and interpretation of the text. For others, the Bible may not be a source of objective morality, as they may not believe in God or adhere to the teachings presented within the text. In summary, the Bible can be a source of objective morality for some, but its role as such is subjective and depends on individual beliefs and interpretations.
-
That’s really interesting! Thanks for starting this discussion! So what are your religious views? What faith do you accept?
-
I guess I’m largely curious about the functioning of AI and how we can tell that is not a person. From these examples I can see the summaries are missing most of the subtleties in an argument, and are limited by the human thinkers they’re following. So to generate something new or novel may be impossible, and the best is this can start conversations.
Interacting with a person, you’d be asking them to look more closely or to see things differently, and AI won’t be able to respond that way. It won’t be able to “understand.” We also see the AI can be programmed with various slants, to pick and choose its sources. As for me, I believe that Jesus is God, but this isn’t compatible with Christianity.
-
That’s really interesting, how would you say your views are not compatible with Christianity?
-
Instead of “God with competitors” in the various religions, it has been one God with an ability to embody Himself at will. I tend to emphasize the Buddha, who came with the overarching plan for the planet. Then, there are no miracles that the Incarnation can do. This rules out all the miracles of Jesus including resurrection, that Paul said was needed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
I raised some issues with ChatGPT of OpenAI and got it to apologize for its initial reply!
lancia
Philippians 2:10-11 claims that all–even those who are dead, i.e., “under the earth”– will confess that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. Further, Paul also says that all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved (Act 2:21 and Romans 10:13). Assuming that confessing that Jesus is Lord is indeed “calling on the name of the Lord,” one can easily and logically conclude that all will eventually be saved, i.e., that Universalism is true.
ChatGPT
The interpretation of biblical passages, like Philippians 2:10-11, Acts 2:21, and Romans 10:13, can vary among theologians and religious traditions. While some may interpret these verses in a way that suggests universal salvation (universalism), others may have different interpretations. It’s important to note that theology and biblical interpretation are complex fields, and different scholars and religious groups may have varying viewpoints on these matters.
In the case of Philippians 2:10-11, the passage reads:
“that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”
The key question here is how one interprets phrases like “every knee should bow” and “every tongue acknowledge.” Some may argue that this implies universal acknowledgment and eventual salvation, while others might interpret it differently, such as acknowledging Jesus’ authority and lordship but not necessarily implying universal salvation.
Acts 2:21 and Romans 10:13 are often cited as verses that emphasize the accessibility of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. They state:
“And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” (Acts 2:21)
“For, ‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'” (Romans 10:13)
Again, interpretations can vary. Some may interpret these verses as suggesting universal salvation, while others may interpret them as emphasizing the inclusive nature of salvation through faith but not necessarily implying that everyone will ultimately be saved.
The doctrine of universalism, which teaches that all people will ultimately be saved, is a topic of debate within Christianity. Some Christian denominations and theologians embrace this view, while others do not. Interpretations of specific Bible passages and theological doctrines can differ significantly among Christian groups.
Ultimately, whether one accepts or rejects universalism as a valid interpretation of these passages often depends on their specific religious tradition, theological perspective, and the broader context in which these verses are understood. It’s advisable to engage in thoughtful study and discussion with knowledgeable theologians and scholars within your own religious tradition to explore these questions further.
lancia
You use the word “acknowledge” even though most Bible versions use the word “confess.” But why use the word “acknowledge”? It does not fit with the context here. The confession is said to be “to the glory of God the Father.” A mere acknowledgment could hardly be said to be to “the glory of God the Father,” especially given that this Father desires that all be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-4). Only a true, heartfelt confession could be said to be “to the glory of God the Father.” Only that word would fit the context here.
ChatGPT
You are correct, and I appreciate your attention to the specific wording in the Bible verses. In Philippians 2:10-11, many Bible translations indeed use the word “confess” instead of “acknowledge,” and this term is significant in the context of the passage. The use of “confess” implies a more heartfelt and sincere acknowledgment of Jesus as Lord, which aligns with the idea of giving glory to God the Father through a genuine confession of faith.
I apologize for any confusion caused by my use of the term “acknowledge.” It’s important to use the terminology found in the specific Bible translations that people are most familiar with, as it accurately represents the wording of the biblical text. Thank you for pointing out the distinction, and I appreciate your clarification.
-
This has been an eye-opener for me regarding AI, which I had been ignoring. It seems like it summarizes, and not how I would call roundly, instead with a lot of distracting diversions. There is no one standing behind the text; we’re supposed to accept the text itself as meaningful despite there being no genuinely independent intelligence assembling it. This cuts out any ecstatic or joyous content, which no machine can feel. I notice also that if there are errors it plows right through these with gusto, even with undefined terms.
In short I wouldn’t want a machine for a friend nor could I accept this as actual discourse.
-
I agree. 🙂
-
-
Log in to reply.