{"id":5748,"date":"2015-02-26T13:05:45","date_gmt":"2015-02-26T18:05:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/?p=5748"},"modified":"2022-12-06T00:24:39","modified_gmt":"2022-12-06T06:24:39","slug":"the-wizardry-of-oss-life-in-the-land-of-technological-promise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.mbu.edu\/seminary\/the-wizardry-of-oss-life-in-the-land-of-technological-promise\/","title":{"rendered":"The Wizardry of OSS: Life in the Land of Technological Promise"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jonathan Rehfeldt<\/strong>1<\/sup><\/p>\n

Though Biblical Christianity has not been without its able defenders in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, its influence has seemed to decline in the West. This is largely because of negative portrayals through the secular media, bombastic \u201cfundamentalist\u201d leaders, and confusion over the relationship between Christianity and culture. The recent debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye illustrates the popular secular mood toward fundamentalist Christianity. In a recent interview with Skeptical Inquirer<\/em>, Bill Nye said,<\/p>\n

[By agreeing to the debate,] I held strongly to the view that it was an opportunity to expose the well-intending Ken Ham and the support he receives from his followers as being bad for Kentucky, bad for science education, bad for the U.S., and thereby bad for humankind \u2013 I do not feel I\u2019m exaggerating when I express it this strongly.2<\/sup><\/p>\n

The most obvious disagreement these men have with each other is over human origins; whether man evolved through chance processes over millions of years, or whether man was created by God\u2019s direct act as described in Genesis. Nye reflects,<\/p>\n

After the debate, my agent and I were driven back to our hotel. We were, by agreement, accompanied by two of Ham\u2019s security people. They were absolutely grim. I admit it made me feel good. They had the countenance of a team that had been beaten \u2013 beaten badly in their own stadium. Incidentally, if the situation were reversed, I am pretty sure they are trained to feel bad about feeling good. They would manage to feel bad either way, which is consistent with Mr. Ham\u2019s insistence on The Fall, when humankind took its first turn for the worse. And by his reckoning, we\u2019ve been plummeting ever since.\u201d3<\/sup><\/p>\n

Nye\u2019s voice represents a chorus of secular scientists and innovators who believe that fundamentalist Christianity, with its commitment to the inspiration and inerrancy of the whole Bible, should not be a valid paradigm for intelligence in the twenty-first century.4<\/sup> Though Nye\u2019s claim that fundamentalist Christianity is \u201cbad\u201d for science education was countered by Ham\u2019s constant reference to Christian innovators, the idea that Christianity and science are inimical to each other pervades our culture. As scientific innovation assuages our desires for abundance and better health, connectivity, self-expression, research, and entertainment, we are confronted by those who believe the gospel is quickly becoming outdated by scientific and technological advances.<\/p>\n

Optimistic Secular Science<\/strong><\/p>\n

Those who share in this belief are primarily secular<\/em>; that is, they believe in the inherent goodness and trustworthiness of human judgment and endeavor, specifically in popular applications of the scientific method. They also tend to be materialistic<\/em>, believing that all phenomena, including consciousness, are the strict result of material interactions.5<\/sup> Finally, they are Darwinian evolutionists<\/em>, viewing secular science as the necessary means of achieving the next great leap in evolutionary advance.<\/p>\n

This group largely agrees that we are on the cusp of breath-taking advances in science and technology (as do other groups). They often quote Moore\u2019s Law which describes how the number of transistors on an integrated circuit doubles every two years. They also point out that as technology becomes more integrated with itself and with humans it is also becoming faster, smaller, and cheaper. They might add that our understanding of the universe is growing more sophisticated, as can be seen with breakthroughs like the genome project and the discovery of the Higgs-boson particle.<\/p>\n

Those who consider the future of secular science generally fall into one of three categories, with some overlap between the categories.6<\/sup> First, there are those who are generally pessimistic. They frequently mention the second law of thermodynamics and may point to moral conditions to illustrate the inevitable decay and ultimate failure of the earth and the universe. Second, there are those who think along linear trend lines from past decades to predict what may lie ahead. This model is reliable to a degree in the short-term, but in the long-term as applied a century ago did not well predict the existence of satellite technology and computers. This group generally seems to be satisfied with the status quo in scientific research and prediction. The third group is in or near the hemisphere of \u201cthe singularitarian.\u201d Time described this group by saying that \u201cthey think in terms of deep time, they believe in the power of technology to shape history, they have little interest in the conventional wisdom about anything, and they cannot believe you\u2019re walking around living your life and watching TV as if the artificial-intelligence revolution were not about to erupt and change absolutely everything.\u201d7<\/sup><\/p>\n

