AI Church Toolkit

AI Church Toolkit equips church leaders with practical tools for faithful ministry

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Foreign.

>> Peter: Welcome to episode 11 of AI Church Toolkit, the podcast that, uh, equips church leaders with practical tools for faithful ministry in a digital world. I'm Peter Lavenstrong here with my co.

>> Mercedes: Host Mercedes, and today's guest is Sister Ilia Delio, Franciscan sister theologian and one of the most respected voices exploring the intersection of science and faith. She holds the Josephine C. Connolly Endowed Chair in Theology at uh, Villanova University and has authored 20 books on topics ranging from evolution and neuroscience to cosmology and Christian mysticism.

>> Peter: And before she was at Villanova, I was blessed to have her as a theology professor back when I was an undergrad at uh, Georgetown, where I took a course from her called Facebook and Jesus, which was a delightfully mystical approach to thinking deeply about the techn technology issues of that time and what seemed like it was fast approaching, um, but was just over the horizon, you know, as well as all these issues. And now much of that technology exists in the world around us today.

>> Mercedes: Yes. Her work challenges us to think theologically in light of new scientific insights and to envision a spirituality that is big enough for a dynamic, evolving universe. So we're honored to welcome Sister Iliadalio to the podcast.

>> Peter: All right, Sister Ilia, welcome to the podcast. Uh, yeah, so we like to begin our interviews with a bit of an imaginative question to get us, uh, started.

What do you imagine we are living into in this present moment of AI development

So what sci fi world do you imagine we are living into in this present moment of AI development? And why do you think so? What do you think that means for all of us?

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Hmm. Well, I actually think we're moving into a very new understanding of what it means to be human or person within a networked world. And I envision, I tell people all the time, your computers and your devices are all going to be obsolete in another 10, 20 years. And I see us becoming more sort of internally networked in some ways. And while this may be fearful to us, I think a new type of person is on the horizon. And actually, if we are part of this conversation of AI and its future development, we can actually, I think, look towards a better world on the whole, a more just world, a world that is more sustainable. I do not take the position that AI is out to get us or, you know, is going to annihilate us and all this kind of stuff. I actually think we are developing it because there's something about us that's stifled within our present stance of being human. And there's something that needs to be extended or be released or be, um, related to on a higher level. And so I think, uh, we can look towards a future of deeper and deeper interconnectivity. So I do think our world is being complexified. In other words, the relationships are being intensified with technology. How that takes shape now will depend on these kind of conversations that help us deepen the values and the habits and the other levels that need to be part of the AI development.

>> Mercedes: I wonder if I can add on to that. Just a minute.

David Noble: I think AI is enhancing functions and capacities of human

It reminded me of an earlier conversation that Peter and I had following a, uh, presentation by futurist Bob Johansen, where he talks about embracing AI with the understanding of it augmenting, um, our current capabilities. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about. Is that part of what you're saying in terms of interconnectedness, or would, uh, you take it further?

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Well, two points. Yeah. I mean, and certainly does enhance our capabilities. For example, we still have the same brains that we had, say, in the year 5000 B.C. you know, the brain really hasn't grown. It hasn't developed like a, uh, you know, another lobe of any sort. So it's the same brain, but the amount of information now has just magnified exponentially. And so basically, our old brains can't really handle all the information that now is present in our world. So even just on this level alone, we need an extender. We need to, in a sense, we need to help the brain process information. So that's kind of just a functional level of extending ourselves into machinic life. But on the other hand, I also think. I mean, I'm also influenced by the fact that computer technology developed basically in 1950, right on the heels of, uh, World War II. In other words, it was a very violent century. And so there's something incomplete in the human person. We sort of live between animal and angel, you know, And I think that that kind of suspended state we're in was implicit in that, like that question, can a machine think like a human? And so I do think that AI is enhancing functions and capacities of human. It's being enhanced and brought to a new level with AI than we have. We're incomplete without AI. We're. We're stifled by it, you know, without it.

