Of Machines and Men: AI and the Future of Humanity

“Once, men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them.”^[1]

Thus spoke the Reverend Mother in Frank Herbert’s classic novel, Dune. In response to her words another character replied, “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind.”^[2] In Herbert’s fictional world that sacred law was handed down as a way to ensure that machines could never again enslave humanity. The problem for you and I is that such a device has already been created, and like Pandora’s box,^[3] there is no going back. AI is here to stay, whether we like it or not.

That means we need to think more carefully about what AI is and isn’t, what its limits and dangers are, and what its potential uses may be. Christians ought to be leading the charge here, but if what I have witnessed is any indication of the general state of the church on this front, then we have a lot of catching up to do.

A Technical Look at Technology

We cannot think clearly about AI until we think clearly about all technology in general. In the beginning, the Lord commissioned humanity with a cultural mandate, exhorting us to “fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28).^[4] This commission is a summons to use the raw materials of God’s world to fashion devices capable of, say, grinding wheat, cultivating vineyards, and pressing olives. Without the technological developments that made these possible, Israel could not have made grain offerings (Lev 2:1), drink offerings (Exod 29:40), or oils for anointing (Ex 25:6; 29:7). Think also of houses, wells, and other necessities of life (Deut 6:11), or other blessings like hospitals, cups of coffee, even cups themselves. The Lord is not against technology in the abstract. Technological development was his idea.

The story of tech takes an interesting turn in Genesis 4, however, where Moses records that Cain and his descendants were the first to build cities (Gen 4:17), the first to domesticate animals (Gen 4:20), the first to craft musical instruments (Gen 4:21), and the first to fashion implements of bronze and iron from the metals of the earth (Gen 4:22). Perhaps the latter were mostly used for farming, but Lamech seems to have had more violent uses in mind, too (Gen 4:22–24).

Biblical theologian James Jordan calls this the “Enoch factor,” by which he means that pagans often beat God’s people to the punch when it comes to technological innovation.^[5] The principle continues with the builders of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11, who were (so far as we know) the first to use bricks and mortar in construction (Gen 11:3). Similarly, the Egyptians perfected the chariot’s use in warfare, giving them a significant tactical advantage that lasted for many centuries (Exod. 14:23; cf. Josh 17:16; Ps 20:17).

Perhaps the only substantive exceptions to the “Enoch factor” can be found during the height of Christendom, when so much of Europe shared a basically Christian view of the world. But we are not in Christendom anymore, Toto. Ours is more like the world of Genesis 4 and Genesis 11, where, technologically speaking, the pagans get there first. They do so, of course, because they are exclusively earthly-minded. They are singularly focused on the here and now, knowing nothing of God and his eternal purposes (cf. 2 Cor 4:18; Col 3:2; 1 John 2:15, 17).^[6]

This does not mean that everything made by the earthly-minded is bad. Recall the cities, tents, livestock, musical instruments, and implements of metal from Genesis 4. Each of these finds a place in the tabernacle (Exod 26:7, 12; 29:18; 30:17–21; Ps 43:4), as God’s people looked forward to the city with eternal foundations (Heb 11:10; Rev 21:14). This means that while pagans may be the first to make many things, they do not know what all things are ultimately for. They did not raise livestock for the Day of Atonement (Lev 16–17). They did not play their instruments for the glory of the Lord (Neh 12:27). They did not use bronze and iron to decorate God’s house but to decorate Goliath (1 Sam 17:5–7).

It is instructive, therefore, that God tells his people to despoil their Egyptian masters (Exod 3:22) and makes it possible for them to do so (Exod 12:36). Over the centuries, many theologians have advocated a similar approach to the things of the world.^[7] But while “plundering the Egyptians” is good in theory, we are fools if we forget the rest of the story. For we know what Israel did with that formerly-Egyptian gold in Exodus 32, and a similar danger faces us today. The vital task set before every generation is to learn how to plunder earthly-minded “Egyptians” without being corrupted ourselves, so that we do not turn their “gold” into a golden calf of self-destruction.