The term \u201csingularity\u201d was first used by mathematician Jon von Neumann around 1958 to describe a time when science and technology would progress to the point that human affairs, as we know them, could not continue. In 1993, computer scientist and science-fiction writer Vernor Vinge spoke to a VISION-21 symposium (sponsored in part by NASA) about the probability and nature of such a coming singularity. With a firm belief in evolutionary progress and the necessary emergence of ever-greater intelligence, Vinge predicted the coming of an intelligent machine that would not be subject to humans any more than humans are subject to rabbits, robins, or chimpanzees. While he believes that artificial intelligence (AI) may produce the singularity, he also suggests the possibility that it will emerge through intelligence amplification (IA). The main difference between these two is that AI, in its most mature form, would be more independent of humans while IA is more inter-dependent with them. Vinge believes that IA may be the path to the singularity mainly because of the mystery of human consciousness. He observes that \u201cbuilding up within ourselves ought to be easier than figuring out first what we really are and then building machines that are all of that.\u201d The benefit of this approach, says Vinge, is that it allows us to participate \u201cin a kind of transcendence.\u201d The \u201ctranscendence\u201d that he believes helped produce human consciousness is an important theme which will be explored later in this paper.<\/p>\n

Today the singularity finds its most popular and utopian expression in Google\u2019s chief engineer, Ray Kurzweil. Though Kurzweil has not been without sharp criticism,8<\/sup> he has a sizeable following among computer scientists, inventors, CEOs, and futurists. He is a favorite at TED conferences and is known for radically advancing the fields of speech, text, and audio technology. He is also known for his belief that he will soon resurrect his father using relics from his father\u2019s past, and that he will preserve his own life indefinitely with the help of computer technology.9<\/sup> His TED biography reads, \u201cHe\u2019s revered for his dizzying \u2013 yet convincing \u2013 writing on the advance of technology, the limits of biology and the future of the human species.\u201d10<\/sup> Impressed by his technological wizardry, Google hired Kurzweil in 2013 to help them advance toward their goal of changing the world and producing various forms of artificial intelligence. He believes the singularity is not more than a few decades away. He is the co-founder and chancellor of Singularity University in Moffett Field, California.<\/p>\n

The reach of optimistic secular science (OSS) is not limited to technology specialists. In 2004, as President Obama was running for the U.S. Senate, Google CEO Larry Page gave him a tour which included a look at a flat-panel display which showed Google search activity in real time. The president revealed his belief in progress through technology and evolution as he reflected on this experience in his book The Audacity of Hope.<\/em><\/p>\n

The image was mesmerizing, more organic than mechanical, as if I were glimpsing the early stages of some accelerating evolutionary process, in which all the boundaries between men \u2013 nationality, race, wealth \u2013 were rendered invisible and irrelevant, so that the physicist in Cambridge, the bond trader in Tokyo, the student in a remote Indian village, and the manager of a Mexican department store were drawn into a single, thrumming conversation, time and space giving way to a world spun entirely of light.11<\/sup><\/p>\n

By 2007, Obama had an impressive Google following apparently because of their mutual approach to problem solving using the internet. Eventually, a few employees even left Google to work for the White House.12<\/sup><\/p>\n

The impact of OSS is wide-spread. As I have stated, the most optimistic, if at times strange, expression of OSS is the singularitarian. Jaron Lanier points out that the intentions of the singularitarians are good. They are simply<\/p>\n

following a path that was blazed in earlier times by well-meaning Freudians and Marxists. . . . Movements associated with Freud and Marx both claimed foundations in rationality and the scientific understanding of the world. Both perceived themselves to be at war with the weird, manipulative fantasies of religions. And yet both invented their own fantasies that were just as weird.13<\/sup><\/p>\n

One of the more odd manifestations of this movement is their commitment to releasing the next stage of evolution through the simulation and reproduction of man\u2019s mind and the creation of artificial intelligence. Other groups, wittingly or unwittingly, are contributing to their efforts.<\/p>\n

Man, The Final Frontier<\/strong><\/p>\n

One singularitarian who is not as utopian as Kurzweil but is just as committed to secular evolutionary ideals is James Barat. Prophesying the rise of super-intelligent machines, he betrays his inability to explain human consciousness by asking, \u201cWhat\u2019s so remarkable about the brain\u2019s processes, even consciousness, anyway? Just because we don\u2019t understand consciousness now doesn\u2019t mean we never will. It\u2019s not magic.\u201d14<\/sup> Barat and others seem to realize that the construction of a truly intelligent machine will require unlocking the mystery of human consciousness, which from a materialistic point of view, simply amounts to mapping and simulating the physical processes of the human brain.<\/p>\n

