Intelligence Is Over-Rated

Last updated on: May 31, 2023 at 9:23 am By Gene Veith

There is a lot of alarm over Artificial Intelligence, with some people thinking computers will become so intelligent that they will take over the world and possibly exterminate human beings like parasites.

Others worry that AI will eliminate the need for “knowledge workers.” Someone has commented that few of those worriers seemed much concerned when technology eliminated working class jobs, but now that their professions seem threatened, they suddenly recognize what it feels like to be replaced by a machine.

Dominic Pino has written a piece for National Review entitled A Reality Check on Artificial Intelligence. He cites a conversation about Artificial Intelligence between economists Russ Roberts and Tyler Cowen on the podcast EconTalk.

Cowen says this on the doomsday predictions, referring to the views of human nature held by free market thinkers Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek, plus philosopher Michael Polanyi (read the Wikipedia article about his thought):

I think they’re radically overestimating the value of intelligence. If we go back, as I mentioned before, to Hayek and Polanyi, pure intelligence is not worth as much as many people think. There’s this philosophy of scientism that Hayek criticized. And, the people who are most worried, as I see them, they tend to be hyper-rationalistic. They tend to be scientists. They tend not to be very Hayekian or Smithian. They emphasize sheer brain power over prudence. And, I think if you take this more Adam Smith-like/Hayekian worldview, you will be less worried.

Roberts said this, drawing from his book Wild Problems (my bolds):

Most of the problems of the human experience are not solvable. They involve trade-offs. I come back to our classic — the dictum of our profession — “No solutions. Only trade-offs.”

And, trade-offs therefore require judgment. And, ChatGPT will never provide that, unless you believe in a social welfare kind of approach that you alluded to earlier.

And so, I think the belief that, quote, “smarter and smarter” computer tools will help us solve more and more problems is simply incorrect. It will solve many problems, and some of them will be quite important, potentially avoiding an asteroid. But many of the problems of the human experience are not due to a lack of intelligence. And I think that’s an understanding that you and I are trained in our bones from being economists, as both students and teachers, over the years. And, I think it’s very alien to the computer-science community.

I would add that intelligence is only one faculty of the human mind, and not necessarily the most important. The notion that a computer or interconnected computers will acquire so much intelligence that they will attain consciousness is, as we have blogged about, absurd. Intelligence–or, rather, computing power–has nothing to do with consciousness. Nor does it have anything to do with other aspects of the mind, such as emotions, sensory experience, volition, imagination, selfhood, or. . .you name it.

Nor will a machine, however “intelligent,” have ambition, egotism, resentment, or a will to power. I think many “smart people” are projecting their own personalities, including their flaws, onto the “smart machines” that they fear.

Nor will an artificially intelligent machine do all of the work that needs to be done by human beings. Someone told me about a student who had been planning a career in journalism, but changed course due to his fear that he would be replaced by Artificial Intelligence. Instead, he is becoming a fire fighter.

Well, Artificial Intelligence as we see in ChatGPT will not go out and seek the news. It is dependent on the vast sum of information on the internet, but someone has to dig out that information and then post it online. Those who get their news from the internet instead of a newspaper are perhaps not aware that the news they are reading comes from the plethora of newspapers that are online, including those that exist only online, and the paid journalists who write for them. I am pretty sure there will still be journalists.

But I think being a fire fighter may be an even more noble vocation. Artificial Intelligence won’t put out the fire if your house is burning, nor will it haul you out of the flames.

Maybe if “smart jobs” become somewhat obsolete, due to “smart machines,” that will bring back and re-enchant the art of working with one’s hands and other human faculties, the various forms of which deal not with virtual reality but actual reality.

Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Premium Content

Political Faith vs. Political Skepticism

Last updated on: May 20, 2023 at 6:44 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The new editor-in-chief of Christianity Today Russell Moore, in discussing J. K. Rowling–who used to be demonized by many evangelicals for glorifying witchcraft and is now demonized by many LGBTQ folks for her opposition to transgenderism–reflects on the similarities between the hard right and the hard left, both of which can be accused of banning books and cancelling opponents, though for completely different reasons.