>> Peter: So, yeah, and a lot of your work that, you know, I was influenced by when I was in your class, uh, I was talking about some of these big theological concepts of that connected evolution with our own technological advancements, our progress. And, you know, you've written a lot about Teilhard de Chardin. And I wonder if you want to say anything More about sort of that lens through which you come to this work. Just to ground our listeners who may be unfamiliar.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yeah. So a lot of what I read on AI is sort of, uh. It's a truncated understanding of AI Because I think AI needs to be understood within the context of biological evolution. It's not like we're just technological. You know, we humans emerge out of a long process of biological life. And so even if you go back to the earliest, you know, even the inception of the Homo species, you know, if you go to Neanderthalus or Australopithecus, you know, they've always been tool makers or, you know, the invention of fire. There's something about. So as. As development proceeds and we develop a higher capacity to imagine, to create, we've always created tools that help optimize life and make life just a little bit easier for us so that we can be free to what, to create and, you know, do more things. And so that kind of basic tendency has been throughout. And, um, you know, in the 19th century, this discussion on tool making. Like, are we just tool makers and just tools? Are they tools that just help ourselves or are tools extensions of ourselves? And that was a philosophical debate. Ernst Kopp, a German philosopher, was one who was involved in that. And Kopp himself thought that they are tools, are biological extensions. In other words, the phone extends the ear, the eyeglasses, you know, enhance the eyes. Um, and. And so it's not just something that's placed on us. It's actually something that is extending or enhancing what we are. And so that became that conversation, that idea of AI as an extension, a biological. Biological extension. So in one way, we've moved from tool maker, you know, fire and, uh, hammer, um, and nail idea to something that is not just tool making, but human enhancement, like biological enhancement. And that couples with part of the other discussions that took place, certainly David Noble's book on the religion. This goes back to your question, Peter, on the religion of technology. Like, what keeps driving, you know, technology? Like, why is nature. Why are we constantly seeking to create something to make life better for us? What's the ground of betterment here? Or what's driving.

>> Peter: Why can't we ever just be satisfied?

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Let's be satisfied, and we never really are. So that's where you kind of go to that. This is what. What David Noble claims. He says that modern technology, he. He roots in the Judeo Christian tradition and in particular in Western monasticism. And he claims that, you know, if you go back to the roots of monasticism and Western monasticism, Benedictine monasticism, things like the plow or the water wheel, you know, were invented that would liberate the monk from m. The burden of work. And the monk would therefore be more free to contemplate the higher things of the spirit or God. And so he traces this development, development, of course, to now. Two things are important here. One, it's due to the fall of Adam that we became weak and, you know, disoriented. And therefore we have to. It's kind of technology, sort of a prolapsarian effort to renew the atom, the new atom. And so the idea is that, um, you know, the monk was the new atom. And. And, of course, since women were part of the problem of original sin, they could not be part of the solution with technologies. A lot of technology, according to Noble, is very. A very male endeavor. In other words, built into technology are the male principles of perfectibility, of human betterment, not. Not deep relationality or not, you know, something of compassion. Um, we're always trying to be more godlike, getting closer to God. And so, you know, he traces that through the Renaissance, through Origina, um, and Francis Bacon. And Bacon's like, well, we need to rest nature. You know, we need to control nature. And he thought we can become more godlike, actually super God, you know, superhuman, more and more closer to God. And so this drive of perfectibility sort of runs through technology, even into computer technology. So Joel Dieterstein in his article and Technology and its Discontent, says this goes right into the whole space program. Like, you know, our godliness is not just limited to Earth life. Like, we really want to conquer space. We want to, you know, we want to land on the next planet and conquer that planet. So this kind of male dominance of conquer, it's the conquering divine idea, you know, um, some claim is right behind technology, and it's rooted in the Adamic myth where fallen, you know, fallen Adam needs to be redeemed. And to be redeemed is to become. Is to go beyond the human, to become godlike. Now, that's one way to approach it. There is a whole other, um, you know, approach. And that would be, you know, what Teilhard Desjardins would look at. And that's a very different theological paradigm.

Teilhard says love is at the heart of all cosmic life

It's not about restoring Eddie Adam, because Teilhard actually didn't even believe in original sin. He didn't even think it was possible. It was biologically kind of a silly idea. And so Teilhard says, from the beginning, Big Bang onward, like, something's taking shape and he says that love is the, actually the irresistible force, force of energy at the heart of all cosmic life. Like there's, there's an energy of creative union that no matter how much destruction we have, that, that energy of union continues to increase. And he sees that what's increasing is not just, you know, relationships or creative union, but, uh, consciousness itself. So he begins to develop a paradigm where consciousness and biological life, you know, materiality, are progressing towards something more and more personal. And that leads him to say that what is taking place, God is not the Creator at the beginning. God is that wholeness in love that's taking shape in and through evolution. And so he sees technology as the next step for, you might say a love empowered evolution towards, you might say, the fullness of God. So they're kind of two different trajectories with regard to religion. And a, ah, one is very male and it's very, you know, it's very, you can see the, the linearity of its direction more and more.