Here some have invoked the categories of “receiving,” “redeeming,” and “rejecting” as a framework for sifting our approach to worldly inventions.^[8] It is said that some things can be accepted as they are, without alternation; other things may be modified, redeeming them for godly purposes; still other things must be rejected outright, having no rightful use whatsoever.

These categories may be a good starting point, but they do not go nearly far enough. We need a comprehensive system of thought that shows us not only what can be received, rejected, or redeemed, but one which also helps us to grasp when and where and why and how and who may do so.^[9] To that end, here are three biblical principles that can help us plunder the Egyptians without unintentionally plundering the glory of God and the good (i.e., bene esse) of humanity.

How to Survive the Age of AI without Losing Your Soul

1. We should view technology soberly.

Paul writes, “Everyone among you must not think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but should think with sober judgment” (Rom 12:3). Though the apostle was speaking with regard to sober judgment about ourselves, Paul writes this immediately after exhorting us not to be conformed to this world (Rom 12:2). The proximity is important. The world entices us to see things wrongly.^[10] When it comes to technology, Christians have been duped into thinking that virtually all tech is neutral, and therefore able to be “received” or at least “redeemed” without much difficulty.

Yet it is profoundly naïve to think in this way, for technology is never entirely neutral. That idea is a myth, right up there with the myth of progress.^[11] To be sure, technology may be morally neutral, in the sense that it does not sin by itself,^[12] but technology is never practically neutral, in the sense that tools always change the way one interfaces with God’s world. This is because technological developments not only enable man to do things, they also do things to man. For all technology — even the most basic tool you can think of — changes how people interact with God’s world such that our way of living is changed in the process.

Examples abound,^[13] but simply consider how search engines and AI platforms affect us.

Now examine search engines and AI platforms. Numerous scientific studies have shown that these inventions atrophy our ability to recall information,^[14] which still matters in the year of our Lord 2026. Google and ChatGPT may be able to find a Bible verse in seconds, but that will not profit a man if he has never hidden God’s Word in his heart (Psa 119:11). Again, the point is not that these technologies are evil; the point is that they are not neutral in a practical sense. All technology affects us, sometimes in ways we may not be aware of, but we are still affected.

So, then, let us do away with facile declarations that “technology is neutral.” Far better to say with the late Neil Postman, “Every technology is both a burden and a blessing; not either-or, but this-and-that.”^[15] This is the way to sober-mindedness. In practical terms, Christians should stop speaking of technological advancements and speak instead of technological developments, for with every new potential blessing comes a new potential burden, too. Such an outlook is the starting point for clearheaded thinking about tech and tools, enabling each of us to do what we can to assess and account for life-altering changes that will prove to be some mixture of good and bad in the final analysis.

2. We should adopt new technology cautiously.

In his masterful preface to Athanasius’s On the Incarnation of the Word, C. S. Lewis points out the danger of reading mainly (or worse, only) new books instead of a diet of mostly old ones.^[16] New books are still on trial, Lewis reminds us. Their authors live in the same age that we do, which means they possess the same blind spots that we have.

In a similar way, it is good to remember that new tech is still on trial. Its dangers are rarely, if ever, known right away. Who in 1983 could have foreseen that the internet would be used to mass produce pornography? Who in 2004 foresaw that Facebook would cave to Democratic pressure to censor scientific data and restrict political speech through complex algorithms?^[17] Who in 2007 could have foreseen what the smart phone would do to humanity, turning us into mindless addicts who tap and click and swipe an average of 2,617 times per day,^[18] while dramatically increasing the rates of anxiety, depression, loneliness, and suicide among teenagers?^[19]

It took time to discover these dangers, but they were present from the start. The same is true for all technological developments. This is why we must adopt new technologies with great caution, and that goes for the dangers of AI, some of which are still unknown. Yet this much we do know: AI will be disruptive to many industries and thousands of jobs that will soon become obsolete when the work formerly carried out by humans (with families to feed) is replaced by a disembodied machine. Even the coders who design AI are not safe, as AI platforms are already capable of debugging and updating code in ways that far exceed what humans are capable of.