In the course of his argument, he points to an article by political scientist John G. Grove, who, in his words, shows “that extreme illiberal ‘wokeness’ and extreme illiberal ‘anti-wokeness’ are remarkably similar.”

I looked up that essay, published last year in National Affairs, entitled The Post-liberal Politics of Faith. But it is far more than a simplistic accusation that “both sides do it.” Grove makes a different kind of political distinction between that is far more illuminating than the spatial metaphors of “right” and “left,” or the temporal metaphors of “conservative” and “progressive.” And it is very helpful in sorting out the current controversies over the different kinds of conservatism and how Christians should approach politics.

Grove draws on the work of the English conservative philosopher Michael Oakeshott (1901-1990) and his book The Politics of Faith and the Politics of Skepticism. This is not a distinction between religious and secularist politics. Rather, it has to do with faith in politics vs. skepticism about politics.

The politics of faith has to do with the the pursuit of perfection, the faith that if we just form the right kind of government that implements the right policies, all will be well. Our problems will be solved, we will approach utopia, and we will attain the good in life.

The politics of skepticism, on the other hand, does not believe that government can do any such thing. It is skeptical of such pretensions. All it wants from government is for it just to keep basic social order. Anything beyond that modest–but extremely important–goal is out of line.

You should read the entire article, but here are some excerpts from Grove’s explanation:

The politics of faith sees government as an “inspirer” and “director” of society’s improvement tasked with imposing a “comprehensive pattern” on society — a “mundane [as in ‘earthly’] condition of human circumstances” that directs society toward some form of perfection. . . .

The politics of faith sees man and society as plastic, capable of being molded by political choices. For man to reach his perfection, the politics of faith contends that the institutions around him must be consciously structured to direct him toward it. . . . Thus, for the politics of faith, modern government is an indispensable means of earthly salvation.

If they are to succeed in their aim, governments must be unlimited and “omnicompetent,” at least theoretically. The politics of faith “welcome[s] power” and requires what Oakeshott calls “minute government” to attend to all the various details of human activity, “to keep every enterprise in line.”. . . It can therefore be restrained only by the practical judgments of those directing society’s quest for perfection.

The opposite pole of Oakeshott’s paradigm — the politics of skepticism — sees politics as a mode of human interaction distinct from the pursuit of perfection. It views the purpose of government as the maintenance of the basic social order necessary for human beings to live peacefully together and to pursue various ends as individuals or social institutions, or as a whole. . . .

Under the politics of faith, we know the direction we ought to go beforehand; the difficult task is mobilizing society to do what it ought to do or to be what it ought to be. Under the politics of skepticism, we don’t have the answers ahead of time: The order that maintains peace and harmony in a society must be determined by the political process itself. Though a politics of skepticism need not be defined by small government, it will prioritize constitutional limits on the state designed to prevent government from using its powers for purposes beyond the specific tasks assigned to it.

These two approaches to government are not ideologies or policies. Rather, says Grove, “our ideologies and policy ideas draw on the assumptions embedded in one or both of these styles.” Thus, Communism and Nazism, for all of their differences, both exemplify the “politics of faith.” They both use the government to impose an ideal of “perfection,” though they differ on what that ideal is.

Notice how this applies to the current debates within the conservative movement. National conservatism requires the politics of faith. Small government conservatism requires the politics of skepticism.

Which would be the more Biblical view of government? One might think the politics of faith would go better with the Christian faith, but, while many religions including some versions of Christianity play the role of giving a sacred status to the state, the Bible teaches us specifically not to have faith in anything or anyone other than the Lord God.

“Put not your trust in princes,” says the Psalmist, “in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation” (Psalm 146:3). Do not fall down in worship to the image of the King of Babylon (Daniel 3) and do not make your prayer to the Emperor (Daniel 6).