Corporate giants like Google, IBM, Microsoft, and Facebook are industry leaders in AI research and development, while companies like Apple and Amazon only more recently have demonstrated interest in AI. Of them all, Google seems to be the most interested in developing something that resembles a human. Their recent acquisition of Kurzweil, the founders\u201d fascination with AI, the activities of their semi-secret \u201cGoogle X\u201d lab, along with their 2013 absorption of eight major robotics companies shows they have more than a simple \u201csearch\u201d on their minds.<\/p>\n

Fascination with AI is not limited to the United States. The European Union has organized and is funding The Human Brain Project, which seeks to gain \u201cprofound insight into what makes us human.\u201d This project promises to \u201cdevelop six ICT platforms, dedicated respectively to Neuroinformatics, Brain Simulation, High Performance Computing, Medical Informatics, Neuromorphic Computing and Neurorobotics.\u201d15<\/sup> MIT Technology Review<\/em> recognized the Brain Project as one of the top-ten breakthroughs that will have the greatest impact on innovation in the years to come.16<\/sup><\/p>\n

There are varying opinions on where all of this brain research will lead. Many think that advanced brain research, coupled with the robotics explosion,17<\/sup> may de-humanize us by taking our jobs, stripping us of personal relationships, and minimizing traditional categories of intelligence like problem solving and empathy. Margaret Boden believes AI actually has the ability to \u201cre-humanize\u201d us, by freeing us to fill more service oriented jobs like the caring professions, education, craft, sport, and entertainment on a part-time basis. John Weaver thus believes that \u201cby treating robots like humans, humans can become more human.\u201d18<\/sup><\/p>\n

Two MIT professors have written Amazon\u2019s best-selling book in the category \u201cThe Future of Computing.\u201d Their work is perhaps the most even-handed treatment of our present technological situation.19<\/sup> One of the authors, Erik Brynjolfsson, spoke at a TED conference in February, 2013. He believes that AI, or \u201cthe new machine age,\u201d will revolutionize our lives in ways similar to that of engines, electricity, and the computer. The coming revolution will be more sweeping, however, because AI is digital, exponential, and combinatorial. The solution for humans is not to race against the machine20<\/sup> but to race with it, since humans working with computers are more powerful than any one human or computer by itself.21<\/sup> This new age is largely based on research that suggests transistor-based computing is about to be replaced by something more dynamic, exponential and combinatorial.<\/p>\n

IBM laboratories concur that we have reached the limits of our transistor-based computing power. In order to understand (or \u201ccompute\u201d) anything from humans to cities to global financial industries, John Kelly believes that \u201conly through fundamental breakthroughs in physics will we be able to deal with so much complexity and uncertainty on a planetary scale.\u201d22<\/sup> The most promising path to such computing begins with quantum computing machines, which IBM believes will be produced in the next five to ten years. These machines will be able to crunch mind-boggling numbers at mind-boggling speeds, which may lead to breakthroughs in physics that make technology faster, more powerful, more pervasive, and seemingly more \u201caware.\u201d23<\/sup><\/p>\n

Quantum computing would be the beginning, not the end, of such \u201cfundamental breakthroughs in physics.\u201d Perhaps with Barat\u2019s attitude that human consciousness is not \u201cmagic,\u201d many secular scientists propose that all of life, including human consciousness, can be obtained and explained mathematically. If this were so, quantum computing is mankind\u2019s next best bet at cracking the code of human consciousness. Tom Siegfried\u2019s biography of John Nash, the formulator of Game Theory, illustrates the attempt to understand consciousness using math. This attempt is essentially materialistic with the presupposition of Darwinian evolution. Siegfried believes the promise of Game Theory lies in its ability to unify physics and biology, and perhaps even contribute to a theory of everything (TOE). He states,<\/p>\n

As I described in my book Strange Matters<\/em>, there is something strange about the human brain\u2019s ability to produce math that captures deep and true aspects of reality, enabling scientists to predict the existence of exotic things like antimatter and black holes before any observer finds them. Part of the solution to this mystery, I suggested, is the fact that the brain evolved in the physical world, its development constrained by the laws of physics as much as by the laws of biology. . . . It\u2019s clear now that game theory\u2019s math describes the capability of the universe to produce brains that can invent math. And math in turn, as Asimov envisioned, can be used to describe the behavior guided by those brains \u2013 including the social collective behavior that creates civilization, culture, economics, and politics.24<\/sup><\/p>\n

As neuroscientists monitor \u201cgame players\u201d in any number of situations, Siegfried projects that \u201cjust maybe we\u2019ll see how Nash\u2019s math can broker the merger of economics and psychology, anthropology and sociology, with biology and physics \u2013 producing a grand synthesis of the sciences of life in general, human behavior in particular, and maybe even, someday, the entire physical world.\u201d25<\/sup><\/p>\n