>> Peter: It also seems to maybe have mismatched the, the Christian God for Zeus.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: It's pretty much like the Nietzschean idea like, you know, we killed God and now we have to become God to fill in the, you know, the gap left by that, that death. Um, there's a little bit of that going on. But Terence, God is deeply, when I say feminine, it's deeply relational. You know, it's about deep relationality and greater consciousness. And so I think, uh, that's why I favor Teilhard over any kind of atomic myth idea of technology. Because I think AI has the capacity to actually bring about deeper relationships. And I think the old paradigm of the atomic myth, technology is actually, it's more of a hierarchy. So you know, for example, technocratic capitalistic ventures on AI, well, super wealth versus the poor. So one paradigm is, is kind of creating more and more hierarchies of, of wealth and poverty. And you know, greater than and lesser than the other paradigm creates a more, um, a more personalized universe. Like we're actually becoming closer together with technology around the globe. So we can have global consciousness, you know, we can have global concerns, we can have global efforts, you know, for what's taking place. And so the Teilhardian paradigm holds a sense that there's something else at the heart of technology that we name as God. And that uh, in a sense it's the restless cosmos longing to rest its heart in God, so to speak, up ahead. But God is not behind us. God is ahead of us. So that's a Long winded way to answer your question.

There is a strong potential critique based on what we've seen with social media

>> Peter: Well, if I may, I, I'm really drawn to this vision of, you know, us all growing in collective consciousness, you know, growing towards love. And yet I think there's, there is probably a strong potential critique based on what we've seen with social media in the past decade, that this does not look like greater collective consciousness. And uh, yeah, so I wonder how you would respond to that.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: So one thing I think social media, you know, I mean, uh, I think Zuckerberg, you know, um, launched Facebook, what, in early 2000s, like 2004 or something like that. So it's relatively new and basically no one really paid attention. You know, it's like, oh yeah, they have this new platform and you can go find friends on it or find a date or whatever, you know, so we didn't really pay attention to what was going on. And this is part of the problem. Like technology basically entered into our lives and our culture in an unobtrusive way because we considered it as something that, that's what scientists or technologists do, that doesn't really affect us. And in the meantime it was affecting us deeply. In fact, it was starting to really reshape how we think about everything. So our systems basically, you know, why has social media so um, created such polarities and tribalism? We have like a new tribalism with social media. You can reinforce all your biases on social media. You know, just find the group that meets you and life is good. We have no systems. We have, well, there's several things. One, our systems, educational systems, political systems, religious systems. We don't have systems that really can support AI, life and evolution. That's one thing. We are treating these systems all treat AI in very different ways. Second is that we have no ethics around AI. We have no public policies around AI. We have no global ethics around AI. So it's all at a whim. It's like whatever you think is right, do it. And so that's just open ended.

>> Peter: Yeah. And in fact, the current administration is trying to bar states from putting any policies in place.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: It's not money, it's about who gave like, you know, millions of dollars to the capital campaign of some sort. So basically we've sold ourselves out. You know, so AI is not the problem. We are the problem. We humans are the problem. We have basically lost sight of what we are, what makes us us, you know, in all our dimensions, our spiritual dimensions, our social dimensions, our political dimensions. And we just presume to know what we are and then we put ourselves Aside and everything else has come in to say, well, who cares what you are? You know, we're going to just take over and create new worlds here. And so I think, you know what, one of the things before it's not too late is we have to take hold of what it means to, to be human in an age of AI. The question is not the technology. The question is of humanity. And I think we haven't dealt sufficiently with that question in the Church. We still have rather, I would say from the Catholic side, a very classical anthropology. You know, we're a body, soul and spirit. Well, really. Okay, well what does that mean in terms of a world of quantum physics and a world of evolution? We don't know. No one knows what the soul is. No one even knows why we have spirit. Right, spirit. So we haven't dealt adequately with that question. But we, we presume to know what we are. And then we're trying to solve say the problem of AI on this rather simplistic assumption. And that I think is problematic. And so it's not just the churches, I mean education. We educate as still we're in the world of Newton, you know, hyper specialization. You major and you know, you major in your major in your major. So you drill down all the way down to some obscure point in the 14th century with some, you know, some obscure guy and something he said then and really, who cares? Now we have LLMs, you know, who can tell you all that stuff in about 30 microseconds, you know, so we all had a scene. We've lost the capacity to really think across complexified fields of information. That's a problem. That's the problem. So I've never seen AI as a problem. I really think we're it.

>> Mercedes: So, uh, I think I, I would refer to talking, uh, the complexification across the different, uh. I'm not getting that sentence out. Systems thinking is the way I think of that and. Or you know, uh, Pre World War I, more, uh, uh, Renaissance. The idea of Renaissance teaching that, that, that people were learning multiple areas. And you see that going back into history. But we see now with more information there is. That's kind of that information overwhelm that has caused us to narrow down.