The New Testament values earthly government but it does not lay out a political program or a philosophy of government. Rather, it says that human government has a very important, but very modest, purpose:

For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:3-4)

Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Earthly rulers are established by God, but they are subordinate to Him as His servants, indeed, his agents, holding a vocation through which God works to restrain evil. Human governments exist to punish evildoers and to reward those who do good. What Christians want and pray for from their government is that they “may lead a peaceful and quiet life.” That is to say, Christians want the government to maintain basic social order.

But this is no small thing. This is not a formula for political quietism or for Christians to be uninvolved in their government. Today the government is not maintaining basic social order. Blowing up the family, encouraging sexual license, blurring the sexes, tolerating crime, allowing parents to kill their unborn children–these are expressions of the profoundest social disorder.

You can be a political skeptic–a small government conservative rather than a national conservative–while still battling abortion and opposing the other plagues of our culture. You don’t need to “have faith” in your government in order to try to make it better.

Politically skeptical Christians will not, however, expect perfection in the government or the culture. There will always be a need to struggle against sin in this fallen world. Politically skeptical Christians will not become disillusioned with their political leaders because they will have no illusions. They will neither divinize the state nor secularize the church. And they won’t make the mistake of confusing the kingdoms of this world with the kingdom of Heaven.

Photo: Michael Oakeshott by Library of the London School of Economics and Political Science – Professor Michael Oakeshott, c1960sUploaded by calliopejen1, No restrictions, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15987493

Premium Content

How a Cat Glorifies God

Last updated on: April 24, 2023 at 8:12 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

We live in gnostic times, rejecting objective reality in favor of our own subjective constructions. To counter gnosticism, Christians–believers in creation, incarnation, sacraments, and the resurrection of the body–would do well to attend to and appreciate the physical realm in all of its materiality. (See, for example, this reflection.)

So I appreciated this article by Douglas Murray, at the Free Press (behind a paywall), On Seeing God in a Cat. He writes about the wonderful Christian poetry of Christopher Smart (1722-1771), a poetic genius who lost his mind, to the point of being consigned to a madhouse for “religious mania” in the Enlightenment “Age of Reason.”

His masterpiece, Jubilate Agno (“Rejoice in the Lamb”), was not discovered and published until 1939. He anticipates highly structured free verse by two centuries in some 1,200 lines, each of which begins with with either “Let. . .” or “For. . .” The complete poem is here.

It is very eccentric and bears traces of Smart’s addled condition and there is something comical about much of it. But it is also profound. I would say its main theme is that of the Psalms, whose poetic form he is emulating:

Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice;
let the sea roar, and all that fills it;
let the field exult, and everything in it!
Then shall all the trees of the forest sing for joy
before the Lord, for he comes,
for he comes to judge the earth. (Psalm 96:11-13)

Let everything that has breath praise the Lord! (Psalm 150:6)

That includes cats. The most famous section of Jubilate Agno is about Smart’s cat Jeffrey, his sole companion while he was locked up in the asylum. You don’t have to be a cat person to appreciate how Jeffrey, in just being a cat and doing what cats do, is glorifying the Living God.

From the Poetry Foundation:

from Jubilate Agno

by Christopher Smart

For I will consider my Cat Jeoffry.

For he is the servant of the Living God duly and daily serving him.

For at the first glance of the glory of God in the East he worships in his way.

For this is done by wreathing his body seven times round with elegant quickness.

For then he leaps up to catch the musk, which is the blessing of God upon his prayer.

For he rolls upon prank to work it in.

For having done duty and received blessing he begins to consider himself.

For this he performs in ten degrees.

For first he looks upon his forepaws to see if they are clean.

For secondly he kicks up behind to clear away there.

For thirdly he works it upon stretch with the forepaws extended.

For fourthly he sharpens his paws by wood.

For fifthly he washes himself.

For sixthly he rolls upon wash.

For seventhly he fleas himself, that he may not be interrupted upon the beat.

For eighthly he rubs himself against a post.

For ninthly he looks up for his instructions.

For tenthly he goes in quest of food.