Spurred by the computer\u2019s pervasiveness and influence, the world\u2019s leading money-makers and engineers are pouring their efforts into the production of artificial intelligence. AI, to be fully mature, requires a better understanding of human consciousness so that humans can replicate it and use if for their own ends.<\/p>\n

The vast majority of Christians agree that science and technology are valuable disciplines which help us appreciate God and the universe. Intelligence and inventiveness are glorious expressions of being made in God\u2019s image. It is the widespread influence of OSS, not the concept of science and technology itself, that must be questioned. The fact that intelligence is being based on the degree to which one prescribes to OSS is alarming. Popular and otherwise harmless teachers as well-liked as Bill Nye have suggested that the Christian worldview is simply \u201cbad for science.\u201d Others, like Richard Clark, are more subtle. His science-fiction book Breakpoint<\/em> follows Kurzweil\u2019s prediction of the Singularity and envisions a world in which \u201cterrorists\u201d try to halt the advance of technology. He says that \u201cthere are enormous social and political issues that will arise. There are vast groups of people in society who believe the earth is 5,000 years old. If they want to slow down progress and prevent the world from changing around them and they engaged in political action or violence, then there will have to be some sort of decision point.\u201d Though Clark\u2019s reference to violence may be overlooked by biblically informed Christians (John 18:36), his reference to \u201cpolitical action\u201d demonstrates his belief that Christianity has no place in a society controlled by OSS.<\/p>\n

A New Natural Law<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regina Dugan was the first female director of the Defense Advance Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a research arm of the Pentagon. Using technology like hummingbird drones, she told a TED audience that \u201cour singular mission is the prevention and creation of strategic surprise.\u201d When asked if she is concerned about the \u201cPandora\u2019s box\u201d of the irresponsible use of technology, she replied that her job necessarily makes people excited and uncomfortable at the same time. \u201cOur responsibility is to push that edge, and we have to be mindful and responsible about how that technology is developed and used. But we can\u2019t simply close our eyes and pretend that it isn\u2019t advancing. It\u2019s advancing.\u201d Ultimately, she admits that she cannot answer questions about the possibly negative implications of advancing technology.26<\/sup><\/p>\n

In a similar setting to that in which Dugan was asked about the implications of advancing technology, Charlie Rose asked Larry Page what quality of mind it is that serves him best in thinking about the future. Page replied, \u201cWe\u2019ve had a rapid turnover of companies, and I\u2019ve asked, \u201cWhat did they fundamentally do wrong?\u201d Usually, they just missed the future. So I just try to focus on that and say \u201cWhat is that future going to be, and how do we create it?\u201d\u201d<\/p>\n

The future, as it is envisioned by leading technology developers, seems to demand the constant emergence of more powerful and intelligent forms of technology. The vision for this technology seems only to be limited by the imaginations of those who are creating it (and, to a degree, by the demand of those who may use it). Suggesting that technology itself has become a new religion, Kevin Kelly of Wired<\/em> noted,<\/p>\n

Because values and meaning are scarce today, technology will make our decisions for us. We\u2019ll listen to technology because our modern ears listen to little else. In the absence of other firm beliefs, we\u2019ll let technology steer. No other force is as powerful in shaping our destiny. By imagining what technology wants, we can imagine the course of our culture.27<\/sup><\/p>\n

The explanation for why technology must advance when its future seems so unclear is a mystery to most secular scientists. Sometimes it is explained as a transcendent evolutionary drive or as our ultimate solution to the problem of evil. Still, when the implications of advancing technology like AI yield unclear and sometimes troubling dilemmas, few seem to question the continued, ambitious pursuit of it. As Einstein observed, \u201cIt is really a puzzle what draws one to take one\u2019s work so devilishly seriously. For whom? For oneself? \u2013 one soon leaves, after all. For posterity? No, it remains a puzzle.\u201d28<\/sup><\/p>\n

Einstein was talking about his struggle to \u201cunearth deep secrets,\u201d probably a reference to his search for a unified field theory of the universe. While he did not believe in the existence of a personal God, he strangely acknowledged that certain religious men made major contributions to humanity. In 1927 he wrote, \u201cWhat humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive minds.\u201d29<\/sup> Yet Einstein himself saw that OSS, to which he pledged his ultimate allegiance, provided no epistemological ground for taking religion seriously. A letter he wrote to his friend Otto Juluisburger in 1947 illustrates this. It is about Hitler\u2019s responsibility in World War II.<\/p>\n