Peter Singer: AI could help us move back into a broader understanding

So then there's so many things that I actually want to respond to. But at the moment I'm going to say then what I hear are two things. One is the opportunity for AI to help us move back into a broader understanding. And ultimately how does that broader understanding, understanding direct us towards love and the wholeness of God. And also, I'm wondering, in our understanding of personhood, while original sin doesn't, uh, has, uh, concerns and elements, there is an element within humanity that we still recognize the choice that uh, to make choices turning towards God or choices to turn away from God. And that, uh, that applies to technology, that applies to social media, and that will apply to AI as well. That was kind of a question. I'm not sure if it made sense.

>> Peter: Well, I think I'm, I'm thinking somewhat similarly. And um, and I want to see if I'm getting this right. But, um, what I, what I hear in what we've been discussing, you know, is not that technology is that the products or the tools are neutral. I think that is, you know, something that is often, you know, uh, critiqued about tools, uh, that companies might be pushing on people is that like, these are not neutral. But I do think that technology. What I'm hearing is perhaps that we have the capacity to develop technology in the way we choose. Right now, humanity, when you say that AI is not the problem, but humanity is a problem right now, humanity, by and large, in our capitalist context, is choosing to develop technology in a way that serves corporate interests and, you know, and not the, the best interest of humanity as a whole, of all people. And so it's uh, perhaps right to say, like this product that this AI company is putting out is not neutral. It's not a blank slate. It can, you know, it is built for a particular purpose. And we have to be very conscious of the underlying purpose and how it may influence us to use this particular product. And yet, writ large as humanity, we have the agency to develop tools in whatever direction we choose. And so should we, we should be conscious of that.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yes, absolutely. And I think, you know, honestly, I, I think, uh, what's interesting, Peter, and what you were saying and, and Mercedes, I mean, we're developing, uh, you, you mentioned, um, you know, companies and you look at the way. I mean, the largest mover of, of stocks today is AI. I mean, they're tech companies, chip companies, you know, semiconductor companies, infrastructure, data, data processing, et cetera, et cetera. So. And that's complex because, you know, developing AI has become a very lucrative business. And so one of the things that. Behind it.

Teil argues that humanity has a God problem with artificial intelligence

So, I mean, I'm kind of a circuitous route here to get back to. There's a deep, deep theological issue here at stake, and in some ways the pursuit of wealth, excess wealth, you know, creating what, you know, with excess wealth. I mean, wealth can only get us so far right the very things that make human life worth living have nothing to do with materiality. Um, you know, yes, it's good to have nice food. It's nice to have food and a nice shelter and clothes, etc. But these ultimately don't satisfy the human heart. And therefore, you know, what really we're longing for is a meaningful depth and relationship that brings about a sense of, well, being and wholeness and belonging. Like I belong to, you know, other. Who is that other? And that's where this question of God for me becomes essential to the question of AI, uh, itself. So I tried to argue in my last book, the not yet God, that I think we have a God problem. Quite honestly, at the heart of a lot of all this stuff. I still, I still think that that that word God connotes for a lot of people, like some super essential being who's in charge. We reject or accept or one other, you know, something like this. When in fact the name God just points to the ground of being itself. Being, you know, being, uh, which means since being is becoming, there's something of a dynamism of that being. But we can only know that being from our own personal experience. And so one of the things I, I think about with developing AI is I would develop it with a deep sense of meditation, centering, finding the infinite depth of, uh, the God depth within you. Because we're always looking for something outside ourselves when that which we really are in search of is within ourselves. And there is something as much as we will change with AI, there is an ineffable depth, um, of the human person that's open to infinite mystery. And that's. I don't think that's something that will be completely machinic or, you know, a robot will have, you know, some openness. It does have capacity for copious amounts of information processing. But there's something about us that's ineffable, um, and that cannot be, uh, clonable. It can't be chipized, you know, it can't be dataized. And that's what we really want to focus on and therefore develop practices and ways of being that allow us to deepen that God, what I would call the God center within us, to be at home in that center and then engage in a world of AI that allows that center to become, um, a center manifest in the world. A center of deep relationality, a sense of belonging, a sense of inclusivity. But I think we're all over the place with religion and ourselves, who this God is. And then we Have AI now, you know, trying to be God for us. And it gets very complex and complicated. But I think the mystics kind of had it, you know, all along. It's like there's something that's ineffable that only we ourselves personally. And that's what's so interesting, is that personhood is paramount. You know, we can't. We simply are not just fields of data. When we become fields of data, we know something, you know, deeply important has been lost. We. We. We feel so reduced by data that, that, you know, just thinking that we're just a data point or that we're just replaceable parts, and we just feel that implicitly, you know, in ourselves, which means that there's something about us, uh, that we need to tend to. And so that we don't allow this kind of, you know, kind of pseudo migration of human personhood onto AI platforms. Yes, we merge with art, we merge with technology. So the question is, can it help us become more than what we are? Teilhard used the word ultra human. Not transhuman, not post human, although I like post humanism. But can we become more human? That's the question of was it was for. For more. What he said, more being. He, uh, said materiality can do a lot for us, but spirituality, it actually enhances life. And we know that. We know that when we're spiritually alive that there's something. There's a breath of life that wakes us up to something of the moreness of life. And that's the question here. Can AI. How can we use AI towards the moreness of life? Not just efficiency or expediency or more data or more wealth or anything like that, but just the moreness of life itself?

