On Simulationism, Magnifica Humanitas, the Boghossian Report, Remainder Humanism, the Philosophy of History, and the Emerging Theology of Artificial Intelligence
I started reading you with the plagiarism essay in the innocents days of 2019. I believe the essay is still open in a lost browser window. You could say I am a disciple.
Since then I got priested- I had given up, but came back to the call. And I've definitely been influenced by your intrepretation of oral, print, and other techonologies. That is, I've applied them in my preaching.
Read Greg Fewster: "The Authentic Paul". I haven't read the book, but I had a drink with Greg. The composition of Paul's letters are embedded in the text. Paul recites; someone else writes. Along with the new technology, "papyrus", Paul's message proliferates. A universal God through a universal technology.
It is interesting to intrepret scripture in light of the changing techonologies: oral to writing, to papyrus, to print, and now the present. From reading your essays, and than finding other people like Katherine Dee. I've been asking, are we returning to an oral cultural? To preserve Protestantism, how do we pass down the faith with the tools.
Growing up in the 90s, we said "just Christian". Obsessed with religion, I always asked. There were 'just christians' and 'catholics'. Truly, some people do know their denomination; I don't know remember anyone saying "Protestant". However, in 2015 Professor Joseph Mangina made this very point at seminary. Historically, people said protestant or maybe reform. Now we say Christian and may be church affiliation. Thus begins a quest to reclaim a protestant identity. Moreover, a protestant identity rooted in the magisterial reformation. Of course, there are many others likes me. Its sort of like a defense against the pressures of joining the mega church culture. But I don't think we yet see church leadership embarking on a return to the magisterial reformation. There isn't a drive to go back to the time of Luther and Calvin: people want new and experimental. every week if possible.
My church is a little different. We read dense magisterial reformation theology in Elizabethan English for 25 minutes straight. The congregation sometimes reads silently. It is print based: we read as worship. If we return to oral traditions, is there a future for print based worship?
This has been at the heart of my philosophical thinking the last 5 years. In practice, though, I focus on my job as pastor and the spiritual needs of the my sheep. But 2 months ago I began to use social media in a direct, daily way. Despite the fact that many of people don't have email, I am persuaded that I should consider ways to use social media and short videos.
As for LLMs, I don't yet see a function in the life of the Church.
Your argument about post-post-Protestant schisms sounds reasonable. But I'm not convinced that new information technologies are going to cause more ruptures between Christians. Sure, Gutenberg happened, but could that have been a one-off? I don't see schisms with the advent of the telegraph, the radio, or the PC.
Christendom is long gone; along with the idea of a national churches to which every belongs. Today, Christianity is fragmented. In effect, there is a plethora of little schisms. 1000s of them. Broadcast technologies help: anyone can be there own church. Is it possible to notice any big schism in this landscape?
In a way the schism has already taken place: some people have a desire for corporate worship. Most people don't. A cultural schism rather than a theological schism.
I started reading you with the plagiarism essay in the innocents days of 2019. I believe the essay is still open in a lost browser window. You could say I am a disciple.
Since then I got priested- I had given up, but came back to the call. And I've definitely been influenced by your intrepretation of oral, print, and other techonologies. That is, I've applied them in my preaching.
Read Greg Fewster: "The Authentic Paul". I haven't read the book, but I had a drink with Greg. The composition of Paul's letters are embedded in the text. Paul recites; someone else writes. Along with the new technology, "papyrus", Paul's message proliferates. A universal God through a universal technology.
It is interesting to intrepret scripture in light of the changing techonologies: oral to writing, to papyrus, to print, and now the present. From reading your essays, and than finding other people like Katherine Dee. I've been asking, are we returning to an oral cultural? To preserve Protestantism, how do we pass down the faith with the tools.
Growing up in the 90s, we said "just Christian". Obsessed with religion, I always asked. There were 'just christians' and 'catholics'. Truly, some people do know their denomination; I don't know remember anyone saying "Protestant". However, in 2015 Professor Joseph Mangina made this very point at seminary. Historically, people said protestant or maybe reform. Now we say Christian and may be church affiliation. Thus begins a quest to reclaim a protestant identity. Moreover, a protestant identity rooted in the magisterial reformation. Of course, there are many others likes me. Its sort of like a defense against the pressures of joining the mega church culture. But I don't think we yet see church leadership embarking on a return to the magisterial reformation. There isn't a drive to go back to the time of Luther and Calvin: people want new and experimental. every week if possible.
My church is a little different. We read dense magisterial reformation theology in Elizabethan English for 25 minutes straight. The congregation sometimes reads silently. It is print based: we read as worship. If we return to oral traditions, is there a future for print based worship?
This has been at the heart of my philosophical thinking the last 5 years. In practice, though, I focus on my job as pastor and the spiritual needs of the my sheep. But 2 months ago I began to use social media in a direct, daily way. Despite the fact that many of people don't have email, I am persuaded that I should consider ways to use social media and short videos.
As for LLMs, I don't yet see a function in the life of the Church.
Your argument about post-post-Protestant schisms sounds reasonable. But I'm not convinced that new information technologies are going to cause more ruptures between Christians. Sure, Gutenberg happened, but could that have been a one-off? I don't see schisms with the advent of the telegraph, the radio, or the PC.
Christendom is long gone; along with the idea of a national churches to which every belongs. Today, Christianity is fragmented. In effect, there is a plethora of little schisms. 1000s of them. Broadcast technologies help: anyone can be there own church. Is it possible to notice any big schism in this landscape?
In a way the schism has already taken place: some people have a desire for corporate worship. Most people don't. A cultural schism rather than a theological schism.
Maybe the big schism with LLMs will come between people with differing ideas about faith and what it means to believe.