I think we have to safeguard ourselves against people who are a menace to others, quite apart from what may have motivated their deeds. What need is there for a criterion of responsibility? I believe that the horrifying deterioration in the ethical conduct of people today stems primarily from the mechanization and dehumanization of our lives \u2013 a disastrous byproduct of the development of the scientific and technical mentality. Nostra culpa! I don\u2019t see any way to tackle this disastrous short-coming. Man grows cold faster than the planet he inhabits.30<\/sup><\/p>\n

This \u201cdisastrous shortcoming\u201d is not recognized by all secular scientists and technologists. Steven Weinberg is able to say, \u201cOne of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplish\u00acment.\u201d31<\/sup> Weinberg believes that OSS is more objective than is religion and that evolution has made us smarter than our religious ancestors.<\/p>\n

Soft secular scientists like Einstein and hard ones like Weinberg seem to assume that OSS gives us an ever-increasingly true picture of the world, however cold it may be in Einstein\u2019s conception. Yet OSS itself cannot define what is comprehensive and true. J.P. Moreland has summarized Larry Laudan\u2019s remarks in this regard.<\/p>\n

Scientific progress does not consist in the progressive convergence on a truer and truer picture of the world. Rather, it is a measure of the relative number, rate, and importance of the various problems science solves, where science may be understood as an entire discipline or as some specific set of theories within a given area of science.32<\/sup><\/p>\n

He continues,<\/p>\n

Thus, the history of science is one of periods of normal science followed by crisis, which gives way to a revolution in which a paradigm shift occurs and ushers in a new period of normal science. The history of science, therefore, is not what the realist claims it to be \u2013 a history of new theories (usually) refining old ones, preserving them as limiting cases, and hence advancing cumulatively toward truer and truer pictures of the world. Rather, it is a history of jerky replacements. Old theories are abandoned, new ones are embraced. . . . [T]he history of science warns us against believing that science, present theories included, is a rational, truth-obtaining enterprise.33<\/sup><\/p>\n

OSS coupled with advancing technology suggests that man will become more intelligent and \u201ctrue\u201d as he yields to the transcendent forces of the incoming technological future. Perhaps as Frederick Taylor observed more than one-hundred years ago, we live in an age when human subjectivity must necessarily be displaced by scientific methodology, for only then can the most competent men emerge as leaders for our society.34<\/sup><\/p>\n

Because OSS has no room for the super-natural workings of God in history, neither can it be encumbered by traditional moral values when such values are based on the miraculous working of God in history. The definition of the betterment of man is thus controlled by the acknowledged leaders in the scientific and technological communities. As early as 1943, C.S. Lewis noted the outcome of a secular, evolutionary approach to man\u2019s mind.<\/p>\n

Of course, while we did not know how minds were made, we accepted this mental furniture as a datum, even as master. But many things in nature which were once our masters have become our servants. Why not this? Why must our conquest of nature stop short, in stupid reverence, before this final and toughest bit of \u201cnature\u201d which as hitherto been called the conscience of man? You threaten us with some obscure disaster if we step outside it: but we have been threatened in that way by obscurantists at every step in our advance, and each time the threat has proved false. You say we shall have no values at all if we step outside the Tao [loosely used by Lewis to describe general revelation or conscience]. Very well: we shall probably find that we can get on quite comfortably without them. Let us regard all ideas of what we ought to do simply as an interesting psychological survival: let us step right out of all that and start doing what we like. Let us decide for ourselves what man is to be and make him into that: not on any ground of imagined value, but because we want him to be such. Having mastered our environment let us now master ourselves and choose our own destiny.35<\/sup><\/p>\n

Lewis further prophesied that \u201cwhatever tao there is will be the product, not the motive, of education.\u201d36<\/sup> As the wizards of OSS pursue their final frontier without any clear historical rationale (they cannot explain human conscious\u00acness), direction or controls, we are left to determine whether or not man\u2019s conquest of nature, in the moment of its consummation, would be \u201cnature\u2019s conquest of man.\u201d37<\/sup><\/p>\n

Battle on the Edge of the Universe <\/strong><\/p>\n

Western culture has adopted the overwhelming presupposition of Darwinian evolution that demands the emergence of a more intelligent and \u201ctrue\u201d form of society via OSS. This adoption seems to be the main source of epistemological hostility toward the gospel today. As Carl Henry noted, \u201cMan alone remains, self-sufficient and autonomous, to rescue the cosmos from absurdity and worthlessness.\u201d38<\/sup> The Christian Scriptures plainly declare that conditions will worsen before the close of history (2 Tim. 3:13). Instead of \u201cthrowing rocks\u201d at general and otherwise positive concepts like science and technology, the Christian must understand and address the philosophical under\u00acpinnings of OSS using God\u2019s Word.<\/p>\n