>> Peter: I'm curious if you, you know, I'm fully with you on that. And like, do you. Do you have concrete, like, examples or recommendations for using the tools that are currently out? Like, how do we make this more real to folks who are, you know, in the trenches of congregational ministry doing, you know, church leaders? What can they do to make that. That dream a lived reality?

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yeah, no, I think that. Because that's your. That's your. Your work.

>> Peter: Right.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: So I, I get that, and I, you know, I value your efforts to want to, you know, develop church life with AI I think that's really great. But how do we do that in such a way that we're not just kind of following a culture effect, you know, all over the place culture. Um, and I think it would be sort of, how do you blend Practices of, um, silence and centering. You know, with A.I. i mean, how do we. How do we develop a kind. It's not just a mindset. It's a whole way of being so that I can leave my. I can leave my computer or my device. And I actually am awakened to, you know, a larger expanse of life. Not only because of what I've accessed through, you know, a. But my whole being has been deepened by that, um. By that relationship, by that AI Experience. But that I'm more than just that experience alone. So it's. It's. How do we live in such a way that we're not reduced to our connections. But we're enhanced by our connections? Maybe that's another way to say it. So that what we are is always like a portal to. To the moreness of life. Whether I'm taking a walk or going into a store or meeting just a person on the street, you know, that what I'm ultimately about is wholeness. I mean, that. That would be a simple way to put it, you know, to. To being whole. Holy where I am and holy as I go about the world. And that's the question. Does AI Lead me to greater wholeness? And how.

Developing an understanding and a mindset that is at home with AI

And how. How to do that is your question. You know, and the how to is always the difficult, most difficult question. Because it's developing an understanding and a mindset that is at home. That, uh, is at once at home with AI but even more at home in oneself, you know, and. And those two at home. Being at homeness, I think, needs to be, um, working simultaneously.

>> Peter: I'm hearing in what you're saying that, um, using A.I. uh, in way that we can set it down at a moment's notice and not worry about it.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yeah. I mean, I can take my watch off or leave my phone, you know, and go for a walk. And life is good, you know, and I can come back and otherwise, you know, as so much literature on this, you know, the addiction problem, you know, I'm addicted to my phone because I'm so afraid I'm going to miss something. You know, the fear of missing out or someone's going to contact me or the latest information, you know, I miss the latest, you know, a, uh, headline someplace. What are we really missing out on? You know, and so everything. So if we live always outside ourselves, we never live within ourselves. And the best of post human life, which is hybridized life, in other words, human life and AI hybridized, is always lived in the intermediate space. And how do we live in that intermediate space of who I am in relation to who am I into this machine or this device or whatever it is. So we tend to live one or the other as it's machine or human. But our challenge today is to learn to live in the intermediate space or what Katherine Hales calls living from the slice, you know, and that's where I think a lot of younger generations actually do that naturally. Um, they, and it's just that their brains are just slightly different, quite honestly, because I do think like your son definitely is going to have a different brain than you.

>> Peter: I find out what that exactly that means.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: I know. Well, I always say, you know, younger generations, they look like us, but they're slightly different species. And that always alarms people when I say that they're like, you know, but it means that, you know, we're biological, we're alive. Right. And so when you're alive, you're constantly adapting to the environment, which means the brain is constantly adapting to the new environment of a network world. And so kids, you know, coming into this world, you know, babies being born in this world are already a sense my medically primed for thinking in networked ways, whereas older generations are thinking in more categorical ways. You know, we're just a little bit, we're trained differently, we think differently. And so when I'm talking about living from this place, that almost comes naturally, you know, to a lot of, a lot of Gen Z or Gen AI kids.