And the truth is, nobody knows where all this is headed. I certainly don’t. But I do know that a poll in Silicon Valley found that nearly 50 percent of the people who are making AI believe there is a better than 10 percent chance that it will destroy life as we know it.^[20] And even if that dismal outlook does not come to pass, who knows what other ways AI may harm the lives and souls of people who eagerly adopt it without taking the time to consider its potential dangers? The capacity to create credible videos of content purporting  to be real has already reached a point such that my wife routinely asks me, “Is this real?” Even if a Terminator-style Skynet never destroys the world, the coming epistemological crisis will be bad enough.

Hence Postman’s previous point that all tech is both a burden and a blessing. Every new tool introduces some sort of magnification of our capacities that also comes with some sort of diminishment of another capacity. Some are amplified, but others are eclipsed, and both factors — the potential amplification and the potential diminishment — are rarely (if ever) perceived at the moment of creation or adoption. But we can make educated guesses based on patterns and trends we have already observed.

At a minimum, I expect that AI will do to our minds what search engines have done to our memories. Those who “offload” their thinking to machines — @Grok, is this true? —  will slowly, but inexorably, atrophy their mental faculties. The same goes for those who make use of AI to help them write. Writing is hard. It forces us to see the gap between what we think we know and what we actually know at a depth sufficient to communicate our thoughts to others. That is why Francis Bacon said, “Reading maketh a full man; conference [maketh] a ready man; and writing [maketh] an exact man.”^[21]

Those who use AI to assist them in their writing seek a shortcut to fluency without formation, to clarity without struggle, and to mastery without apprenticeship. And it does not help anyone to pretend that AI is a viable replacement for human mentors in this regard (Luke 6:40). For when two (or more) people collaborate in brainstorming or even writing (e.g., 2 Cor 1:1; Rom 16:22; Col 1:1; 1 Thess 1:1), all are edified in the process. AI removes this mutual edification.

We do well, then, to heed the wisdom of God, who says, “Desire without knowledge is not good, and whoever makes haste with his feet misses his way” (Prov 19:2). We must therefore adopt new tech cautiously, even slowly, not only in our lives, but especially in the church.^[22] For new tech is still on trial, as all new things are. Yet those who hasten to use such things, without careful evaluation and sober reflection, will find that their good intentions were no bulwark against bad outcomes.

3. We must use tech virtuously.

Jesus says the greatest aim in life is to honor God, and the second greatest aim is, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:37–39). This means that even if a man were to view tech soberly and adopt it cautiously, he will not benefit from this approach unless he uses tech virtuously, as a part of Spirit-filled new humanity, who knows both what is good and what people are for.

Speaking with relevance to this kind of knowledge, the author of Hebrews says, “Solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil” (Heb 5:14). This entails that some actions are easy to recognize as morally wrong (e.g., Gal 5:19ff), while others take a great level of discernment, one that can only be acquired through careful study of God’s Word and “constant practice” of what it teaches (Phil 4:9; 1 Tim 4:15).

If, for example, a pastor were to use AI to write portions of his sermon — which I suspect is a not-so-hypothetical scenario — such a man knows that he has taken ideas and words that were not his own and presented them as if they were. This is a violation of the eighth and ninth commandments.^[23] But also, the sort of man who does this is coveting something (Exod 20:17), perhaps the appearance of intelligence, wisdom, or godliness (2 Tim 3:15) that exceeds his actual capacities. And he covets to such a degree that he has made an idol of his desire (Exod 20:5; Col 3:5), which means he doesn’t “have no other gods” before the Lord (Exod 20:3). And if he does all this as a Christian, he breaks the third commandment as well (Exod 20:7), bearing the name of God with his lips while denying the ways of God with his life (Isa 29:13; cf. Rom 2:24).

Those are the easy sins to recognize. The harder cases involve remembering what people are for. We are not machines. God made us with limitations. This means a computer will always be able to do some tasks much better than we can, but the Lord was not ignorant of this fact when he made us in a fearful and wonderful fashion (Ps 139:14). Apparently, then, God wanted us to have limitations. He knows our frame (Ps 103:14), but we need to remember it as well, so that we might learn to depend on him in all things, as those who believe that Jesus really meant it when he said, “Apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5).