Messianic Themes within OSS<\/p>\n

Christians must maintain an interesting tension between current events and end-times prophecy. One the one hand, we see extreme interpretations which fail because they claim to know the more than approximate time of Christ\u2019s return.39<\/sup> On the other hand, those who refuse to consider the significance of their time in history, or perhaps feel jaded because of the abundance of extreme interpretations made in their own lifetimes, fail to heed Christ\u2019s admonition to \u201cwatch\u201d for the end (Matt 24:42-44). Christ, who Himself is \u201cthe Truth\u201d (John 14:6), foretold the coming of imposters and the eventual emergence of the darkest powers in the universe (Matt 24:11; John 5:43, cf. 2 Thes 2:3-4).<\/p>\n

It seems strange that although few secular scientists and technologists can articulate where their innovation ultimately comes from or where it will lead, still many of them carry an epistemological hostility toward the gospel. With the publication of Darwin\u2019s Origin of the Species<\/em> in 1859 and the popularization of evolution, the idea that knowledge should not be found in the past but in the present and that knowledge is constantly improving has been reinforced.40<\/sup> Some of the brightest hopes first offered in the gospel of Jesus Christ have seemed to find an awkward re-birth within OSS. These hopes include God-like understanding and dominion in the universe, a perfected centralization of power on earth and eternal life with eternal bliss.<\/p>\n

God-like understanding and dominion in the universe<\/em><\/p>\n

In 1988, Freeman Dyson declared in his book Infinite in All Directions<\/em> that \u201cGod is what mind becomes when it has passed beyond the scale of our comprehension.\u201d41<\/sup> Dyson\u2019s vision of transcendent order approximates Einstein\u2019s belief in the \u201csheer being\u201d behind the universe that could be approached and manipulated through science. Einstein wrote to a Chicago Rabbi in December 1939,<\/p>\n

The religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound inter-relations is of a somewhat different sort from the feeling that one usually calls religious. It is more a feeling of awe at the scheme that is manifested in the material universe. It does not lead us to take the step of fashioning a god-like being in our own image \u2015 a personage who makes demands of us and who takes an interest in us as individuals. There is in this neither a will nor a goal, nor a must, but only sheer being.42<\/sup><\/p>\n

The surge of energy with which many secular scientists pursue the imagined incoming future stems from a belief that humans are the closest thing to \u201cGod\u201d that the universe has yet produced. We are complete with consciousness and interpersonal interests and are goal-oriented (i.e., we have a sense of dominion), all of which must be reduced to the \u201ccode\u201d inherent in sheer being from which we emerged. But this begs the question: why do we interpret the code with such sensations and drive while the sheer being (or what is behind it) does not?<\/p>\n

Einstein\u2019s \u201cdisastrous shortcoming\u201d betrays his effort to find a theory that truly explains everything. In his attempt to reduce God to sheer being, he is actually recasting God in the image of OSS, which is essentially materialistic (Rom. 1:18-25). The best explanation for human consciousness, interpersonal interests, and man\u2019s sense of dominion is that we were made in the image of the Biblical God (Gen. 1:26-28), who is fully revealed in Jesus Christ (John 1:14-18). The nature of Christ\u2019s teachings and miracles demonstrates that \u201cHe is the fullness of the Godhead bodily\u201d (Col. 2:9) and that a person can only be made complete and ready for the ultimate future if the Spirit of God lives in him (2:10-15). Though man\u2019s rebellion has skewed the image of God in man (Gen. 3), it can be progressively restored when a person believes in Jesus Christ as Lord for salvation, sanctification (2 Cor. 3:18; Col. 3:10), and glorification (Rom. 8:30), which is the ultimate future.<\/p>\n

A perfected centralization of power on earth<\/em><\/p>\n

Any student of world history and current events can see a movement toward a global centralization of power. This has happened mainly through a kingdom\u2019s impulse to dominate (cf. James 4:1-3) and is happening today through the spread of secular humanist ideals, economic depression, and technology.43<\/sup> Concerning those disciplines which touch OSS, it is happening in scientific theory (Game Theory and other attempted TOEs), technological theory (Singularity University and the Human Brain Project), and political theory. The \u201cthrumming conversation\u201d of nations envisioned by Obama has been anticipated by technologists who are working on a theory of cities. Such a theory would provide a thorough, language-based understanding of what a city is, how it functions, and how its problems may be addressed.44<\/sup> Unless scientists can crack the code of human consciousness and bridge the gap between OSS and man\u2019s innate sense of morality, as Lewis pointed out, some human whose power is only limited by his imagination will necessarily have to take the helm of the new world order. Should scientists be able to crack the code, mankind may be able to create their leader;45<\/sup> otherwise, they will have to recognize him.46<\/sup><\/p>\n