>> Mercedes: So going back to the reference made earlier to Bob Johansen and his writing on that, he describes that as, yes, we tend to be more categorical, but that the younger generations are already breaking down the barriers and so they think more spectrum and we see that more explicitly in certain areas, but it's happening in a nuanced way across all of the areas. So uh, so that there is no sense that we have to identify into categorical boxes, but we can each individually exist in our intersection of spectrums that is completely unique to us.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Mhm.

One of the principal drivers today of evolution is complexity, Mercedes says

>> Mercedes: And um, now that is kind of intersecting then with what you're writing about. And I noticed in your most recent article posted about integral ecology and uh, the age of AI, about how the importance of defining personhood has to take into account evolution, which is what I'm also hearing in this is that we're talking about the evolution from our, from our generation to our kids.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Mhm.

>> Mercedes: And we've always thought of evolution being gradual and we can't really see it, but if we pay attention that that's what we're naming there a little bit.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yes, it is. It is. Yeah. And another word, you know, like, evolution still is one of those neuralgic words, you know, we're like, no, I'm not. But yeah, if we don't want to use evolution. One of the principal drivers today of evolution is complexity. So we're complexifying.

>> Mercedes: Okay.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Complexifying means that the intensity of, um, connections is increasing. Um, and it's like the same thing. Like we, we begin as protozoa, you know, we begin as simple, single, simple cellular organisms, and they become multicellular. We form like little organs and stuff like that. So we move up or whole lots of. I like the word Holon because it's like a hole within a hole within a hole. Those Holons are getting more and more intensified in unity and relationalities. So. You're absolutely right, Mercedes. And, and, um, as we're intensifying these relationalities, like as new Holons or babies are coming into exist, I call them Holonovs. Why is Holonoms. So they're coming into existence and they're, uh, already kind of, they're primed for this network. Thinking even as, you know, even thinking about identity, you know, is sort of a dynamic engagement in these, in these various connections. It's a cybernetic thing, like I'm interacting. And as I learned from this, you know, interacted, whether it's a robot, a machine, or a person who, you know, that it plays back into, you know, my, my thinking about who I am, then who I am is spilled over into what I'm, you know, what I'm creating or interacting with. It's a very dynamic engagement. And so as someone said, um, human is no longer a noun. It's a praxis, you know, which is really interesting, right? It's ongoing creative engagement of the self and, and, and what makes us, you know, unique. Which is why I think, you know, many younger generations, like the question of gender and race, these are becoming really, uh, for them. I, I don't think it's a question like, you know, because these, it's, it's not like ontological distinctions like you're this and I'm that. Uh, it is rather that we're interact as, you know, we're interacting. And therefore, what binds me together? I mean, I could be here in Washington D.C. and I could be on a video game with I don't know who, like in China. I don't know what color of their yellow, black, if they're gay or straight or trans or whatever. But you know what? We're interacting this game and we're having a great time together. I get to know this person through this game. Right. And I feel really connected to this person. And were I to meet this person, this person could be a 99 year old geriatric in a nursing home for all I know. You know, I don't know that and it doesn't matter.

>> Peter: Or a four year old.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Right, right.

>> Mercedes: So, yeah. So yes.

Do artificial intelligence diminish face to face relationships or enhance them

So diving in there a minute then I'm hearing two things then, uh, defining our personhood around our center of being. What is that that makes us, uh, uniquely, uh, human. And that there's an important element of being connected with our center of being is going to draw us into relationality with others.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yes.

>> Mercedes: And how AI is becomes not what we are relating to, but the augmentation to enhance that ability to relate to other humans. If right. And does that diminish face to face? So sometimes the question then comes up in worship, in community and small groups, which we know are so important to the church, does it diminish or enhance those relationships?

>> Sister Ilia Delio: That's an interesting question actually, because I do think, you know, as we get primed to interacting in this field, kind of, I might say we begin to live in that area of the splice in these informational places of meeting. The human face becomes first of all, I think young people, you know, if you notice they don't really look at you face to face, they usually look all around the room. Because I think, you know, we have to get used to the human face again. So, so again, in rethinking, what does it mean to be a person or a human person, the face as use Emmanuel Levinas's idea as the trace of transcendence, you know, divine transcendence, like the ineffable, is, you know, within us and is us in some, in some way, then that face is the expression of that which cannot be defined, you know, or cannot be grasped. And so, um, you know, it's our challenge. We don't have answers to these questions, but we are invited, I think, to rethink what we are now and what we're becoming with AI in such a way that we can cherish being human person and at the same time be open to becoming something more personal with AI more deeply connected and you know, over time. And I think we should be open to this possibility that what is most precious to us today may shift in the next 50 years as we keep developing into a superorganism. And that is what we are. I mean, the global brain is here already. We are developing into A superorganism. We are going to continue to shift thinking in our thinking about what we are in relation to this whole that we're part of. And so while the face, I think is still important, I think we're going to constantly redefine that face and redefine that divine trace of transcendence for ourselves.