For having consider’d God and himself he will consider his neighbour.

For if he meets another cat he will kiss her in kindness.

For when he takes his prey he plays with it to give it a chance.

For one mouse in seven escapes by his dallying.

For when his day’s work is done his business more properly begins.

For he keeps the Lord’s watch in the night against the adversary.

For he counteracts the powers of darkness by his electrical skin and glaring eyes.

For he counteracts the Devil, who is death, by brisking about the life.

For in his morning orisons he loves the sun and the sun loves him.

For he is of the tribe of Tiger.

For the Cherub Cat is a term of the Angel Tiger.

For he has the subtlety and hissing of a serpent, which in goodness he suppresses.

For he will not do destruction, if he is well-fed, neither will he spit without provocation.

For he purrs in thankfulness, when God tells him he’s a good Cat.

For he is an instrument for the children to learn benevolence upon.

For every house is incomplete without him and a blessing is lacking in the spirit.

For the Lord commanded Moses concerning the cats at the departure of the Children of Israel from Egypt.

For every family had one cat at least in the bag.

For the English Cats are the best in Europe.

For he is the cleanest in the use of his forepaws of any quadruped.

For the dexterity of his defence is an instance of the love of God to him exceedingly.

For he is the quickest to his mark of any creature.

For he is tenacious of his point.

For he is a mixture of gravity and waggery.

For he knows that God is his Saviour.

For there is nothing sweeter than his peace when at rest.

For there is nothing brisker than his life when in motion.

For he is of the Lord’s poor and so indeed is he called by benevolence perpetually—Poor Jeoffry! poor Jeoffry! the rat has bit thy throat.

For I bless the name of the Lord Jesus that Jeoffry is better.

For the divine spirit comes about his body to sustain it in complete cat.

For his tongue is exceeding pure so that it has in purity what it wants in music.

For he is docile and can learn certain things.

For he can set up with gravity which is patience upon approbation.

For he can fetch and carry, which is patience in employment.

For he can jump over a stick which is patience upon proof positive.

For he can spraggle upon waggle at the word of command.

For he can jump from an eminence into his master’s bosom.

For he can catch the cork and toss it again.

For he is hated by the hypocrite and miser.

For the former is afraid of detection.

For the latter refuses the charge.

For he camels his back to bear the first notion of business.

For he is good to think on, if a man would express himself neatly.

For he made a great figure in Egypt for his signal services.

For he killed the Ichneumon-rat very pernicious by land.

For his ears are so acute that they sting again.

For from this proceeds the passing quickness of his attention.

For by stroking of him I have found out electricity.

For I perceived God’s light about him both wax and fire.

For the Electrical fire is the spiritual substance, which God sends from heaven to sustain the bodies both of man and beast.

For God has blessed him in the variety of his movements.

For, tho he cannot fly, he is an excellent clamberer.

For his motions upon the face of the earth are more than any other quadruped.

For he can tread to all the measures upon the music.

For he can swim for life.

For he can creep.

Image: The Cat, woodcut from Edward Topsell, The History of Four-Footed Beastes (1607) via Gordon Johnson from Pixabay

HT: Brad Johnson

Should Churches Hide Their Controversial Beliefs?

Last updated on: April 8, 2023 at 6:42 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The He Gets Us campaign, with its billboards and Super Bowl ads, presents Jesus in a very positive and relatable way, as someone who was born to a teen mother, was a refugee, was fed up with politics too, hated injustice, and promoted love instead of hate, etc.

Now some people are complaining that at least some of the people who paid for those ads don’t believe in transgenderism! or same-sex marriage! They are evangelicals! And other horrors.

And the problem goes beyond that. CNN political analysis Kirsten Powers has written an essay entitled The “He Gets Us” Super Bowl Ads Brought Back Bad Memories: How the Christian “seeker” movement can cause serious harm. She tells about how she started going to a church in New York City that was intellectual, friendly, stimulating, and that really helped her. It wasn’t “fundamentalist” or “political,” and she got involved in its work. (She is pretty obviously referring to Redeemer Presbyterian Church, an evangelical congregation whose pastor, Tim Keller, has been a pioneer in successful ministry to young urban professionals.)