The hope for a perfected centralization of power on earth ultimately will be realized, but not in the way that OSS imagines. The prophet Isaiah declared that God\u2019s Messiah would establish an eternal kingdom of peace and prosperity.<\/p>\n

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon His kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this (Isa 9:6-7).<\/p>\n

Isaiah also predicted that God\u2019s Messiah would endure great suffering and die, but that he would conquer sin and death itself to establish his kingdom.<\/p>\n

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; He has put him to grief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord will prosper in his hand. He shall see the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many, for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he has poured out his soul unto death (Isa 53:10-12c).<\/p>\n

The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ confirm both the Fall of Man (Gen 3; cf. Rom 5) and the ultimate future as described in the Bible.47<\/sup><\/p>\n

The Messianic era will be preceded by the visible emergence of the darkest powers of the universe (2 Thes 2:3-10; Rev 13). These powers are essentially lawless and will deceive humans through godless wonders. OSS is one epistemological construct that Satan may use to foment this emergence, characterized as it is by a rejection of divine law, materialism (which is essentially idolatry; cf. Rev 9:20-21), and a dazzling promise to eradicate trouble from the human condition via technology (cf. 1 Thes 5:3).48<\/sup><\/p>\n

Eternal Life with Eternal Bliss<\/em><\/p>\n

Kurzweil and other Singularitarians have expressed a hope to achieve the eternal (or at least very long) preservation of their own lives via science and technology. Barat notes simply, \u201cBy 2045, human and machine intelligence will have increased a billion-fold, and will develop technologies to defeat our human frailties, such as fatigue, illness, and death.\u201d49<\/sup> What would life without human frailties look like? In his book The Age of Spiritual Machines<\/em>, Kurzweil carries on a hypothetical conversation with a spiritual machine in 2099, humorous because of the interplay between its supposed future existence and its actual present existence only in Kurzweil\u2019s mind. Following \u201cheartfelt\u201d goodbyes and a lewd invitation from the machine to Kurzweil, the machine finally accedes,<\/p>\n

NOW REMEMBER, I\u2019M READY TO DO ANYTHING OR BE ANYTHING YOU WANT OR NEED.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll keep that in mind.<\/p>\n

YES, THAT\u2019S WHERE YOU\u2019LL FIND ME.<\/p>\n

Too bad I have to wait a century to meet you.<\/p>\n

OR TO BE ME.<\/p>\n

Yes, that too.<\/p>\n

Kurzweil thus envisions eternal life and eternal bliss as access to a spiritual \u201cmachine\u201d that can materialize to meet his every desire. Though I suspect Kurzweil himself is tolerated by less fanciful colleagues because of his impressive resume, some variation of the hope for eternal life with eternal bliss seems to remain prominent within OSS.50<\/sup><\/p>\n

Ironically, though OSS champions the idea of accidental existence and human self-sufficiency and autonomy, its adherents cannot well cope with the implications.<\/p>\n

Secular man refuses to see himself as merely an animated cog or self-asserting animal, having no real future but only a day after tomorrow empty of lasting life and purpose, a temporary phenomenon without substance and weight that finally succumbs to and in nothingness. Instead of acquiescence in such rote existence and instead of accepting the sheer temporality of his being, he buttresses his personal survival by whatever guarantees for the future may be devised by financial, social or political means. He shores up his being against the threat of nonbeing, generating from his own energies whatever holds promise of self-preservation.51<\/sup><\/p>\n

The manner in which the promise of eternal life and eternal bliss has been confirmed in the Christian faith is what distinguishes it from other faiths and epistemologies (John 10:24-30; Rom. 1:4). The uniqueness of Christ\u2019s ability to grant these to his followers, however, does not seem to preclude the possibility that man and Satanic powers will be allowed to experience a counterfeit version of them. The beast that rises out of the sea in Revelation 13:3 experiences the resurrection of one of its heads, probably a reference to the Antichrist. This event results in the whole world worshipping the beast. Rather than ending in eternal bliss for the beast or his followers, however, this resurrection only works to seal their unbelieving fate (13:8; 20:10-15).<\/p>\n

Lesson from a Dabbling Theist<\/strong><\/p>\n

Though King Solomon believed in God and was familiar with his nation\u2019s hope for a Messiah (cf. Gen. 3:16, 49:10, Deut. 18:18; Deut. 17:19), his lavish prosperity led him to dabble in a kind of functional materialism. He wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:10 that \u201cwhatsoever my eyes desired I kept not from them; I withheld not my heart from any joy.\u201d More than anyone before him he was able to experience the \u201cgood life.\u201d Still, his observation in 2:11 signals the purpose of his writing: \u201cThen I looked on all the works that my hands had done and on the labor in which I had toiled; and indeed all was vanity and grasping for the wind.\u201d Solomon realized that the materialistic worldview is painfully limited. This he expresses clearly in 3:9-22.<\/p>\n