Being on AI task force for the Episcopal Church, we're thinking about ethics

I think one thing for religious leaders is not to get stuck in any definition or any, um, any category, any anthropological category, that there needs to be an openness even in our theological definitions, in our theological searchings for, you know, the ground of what we are for, who God is, etc.

>> Mercedes: Well, that brings us back then to the difficulty of defining the ethical standards. Being on the AI task force for the Episcopal Church, that's one of the discussions that we are thinking about and how much the, the definition of personhood then factors into our, our theological understanding of ethics. So that, that brings a whole new element to having and open. But being somebody that's worked in technology for a long time. M. That also sounds well, appropriate to me because with the recognition that technology advances so quickly, uh, at least in, in the very technical side of standards and ethics, the first thing we start with is regular assessment that instead of standing on something that is so fixed that we might evolve past it or the technology might evolve past it, that we have to be willing to say where we are now. This is what makes sense. And we are called to reevaluate this as we continue forward, which is easier to take in if you also absorb this understanding, ah, humans as an, as an evolving creature. Ah, as well.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: So, yeah, that there's a. There's a saying I use often from Eric Young. She says to live with an evolutionary spirit is to let go when the right time comes and engage new structures of relationships.

>> Mercedes: Oh, isn't that just life? I'm sorry.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yeah. Poor Eric. Normally that, that, that feels very present.

>> Mercedes: To me as I'm preparing to go on a personal quiet retreat. So.

Peter Martin: I'm curious about how AI has impacted your thinking theologically

>> Peter: Well, in this sort of spirit, talking about the rapid pace of technological development and adaptability, I was thinking about how. Well, you've been thinking about this AI and other technology theologically for a long time. Um, I was in your class called Facebook and Jesus back in 2015. Um, and that was really fascinating, very thought provoking courses, of course, one of my favorite. And then I say that truthfully from my undergrad experience, I think I'm curious to hear back then the, the seeds of this current wave of AI development and you know, the uh, the discovery of, you know, transformers and the Google paper about attention is all you need, you know, uh, that ultimately allowed for the breakthrough that, you know, became public in November 2022 when ChatGPT came out. But that breakthrough happened back in 2015, I think, like right when I was in your class. So I'm curious, how have the technological advancements, the twists and turns, the surprises along the way surprised you and ah, you know, impacted your thinking theologically?

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Yeah, that's, uh, a great, good question, Peter. Yeah, I think my basic, I mean I have used Teilhard sort of as my guide, you know, in a sense, his Future of Man essays, um, on technology and evolution. But it's true that the, uh, amazing development in AI stuff, I mean the open AI, ChatGPTs, all the large language models, you know, generative AI, I'm, I'm really like, first of all, I'm really awed by it that we, we humans can imagine this stuff. Like we can create what has never, never existed on this planet in the history of the universe. And bring. That is so wild. So what are, I mean, I come back to that question, like, what are we? You know, and then, then using these large language models. At first I was hesitant, like, because I fell into that little bias, like, oh my God, you know, I'm gonna lose my brain type thing and, you know, I'll start, stop thinking and AI is gonna think for me and my, you know, gray matter is gonna thin out and probably it is already, um, Honestly, they're pretty awesome. And I think it's not to fear AI and to know, I think you have to know. I, I mean, I myself, I realize I have to know what I'm about, what is it I want to say. And it's always, in a sense, the original thought for anything really comes from within me. You know, if I'm, you know, wanting to write on something, I'm not asking the computer tell me what to write, because I'm really a blank slate, you know, in my mind. And so I think I tend to approach the new developments in AI as friends and partners in the development of my ideas, you know, that I don't, I don't find AI a threat. Um, I don't feel, I mean, I would actually love to have a robotic, you know, assistant at my home. I think that is very, very cool. I think even a robot partner might be a friend would be very nice. So I'm completely open to hybridizing with technology because I do not feel like I will lose a single thing and that my own life will be enhanced by relating to these devices, they will not impinge on my understanding of God. In fact, if anything, they're going to expand that understanding of this, this power of that we name as God. I think there's something here that even our theology tends to be very controlling. Like we know what God is and we're going to tell you all about that God, you know. So, um, and I think AI is always asking us to face, to live into the future as a question, you know, always as a search, always as the journey itself. And that makes it quite, quite, uh, exhilarating at times. But we also have to keep in mind how, how is what we're becoming with AI because we do live in a privileged state here in North America with A.I. you know, we have the money to buy this stuff and to interact with it. Well, how about like the second and third world countries, you know, where even a generator can be um, you know, impossible to get. Um, and so I think that should be our concern. Like how can we use this technology to enhance the world as, as in a global way? Like those who are left out can now be brought in to this advancement of, of the human, you know, of humanity. And so that's, I think where we need to. And we haven't really focused that much attention. But even in terms of church, you know, or ecclesial community, like it's not just about what we're becoming personally and locally, it's what are we becoming collectively. Because if there's not a collective whole, then we have some who are going to advance to the next stages of evolution and some who will be just collateral damage, you know. And I think AI has the capacity to limit collateral damage and to bring a greater number of people into better healthcare, lower the poverty levels, you know, increase education. AI can easily now provide global education in a way we couldn't before. So we have a lot of work to do. But we have to believe from a, from a, from a spiritual perspective. I think it's first locating God within the whole context of AI development that something is pushing this, something is pulling it into a new future. And that something is, is uh, that which is seeking to become more awakened in our world, more alive in our world, you know, so that we can say the glory of God. Is AI fully alive, something of that nature.