Then she learned that the church held to conservative theology and Biblical moral positions.

If the day I walked into that Upper East Side church service the pastor had given a sermon calling homosexuality a sin or said that women should submit to their husbands I would have gotten up and walked out. I only learned that these were core teachings after I had been attending a year and a half and was in too deep. Abortion was never addressed from the pulpit (at least to my knowledge), but once I started asking, I found the church community fairly homogeneous in their anti-abortion beliefs, a view that the pastor expressed publicly many years after I left the church.

Mark Tooley, an evangelical Methodist who heads the Institute on Religion and Democracy, discusses her article and her call for “transparency” in what churches believe. He sums up her argument:

Powers calls this “secretiveness” a “red flag” and complains that “seeker movements hide what they really are.” Instead, they “focus on the things that will draw people in, and that ironically ultimately play a tiny” role in the church’s overall ministry. Powers claims that the controversial views are only revealed “casually” after new believers are already embedded in the community, and feeling at that point that it’s “almost impossible to leave.”

Tooley responds,

Perhaps Powers has a least a partial point. Churches and Christian ministries should be transparent. But such transparency does not automatically necessitate heavy emphasis on potential controversial points. Powers, when she became active in Redeemer Church, could easily have researched the Presbyterian Church in America and its official stances.

Churches, modeled on Jesus Himself, if they are evangelistic, mainly focus on the simple message of Jesus as Savior who came to save sinners. They don’t, especially with new believers or visitors, focus on the intricacies of the Trinity, the detailed forensics of justification and sanctification, or the wide tradition across 2,000 years that informs the church’s ethical teachings. Jesus says: “Come, whosoever will.” So does His church.

Learning the details of the Christian faith, including the church’s ethical teachings that are often at odds with the world’s, typically comes later as new believers grow in faith and are catechized by the church. Powers seems to have found this process deceptive and manipulative. But St Paul distinguished between the milk and the meat of the faith, with the former reserved for new believers, and the later for more mature believers.

I suppose Tooley too has at least a partial point. But I am uneasy with what he says too. I suppose this is an intrinsic issue with the “seeker sensitive” approach, as opposed to the traditional congregations that I favor. The church should not orient its teaching and its services to non-believers, but to the baptized and catechized community of faith. Of course it should emphasize the Trinity, justification, and “the wide tradition across 2,000 years that informs the church’s ethical teachings.”

I think campaigns like “He Gets Us” can be helpful in challenging stereotypes about Christianity and bringing attention to the person of Jesus Christ. They can get people to come through the door of the church. But once inside, they should find Biblical substance and a sense of transcendence. Specifically, they should hear God’s Word, both the Law–which indeed should make them “uncomfortable,” to say the least–and the Gospel of how Christ has redeemed them and offers free forgiveness.

In evangelism I have argued that we Lutherans should lead with our most mind-blowing doctrines–with our conviction that the Body and Blood of Christ are truly present in the Bread and Wine of the Lord’s Supper, that Baptism saves us, that God is actively present in our vocations, that God actually speaks to us in His Word, that we are all sinners as well as saints, etc.

Also the other mind-blowing doctrines that all Christians believe but do not always express: That Jesus took all of the evils and griefs of the world into Himself on the Cross. That Jesus is God in the flesh. (Why didn’t the “He Gets Us” campaign bring up that fact?)

As for the “controversial” moral teachings of the Bible, I have found that it’s helpful to make clear that Christianity is not, contrary to common opinion, about moralism. That it is about forgiveness when we sin. Many people in bondage to sexual sin feel more guilty than they will admit, which is why they are so defensive. They may be broken by the law already and be primed to hear the good news.

Unbelievers, hearing those kinds of things will see that Christianity is “other” than themselves, as well as different from the boring moralism that they probably expected. And the full-strength Word may be used by the Holy Spirit to capture their attention and bring them to faith.