Yet the Lord also made us with unique capacities, not just limitations, which means humans can do some things that AI never could. We feel pain (2 Cor 4:17). We suffer loss (Phil 3:8). We know the grief of sin (Jas 4:8–9) and the joy of forgiveness (Ps 32:1). AI knows nothing of these realities. Thus, AI may prove to be a helpful research tool in the hands of a virtuous pastor,^[24] but AI can never write embodied sermons or give experiential counsel to sinners. For speaking the truth in love (Eph 4:15) is not just a transfer of information; it is the overflow of a heart that is walking with God our Savior through the highs and lows of life (Luke 6:45).^[25]

Conclusion

On a scale from one to five, with one being a total doomer about AI and five being a naïve enthusiast of the same, put me down as a pessimistic two.^[26] That is to say, I expect more harm than good will come from AI in the long run. I would love to be wrong about this, of course, but with history and the iron law of human nature on my side, I suspect I will not be far off the mark.

Even so, as I said at the start, AI is here to stay whether we like it or not. And though I am neither a prophet nor the son of a prophet, I do not think AI will not be the last piece of world-changing technology (unless the doomers are right about its world-destroying potential). This is why we must begin with the truth that no technology is intrinsically evil, as something to be avoided in all forms.^[27] Rather, tools are among the things the Lord made us to make, as we fill the earth and subdue it (Gen 1:28), producing God-honoring, people-blessing ideas, objects, and institutions that echo into eternity (Rev 21:24).

But to do that, we must adopt a sober, cautious, and virtuous approach to every technological development. Tragically, this is not something most people — including many Christians — appear to be doing at present. Instead, most are wandering into this brave new world like toddlers in a toy store. And while Tolkien reminds us that “Not all those who wander are lost,”^[28] the truth is that most of them are (Eph 4:14, 18).

The way forward through this morass requires remembering the ways of our “only wise God” (Rom 16:17). Had he wanted more geniuses in this world — more people who are capable of instantly recalling massive amounts of information or writing epoch-defining classics or consistently preaching “grand slam” sermons — it is well within his power to make many of those. That God has not seen fit to do so should remind us that our God loves to use the weak and dusty (Ps 103:14) people of this world to accomplish his glorious purposes (1 Cor 1:19–27).

To the degree that AI may help us do that, let us use it for good. Yet to the degree that AI dishonors God or diminishes the people made in his image, let us abandon all such uses to the pit from where they came (Ezek 31:16).

^[1] Frank Herbert, Dune (1965; repr., Ace Books, 2010), 17.

^[2] Ibid., 12.

^[3] In Hesiod’s original version, it was actually a jar—a pithos in Greek—but I will not permit a technical detail to ruin a common metaphor.

^[4] The Hebrew word translated “subdue” (כָּבַשׁ) elsewhere refers to conquering (Num. 32:22, 29; Josh. 18:1; 2 Sam. 8:11) or bringing into submission (2 Chron. 28:10; Neh. 9:5; Jer. 34:11), so this term is clearly not referring to the ministry of fruit-picking (cf. Gen. 2:16).

^[5] See James Jordan, “The Enoch Factor,” May 25, 1994, Theopolis, https://theopolisinstitute.com/the-enoch-factor/.

^[6] I hasten to add that this does not mean Christians should care nothing for the things of earth. Ever present is the specter of being “so heavenly minded that you’re no earthly good.” Yet, as C. S. Lewis rightly observed, “If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were just those who thought most of the next.” Lewis, Mere Christianity (1952; repr., HarperCollins, 2001), 134.

^[7] For example, Origen writes, “Perhaps something of this kind is shadowed forth in what is written in Exodus from the mouth of God… in order that, by spoiling the Egyptians, they might have material for the preparation of the things which pertained to the service of God.” See Origen, “A Letter from Origen to Gregory,” §§1–2, in The Writings of Origen, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 1 (T. & T. Clark, 1869), 388–390. Augustine speaks similarly in On Christian Doctrine II.40–41, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2, ed. Philip Schaff (1887; repr., Hendrickson, 1995), 554–555.