>> Mercedes: Wow. And uh, I think that's uh, a great kind of wrap up place. Although I would love to be able to continue this conversation, it's been very wonderful to hear your perspectives and your deep uh, understanding of theological center, of being you obviously bring that into the world around you. So just a beautiful take on again, moving towards that wholeness where we are all moving to. To bring the whole community with us as well. Yeah, well, I. Peter, if there are, uh, any, uh, final questions, I just wanted to. To see, um, if I. I'm.

>> Peter: I'm just going to be, uh, mulling on the glory of God as AI fully alive for. For a long time.

>> Mercedes: So I'm not sure we'll put that as the leader quote. I'm sure that will. Uh, well, Ilya, thank you so much for joining us today. And, um, uh, I look forward, uh, to re. Engaging with your work more after this conversation and that I look forward to hearing more about how we are evolving. And I hope, I think that we all can move towards that understanding of AI as a connector for greater relationality and not so much for greater power and, um, and more segregation of society.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Right. Yeah. Great. Well, thank you.

>> Mercedes: All right, thank you for joining us today. Uh, and we look forward to talking again soon.

>> Sister Ilia Delio: Okay, be in touch by.

Mercedes: I'm hopeful that technology can deepen humanity and consciousness

>> Peter: All right, well, as always, we're going to wrap up by reflecting on the baptismal covenant together, just Mercedes and I. So the one that really stood out for us today after, uh, this conversation with Sister Ilia was the. The vow to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbors as ourselves. I personally was really drawn to this vision of greater connection and consciousness and that being a way of deepening our for humanity and for each other. And I think I'll say I'm hopeful, though not necessarily naively perhaps, optimistic, that this technology could serve that purpose as long as we make the right cultural, political and ethical decisions regarding our use of this technology.

>> Mercedes: Yes. And I was also drawn to the concept of seeking and serving Christ in all persons. I love Sister Ilya's definition of humanity, uh, along evolutionary lines instead of as a fixed point, which pushes us towards a definition of personhood that is ineffable, that this encourages us to be willing to disconnect from the outside drivers of the world, to truly focus and connect to our center of being, which I then think calls us to connect to that center of being in other people. Then we can recognize technology and AI as ways to better connect with other humans, whether locally or globally, expanding our worldview. And then the hope that comes with that is that with a broader worldview, we might also focus on how technology can support education and address the diverse factors that contribute to an inequality around the world and thus move all of us towards a better future state.

Episode 11 leans heavily into the theological aspect of AI

>> Peter: All right, well, that is it for episode 11. Thank you all for joining us. We have just one more episode planned. Today's episode was definitely leaning heavily into the theological aspect and, um, mystical, you know, understanding of what this all could mean for God's creation. Continuing on. But for our, our next and, and last planned episode, we are going to do a bit more of a wrap up and reflection on where we are and where we see things going. All that said, we are so grateful to the Try Tank Research Institute for making this work possible. So stay tuned for that last episode to drop in two weeks.

>> Mercedes: And remember, AI is a tool, but our mission remains rooted in faith and community.

>> Peter: See you next time.