Here is the irony: Tooley brings up a fact that Powers does not mention in this particular essay. She has quit Redeemer Presbyterian, as she says, and evangelicalism as a whole. She has become a Roman Catholic! Hasn’t she noticed that Catholics too disapprove of abortion, homosexuality, and all of the other things that bothered her about Redeemer Presbyterian? Does she think Catholicism is not “transparent”? Didn’t she look into what Catholics believe–indeed, wasn’t she catechized–before she became a Catholic?

Perhaps she has fallen in with “progressive” Catholics who do resist the teachings of their own magisterium. But I daresay that the reason she found Catholicism attractive is that it did hold out to her a sense of substance and transcendence. She must have perceived that in the liturgy–so different from the seeker-sensitive worship she was used to–and was so taken with it that she became willing to put up with the other stuff, perhaps someday to the point of believing it.

Image from Pxfuel, royalty free photos

Premium Content

ChatGPT Writes a Cranach Post

Last updated on: March 26, 2023 at 6:12 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

I had previously tasked the artificial intelligence-driven chatbot ChatGBT to write a Lutheran sermon, and I then interrogated it for its knowledge of theology. So now, with great hesitation and nervousness, but because reader Tom Hering gave me the idea and because I said I would do it, I asked ChatGBT to write a post for this blog.

I worried lest it expose my conventions and parody my style. And if it did a good enough job, why would any of you subscribe? You could just type “write a Cranach post” into the ChatGPT site every day and be satisfied.

Here is what I got when I told ChatGPT to “Write a post for the Cranach blog.”

The Importance of Art in Today’s World

Art has been an essential aspect of human civilization for centuries. From cave paintings to modern abstract art, artists have been capturing the essence of the world around them and expressing it in unique and creative ways. In today’s fast-paced and ever-changing world, art plays a crucial role in shaping our understanding of ourselves, our environment, and the issues that affect us.

One of the primary functions of art is to communicate ideas and emotions. Whether through painting, sculpture, music, or literature, artists use their medium to convey a message to their audience. This message can be political, social, personal, or simply aesthetic. By engaging with art, we can gain new perspectives and insights into the world around us and the experiences of others.

Art also has the power to inspire and challenge us. When we encounter a work of art that resonates with us, it can evoke powerful emotions and spark our creativity. Art can also challenge our assumptions and force us to confront difficult truths about ourselves and our society. Through art, we can explore our values, beliefs, and identity, and deepen our understanding of what it means to be human.

In addition to its cultural and social significance, art also has practical benefits. Studies have shown that engaging with art can reduce stress, improve mental health, and enhance cognitive function. Art therapy is increasingly used as a treatment for a variety of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and PTSD. By promoting emotional wellbeing and creativity, art can contribute to a more vibrant and resilient society.

In a world that is increasingly focused on technology and efficiency, art reminds us of the importance of slowing down and experiencing the world around us in a more contemplative and mindful way. Art allows us to appreciate the beauty and complexity of the natural world, and to connect with the emotions and experiences of others in a way that is not possible through technology alone.

At Cranach, we are committed to promoting the power and importance of art in today’s world. Through our exhibitions, programs, and events, we seek to engage and inspire a diverse range of audiences, and to foster a deeper appreciation for the role that art plays in shaping our understanding of ourselves and our world.

Uh, OK. Cranach was an artist. There are a number of sites devoted to his art. So ChatPT thought, without checking what this Cranach blog is about, that a Cranach blog would be about art.

So I tried to narrow down what I wanted the chatbot to consider. I told it to “Write a post for the Patheos blog Cranach.” I got this:

The Power of Forgiveness: How it Can Transform Our Lives

Forgiveness is a topic that has been discussed by philosophers, theologians, and psychologists for centuries. It is a concept that can be difficult to define and even more challenging to practice. However, the power of forgiveness is undeniable. It has the ability to transform our lives and the lives of those around us in profound ways.