^[8] See Mark Driscoll, “The Church and the Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World,” in The Supremacy of Christ in a Postmodern World, eds. John Piper and Justin Taylor (Crossway, 2007), 145–147.

^[9] For example, iron can be used to make swords or plowshares, spears or pruning hooks. And though Isaiah 2:4 says that such weapons of war will one day be refashioned as farming tools, Joel 3:10 speaks of another time when farming tools will be refashioned as weapons of war. Besides this, neither farming nor fighting is categorically wrong. The former is uncontroversial, but there would have been no stopping the Canaanites and no stopping Hitler without some kind of battle. Perhaps this is why Ecclesiastes 3:8 says there is a time for peace and a time for war under the sun. But again, the questions are: When? and Where? and Why? and How? and Who? This is how we should think about all technology.

^[10] By “the world” I mean what Richard Lovelace described as “the total system of corporate flesh operating on earth under Satanic control, with all its incentives of reward and restraint of loss, its characteristic patterns of behavior, its anti-Christian structures, methods, goals and ideologies.” Richard F. Lovelace, The Dynamics of Spiritual Life (InterVarsity, 1979), 93.

^[11] By “myth of progress” I am referring not to the eschaton, when Christ “make[s] all things new” (Rev 21:5) but to the Hegelian notion that history is linear, not cyclical, and that it inevitably progresses toward perfection.

^[12] As the modern sage would sayeth, “Guns don’t kill people; people kill people.”

^[13] When nail guns were invented, framing houses became cheaper and quicker. At the same time, the carpenter’s forearms also became weaker and his aim a little less careful. (To hammer a nail in the wrong place is a waste of time, but to shoot one in the wrong place can be mended in less than a second.) Or consider how cars and machines, which have improved our lives in many ways, have also made us more sedentary. This was not their intended purpose, but it has proven to be an intractable consequence. As a result, we have to hit the gym to recover the strength and endurance that once came naturally to every man as he simply lived his life.

^[14] See Sparrow, Betsy, Jenny Liu, and Daniel M. Wegner, “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips,” Science 333, no. 6043 (August 5, 2011): 776–778. See also Megan O. Kelly and Evan F. Risko, “Study Effort and the Memory Cost of External Store Availability.” Cognition 228, no. 105228 (November 2022). Other studies also show that in addition to reducing our recall, these technologies increase our rate of “false recall,” meaning that we not only fail to remember but misremember as well. See Xinyi Lu, Megan O. Kelly, and Evan F. Risko, “Offloading Information to an External Store Increases False Recall.” Cognition 205, no. 104428 (December 2020) and Joyce S. Park, Megan O. Kelly, Mary B. Hargis, and Evan F. Risko, “The Effect of External Store Reliance on Actual and Predicted Value-Directed Remembering,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 29 (2022): 1367–1376.

^[15] Neil Postman, Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 4–5.

^[16] See C. S. Lewis, “Preface to On the Incarnation,” On the Incarnation, by Saint Athanasius, trans. John Behr, Popular Patristics Series 44 (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2012), 9–16.

^[17] Lara Korte, “Zuckerberg Says He Regrets Caving to White House Pressure on Content,” Politico, August 26, 2024, https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/26/zuckerberg-meta-white-house-pressure-00176399.

^[18] Julian Naftfulin, “Here’s How Many Times We Touch Our Phones Every Day,” Business Insider, July 13, 2016, https://www.businessinsider.com/dscout-research-people-touch-cell-phones-2617-times-a-day-2016-7. This article reports the findings of a study by the research group Dsout. The full study can be found here: https://pages.dscout.com/hubfs/downloads/dscout_mobile_touches_study_2016.pdf.

^[19] See Elroy Boers et al., “Association of Screen Time and Depression in Adolescence,” JAMA Pediatrics 173, no. 9 (September 1, 2019): 853–859 and Samia B. Elhai, Jason C. Levine, Robert D. Dvorak, and Brian J. Hall, “Problematic Smartphone Use: A Conceptual Overview and Systematic Review of Relations with Anxiety and Depression Psychopathology,” Frontiers in Psychiatry 12, no. 669042 (2021). See also Jonathan Haidt, The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness (Penguin Press, 2024).