Solomon noted that God \u201chas put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.\u201d Whether done by a secular scientist or a God-fearing Christian, people often try to grasp the whole meaning of life, or \u201cunearth deep secrets\u201d as Einstein put it. This is actually evidence that man is an eternal creature. Rather than seeking to achieve a godless explanation of the universe, man must realize that consciousness (man\u2019s \u201cheart\u201d) and work are gifts from God and that only God possesses eternal knowledge, authority, and beauty. Solomon knew that \u201cwhatever God does, it shall be forever. Nothing can be added to it, and nothing taken from it. God does it, that men should fear before him.\u201d This means that God has assigned boundaries to that which man can accomplish so that man may enjoy life and fear God. These boundaries include man\u2019s brevity of life and mainly his inability to bring himself to the ultimate future, where the problem of evil is solved.<\/p>\n

Solomon was not a secular materialist, of course, because the main lesson of his book is \u201cto fear God, and keep His commandments\u201d (12:13; cf. Deut. 6:2, 8:6, 13:4). The fear of God is what leads a man to answer correctly Solomon\u2019s provocative question, \u201cwho can bring [man] to see what will happen after him?\u201d He closes his book by declaring \u201cGod shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.\u201d Once the law was completed in Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44), the apostle Paul declared that \u201cGod has appointed a day, in which He will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom He has appointed, whereof He has given assurance unto all men, by raising him from the dead\u201d (Acts 17:31). Jesus Christ is the unique realization of man\u2019s hope for God-like understanding and dominion in the universe, a perfected centralization of power on earth and eternal life with eternal bliss.<\/p>\n

OSS is actually a remarkable form of escapism. In its attempt to escape finiteness, it will ultimately result in the loss of the enjoyment of life and a relationship with God. As it runs from the Biblical concept of sin, it will run out into the cold and dark universe to seek man\u2019s new home and find new neighbors.52<\/sup> As it strays from the compelling evidence of the Messiah, it will be forced
\nto settle for an imposter.<\/p>\n[churchpack_divider style=”solid” margin_top=”20″ margin_bottom=”20″]\n[1] Mr. Rehfeldt is a missionary to Uruguay and a former faculty member at Maranatha Baptist University.<\/p>\n[2] Bill Nye, \u201cBill Nye\u2019s Take on the Nye-Ham Debate\u201d Skeptical Inquirer<\/em> 38:3 (May\/June 2014), 15.<\/p>\n[3] Ibid., 17.<\/p>\n[4] Many of these scientists are disciples of Carl Sagan, who believed in the transcendence of the mysterious forces of nature that operate through natural selection. Neil Degrasse Tyson is the new host of Fox\u2019s Cosmos<\/em>, first written and presented by Sagan. His recent interview with Huffington Post<\/em> is entitled, \u201cNeil Degrasse Tyson: Enlightened People Don\u2019t Use the Bible as a Textbook.\u201d http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/2014\/03\/11\/neil-degrasse-tyson-bible_n_4940980.html.<\/p>\n[5] Ironically, secularists often use spiritual sounding terms like \u201ctranscendence,\u201d \u201cspirit,\u201d and \u201cbeauty\u201d to describe humans and the universe. Materialism is the presupposition of behaviorism, which has been abandoned by most psychologists because there is no good reason to believe that mind amounts to bodily motions. This is a problem for those secular innovators who hope to create a human mind or something that closely resembles it.<\/p>\n[6] These were adapted from J. Storris Hall, Beyond AI: Creating the Conscience of the Machine<\/em> (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2007), 357-358.<\/p>\n[7] Lev Grossman. \u201c2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal.\u201d Time<\/em> (online). Thursday, February 10, 2011. Accessed May 28, 2014: http:\/\/content.time.com\/time\/magazine\/article\/0,9171, 2048299-1,00.html.<\/p>\n[8] For instance, see Paul Root Wolpe\u2019s \u201cKurzweil\u2019s Singularity Prediction is Wrong\u201d on bigthink.com: http:\/\/bigthink.com\/users\/ paulrootwolpe. Harsher than Wolpe is author Doug Hofstadter who said in an interview that \u201cif you read Ray Kurzweil\u2019s books\u2026what I find is that it\u2019s a very bizarre mixture of ideas that are solid and good with ideas that are crazy. It\u2019s as if you took a lot of very good food and some dog excrement and blended it all up so that you can\u2019t possibly figure out what\u2019s good or bad.\u201d<\/p>\n[9] Ashlee Vance, \u201cMerely Human? That\u2019s So Yesterday,\u201d The New York Times<\/em> (June 12, 2010), accessed May 29, 2014.
\n