Forgiveness is often seen as a religious or spiritual concept, and for good reason. Many of the world’s major religions emphasize the importance of forgiveness and offer guidance on how to practice it. For example, Christianity teaches that forgiveness is essential for salvation, and that we should forgive others as God forgives us. Buddhism also emphasizes the importance of forgiveness, teaching that it is essential for inner peace and the attainment of enlightenment.

However, forgiveness is not only a spiritual concept. Psychologists have also studied the power of forgiveness and have found that it can have significant benefits for our mental and physical health. Forgiveness has been linked to lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, and can even improve our immune system and cardiovascular health.

But how exactly does forgiveness work? When we hold onto anger, resentment, or bitterness towards someone who has wronged us, we are essentially holding onto emotional baggage that can weigh us down and impact our well-being. Forgiveness allows us to release this emotional burden and move on from the pain and hurt that has been inflicted upon us. By forgiving, we are not condoning the wrong that has been done, but rather acknowledging that we cannot change the past and choosing to let go of our negative emotions.

Forgiveness can also transform our relationships with others. When we forgive someone, we open the door to reconciliation and healing. This can lead to stronger and more meaningful connections with the people in our lives, and can even repair broken relationships that may have seemed beyond repair.

Of course, forgiveness is not easy. It requires a willingness to let go of our negative emotions and to embrace compassion and empathy towards those who have wronged us. It can be a difficult and painful process, and it may take time to fully forgive and move on. However, the rewards of forgiveness are well worth the effort.

At Cranach, we believe in the power of forgiveness and its ability to transform our lives and the world around us. Through our programming and events, we seek to explore the concept of forgiveness and offer tools and guidance for those who wish to practice it. Whether it is through spiritual teachings, psychological research, or personal stories of forgiveness and reconciliation, we hope to inspire and encourage our audience to embrace the power of forgiveness and experience the freedom and peace that it can bring.

The Patheos connection brought it around to religion, sort of. ChatGBT mentioned Christianity, but also gave a shout-out to Buddhism. I would like to think that it chose the topic because my blog gives out a Gospel vibe, but this is mostly a psychological focus. And there is nothing about what I usually write about, such as an interesting article I came across, or vocation, or politics, or the arts, or culture.

And, amusingly, there is the repeated refrain in these two posts of “At Cranach. . .through our programs and events.” Don’t worry. You aren’t missing anything.

This is just vague word generation. As Baylor professor and Discovery Institute scholar Robert Marks has observed, this technology is “trained on syntax — the manner that words are arranged. Humans rely on semantics – the meaning of words.” He has written what sounds like a good book, Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will.

I would add that the human mind contains much more than “intelligence.” The classic thinkers noted other faculties, such as the imagination and the will. Also, conscience, memory, and emotions. And a personal consciousness, identified with the soul, to receive and activate all of these faculties. Even if Artificial Intelligence attains actual “intelligence” (which is doubtful), it doesn’t come close to any of these other powers of the human mind.

Since a “blog” is short for “web log”–that is, a record of web sites visited–I generally post about interesting articles and information that I come across on the internet. This involves a process of evaluation, personal reaction, and choosing what to write about. Artificial intelligence has no volition. It has no personal taste. It has no creative imagination to generate new ideas or fresh perspectives.

I don’t think the human race needs to worry that the emergent Artificial intelligence will evolve into a living, all-powerful mind that will dominate or replace humanity. So I guess I’ll keep blogging.

Image: AI Generated Robot Android by ThankYouFantasyPictures from Pixabay

Premium Content

The Author’s Intention

Last updated on: March 25, 2023 at 12:43 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

We’ve blogged about how editors are re-writing the works of Roald Dahl, R. L. Stine, and Ian Fleming to make them conform to contemporary woke sensibilities.

The Guardian in the UK has responded to the furor with an article saying that the use of “sensitivity readers” to flag problematic content is nothing new, that publishers often employ them before publication and that some authors themselves hire them before they submit a manuscript, just to avoid printing anything unintentionally offensive.