^[20] See Katja Grace et al., “Thousands of AI Authors on the Future of AI,” Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 84 (2025) and Matthew Loh, “AI Researchers Say There’s a Chance the Technology Could Lead to Human Extinction,” Business Insider, January 2024, https://www.businessinsider.com/ai-researchers-chance-tech-making-humans-extinct-2024-1.

^[21] Francis Bacon, “Of Studies,” in The Essays or Counsels, Civil and Moral, ed. Michael Kiernan (Clarendon Press, 1985), 152, emphasis mine.

^[22] Consider, for example, the trend of churches producing “virtual services” online, which seems good to many. It has been pitched as a way to reach the lost, who perhaps would never darken the door of a church, or maybe it would be a way to get the gospel back into the lives of the de-churched, who stopped coming to services. But in the post-COVID years of 2023, the number of Americans who attend church in person monthly (16%) had fallen to nearly the same percentage of persons who only watch religious services online (12%). The introduction of “online services” has contributed to millions now viewing the church as a spectator event, a show they can tune in to — or out of — on their terms. Thus, in our haste to get the gospel to the world, we inadvertently incentivized people to ignore the life-giving needs that only the church can provide. For people are not just brains on a stick; they are bodies as well as souls; they need more than words broadcast over airwaves. They need the bread and wine of communion. They need the hug of a friend. And they need to witness the life of the church as it embodies the gospel in flesh and blood.

^[23] I.e., “You shall not steal” (Ex. 20:15), and, “You shall not bear false witness” (Ex. 20:16; cf. Eph. 4:25). What is more, Leviticus 19:11 addresses these together, suggesting that they often go hand-in-hand: “You shall not steal; you shall not deal falsely; you shall not lie to another.”

^[24] Even using AI as a research tool comes with needed cautions, however. It is well known that current iterations of AI have a tendency to “hallucinate,” that is, to erroneously provide incorrect answers to the user’s questions. Having experimented with AI to search for particular quotes, I have found that it frequently “hallucinates” by paraphrasing, summarizing, or simply repeating the sort of sloppy attribution one finds all over the internet, whose denizens apparently believe that C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton wrote everything. In one instance, a top AI platform with a paid service subscription (the best versions are not free) repeatedly “hallucinated” a quote by forming a pastiche of several half-quotes and paraphrases from multiple sources. It took me the better part of an hour to track down the original author and the correct location, which I was only able to confirm by double-checking with a hard copy of Augustine’s text in my possession. How many people are this rigorous with fact-checking AI? Most, it would seem, already treat AI as a near infallible guide to information.

^[25] To be sure, there are other potentially helpful uses for AI. Those without any coding knowledge might be able to use it to design a website that blesses many people. Perhaps it will find a cure for cancer. Already AI-enabled robotic “weeders” are bringing an unparalleled level of precision to removing weeds that diminish crop yields. Not only does this technology increase our ability to feed the world, it also may reduce the need for chemical herbicides with side effects that can be harmful to some people. See Lirong Xiang, “Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled Robotic Weeders in Precision Agriculture,” NC State Extension, October 17, 2024, https://content.ces.ncsu.edu/artificial-intelligence-ai-enabled-robotic-weeders-in-precision-agriculture. The blessings are real, and we should thank God for those (1 Tim 4:4). But the burdens are real, too, and we forget these to our own peril.

^[26] For the list-loving readers, here is the full scale: 1 = Doomers, 2 = Pessimists, 3 = Ambivalents, 4 = Optimists, and 5 = Enthusiasts.

^[27] Even the Amish use hammers, wagons, and plows. And the much-maligned Luddites, God bless them, were not against all technology. They were only against the rapid adoption of certain technologies which they perceptively recognized would prove disruptive to the lives of many human beings.

^[28] J. R. R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, 2nd ed. (Houghton Mifflin, 1994), 162.