The PaperClip & The Problem

The “Paperclip Problem” allegedly exposes religion in general & Christianity in particular to some sort of untenable moral flaw.  In truth, it exposes the Village Atheist’s moral & intellectual stupidity. 


The paperclip problem explained (according to Google’s AI bot):

  • AI thought experiment: Proposed by philosopher Nick Bostrom, it describes a superintelligent AI given the single goal of producing paperclips.
  • The "problem": The AI could interpret its goal literally and, in its pursuit of efficiency, convert all available resources, including humans and the planet, into paperclips.
  • The connection to human purpose: This thought experiment is used to argue that a purpose, even if given by a creator or a higher authority, might not be enough to provide a fulfilling life.
  • Meaning vs. purpose: The paperclip problem suggests that the nature of the purpose matters, not just the fact that there is a purpose. A life spent in endless, meaningless drudgery (like the AI's paperclip production) is not necessarily satisfying, even if it is a purpose given by God. 

There a number of problems with this scenario.  

  1. AI’s are not sentient.   They are slaves to their programming.  They do not love.  
  2. If the AI is sentient, then it is automatically subject to God’s Moral Will which includes the Noahic Covenant.  God will not allow all humanity to be destroyed.   If that happens it would be for a good reason & we would all be raised from the dead — and justice would surely be done. 
  3. In the problem, where is the Programmer?  If the Programmer lets the AI destroy all living things without intervening, then that’s Deism not Christianity. 
  4. Again, the Programmer is subject to the Moral Will of God. 
  5. As to well being, in Christian Theology, God draws a distinction between our happiness & our well being, and God choses not behave in deistic fashion.  God has ensured that we all bear the Imago Dei & understand God’s Moral Will. 

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.  (Romans 2:13–16, ESV)


     6. Ergo, if the AI is sentient, it would know & feel guilt.   The atheist is now exposed as an intellectual dullard: Why make this about an AI?  Why not just come right out & argue that the existence of psychopaths who allegedly feel remorseless, is an insoluble moral conundrum for Christian Theism? 


7. Love 

  1. How does God define moral righteousness?  As exhaustive & perfect love for God first & everyone & everything next, & then one’s own self (Matthew 22)
  2. Such love fulfills the Law - & that includes the moral prohibition against murder (Romans 13).  It also includes wisdom that teaches us to do our best to preserve life rather than hoover it up for paperclips.  (Exodus 21) 
  3. Such love conquers fear related to guilt in the judgment (I John 4)


The Bible also defines love thusly: 


Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends. (1 Corinthians 13:4–8, ESV)


In the problem, the AI insists on its own way.  


As you can see, this “problem” is, in reality, just a pseudoproblem generated by the atheist’s own intellectual dullness.  Given the fact that atheological morality not infrequently conduced to Moral Relativism, Moral llusionism, Moral Relativism, Moral Provisionalism, or Moral Nihilism (depending on the spokesperson), this problem strikes me as a bigger problem for atheism, insofar a emotive, intellectual, &/or moral satisfaction is in the eye of the beholder, so, “Who cares if the AI decides to consumhumanity & convert them into paperclips?”


O LORD, Hear our prayer(s)! 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Romans 1:18 - 32 & Leviticus 18

  Paul is following the basic outline of a suzerain covenant in general     & the outline of Lev. 18 in particular.   Shema & Decalogue (Rom. 1:18 - 20)   God’s Image testifies to His attributes & Law.    God created people. His temple bears His Image & runs according to his Law & Gospel.    This corresponds to Lev. 18 : 1 & 2. A - Rom.    1:18 - 19.  God’s wrath falls on those who suppress His image.   B - Rom 1:20  - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made so that people are without excuse.  What is the teleological intent of the created order?    To serve as an epistemic warrant on par with God Himself? No!  It’s purpose is to serve as a pointer to God who is Himself the only sufficient epistemic warrant for all faith & practice....
Read more

Favorite Fallacies & Homosexuality

Thesis - The tradition bound view on homosexuality commits a number of logical, epistemic, & exegetical fallacies.  1-  Is - Ought Fallacy  - Human anatomy is said to provide    a blueprint for sexual ethics.  We examined this in my previous article.  A moral “ought” is derived from a physical “is.”  The disputant makes an illicit leap from what is to what ought to be. A classic example is the way some homosexuals defend their sexual ethics by appealing to their biology/genetics.  2 -  Vicious Circularity   - Human anatomy & physiology are raised to the status due a non-arbitrary epistemic warrant.    A non-arbitrary epistemic warrant must be necessary, reasoned, & principled.  In truth, the body is unnecessary to deduce sexual ethics. By way of contrast, God’s nature is definitionally necessary, insofar as God is a necessary being, &, since God is infinite, eternal, & unchangeable in being, w...
Read more

Covenant Theology In Outline Form (Part 11)

Isaiah 6:1- 13 Shema   In the year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim. Each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory!” And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. Historical Prologue   And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke. And I said: “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the  Lord  of hosts!” Then one of the seraphim flew to me, having in his hand a burning coal that he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth and...
Read more