It’s time for a tutorial. For all of my writing about religious topics, my primary economic vocation before I retired was literary historian. Related to that discipline is textual editing. If you pick up a novel by a classic author, you might find the words “critical edition,” or “edited by” someone you’ve never heard of. Please bear with me while I explain what that means.

The basic process, then and now–except for the new possibility of electronic self-publishing–is that an author turns in a manuscript to a publisher, who edits it, sets it into type, prints it, and distributes the book to be sold. In previous centuries, publishers and editors often felt free to change the manuscript as they pleased. Usually this was just matters of spelling, grammar, and punctuation, but sometimes they changed the wording.

In addition, especially when the book would go through new printings, the author would also often submit changes and revisions.

This means that the text of the novel that we read is not necessarily exactly the way the author originally wrote it.

What a textual editor does is restore the book according to the author’s intentions. This means finding the original manuscript, when possible. Sometimes, though, there are different manuscripts, all by the author, with false starts, different ideas, revisions, and cross-outs, as the writer was working out ideas for the work. Textual editors then have to sort out the process of the author’s writing and attempt to put together the different fragments.

If there are no manuscripts, textual editors work from the earliest edition that had the author’s approval, usually the first edition. The manuscript, reconstructed manuscript, or the first edition becomes the “copy text.”

Textual editors then track the publishing history of the text, tracking the various changes that were made. Then, using various biographical sources such as correspondence, the editors sort out which changes were made by the author, as opposed to those made by the publisher.

The “authorized” changes–that is, those made by the author–are made to the copy text. Other changes are dropped, though textual editors will often keep corrections of spelling and punctuation, often with a footnote to indicate the author’s original version. Other footnotes may give the author’s original version, plus the various revisions made by the author, which demonstrate the writer’s ongoing thinking about the work.

All of this will result in the publication of a “critical edition” of the author’s work. The criterion, always, is to recover the author’s intention. The purpose is to give readers the author’s style, meaning, and aesthetic form, since the author is generally a better artist than the publishers.

During the 19th century, classic texts were often “bowdlerized,” a term that derives from the name of Thomas Bowdler, who published The Family Shakespeare, an edition of Shakespeare with all of the sexual references, innuendos, and profanity removed, so as to make the bard suitable for ladies and children to read, according to the standards of Victorian prudishness. Textual editors work to undo the bowdlerization of texts to restore what the authors originally intended to say, offensive or not.

Today, publishers are not prudish about sex or profanity, but they are prudish about race, gender, and social justice issues, according to the standards of woke progressivism. So bowdlerizing texts has come back into fashion. And the author’s intentions are erased.

To return to the Guardian article, when an editor uses a “sensitivity reader” before publication, this is no different than other kinds of editorial feedback a writer will receive. Good writers appreciate good editing. When an editor catches a mistake or makes a grammatical correction, most writers are grateful. The practice today is for writers to see the edited text and either approve it or, sometimes, argue with the editor until they come to a consensus. The edited text, when approved by the author, conforms to the author’s intentions.

If some authors go so far as to hire “sensitivity readers” themselves, not wanting to stray from any canons of political correctness, that is their privilege. Any revisions the author makes at the behest of the “sensitivity readers” and put into the manuscript sent to the publisher reflect the author’s intentions. That is fine.

What is problematic is bowdlerizing dead authors, who cannot agree to the changes, which, by definition, go against their intentions. The estates of the authors–often children or grandchildren of the writer–have an interest in selling more copies and thus in adapting them to contemporary tastes. The estates must approve and often even initiate “sensitivity” revisions. But their approval is not the same as authorial intention.

Worse, though, is revising a text and publishing it in a new edition without a living author’s knowledge, permission, or approval. This is what happened with children’s author R. L. Stine.

Respecting the author’s intention is an important principle not just for textual editing and for interpreting literature. It is also an important–though contested–principle for the interpretation of the Constitution, as well as other laws, and for interpreting the Bible.

Illustration: “Death Found an Author Writing His Life,” by Edward Hull, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content