As Nick Bostrom points out in “The Vulnerable World Hypothesis,” technology is not limited to mechanical devices but, when construed “in its broadest sense,” can include “scientific ideas, institutional designs, organizational techniques, ideologies, concepts, and memes.”
While artificial intelligence (AI) is the technology du jour, it seems likely that another innovation will stand as a shining symbol of human progress tomorrow (assuming AI doesn’t destroy the world).
Looking only at the programs, models, and platforms providing access to technologies like AI is shortsighted. We must also consider the underlying notions driving the development and the use of “devices” like AI. Progress is one such notion.
Progress is often used to justify innovation regardless of the losses we may suffer by “moving forward.”
If Christians don’t recognize the downside of particular instances of progress, we will likely adopt the logic used to justify progress, even when that logic conditions us to be more concerned with the world’s worries and wealth.
In the Parable of the Sower, Jesus identifies the seed sown as God’s Word (Luke 8:11) and the places where the seed falls as ways the word of God is received by those who hear it (8:12-15).
The “good soil” produces “fruit with patience” (8:15). While the seed that falls among the thorns also bears fruit, it “does not mature” (8:14).
There is a group of individuals who hear God’s Word, “but as they go on their way, they are choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life” (8:14). Those who have their perspective clouded by the world’s worries and wealth become incapable of patiently obeying God’s Word.
Progress assumes there is a need (often an urgent need) to make our lives easier and more secure. Progress amplifies our worries and orients us toward a desired future state where we are comfortable and secure.
The world’s notion of progress is measured in the reduction or elimination of life’s burdens. While Christ’s yoke is easy and burden light (Matthew 11:30), following Him does not guarantee comfort.
After all, “foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head” (Matthew 8:20).
Despite experiencing discomfort and pain, Christ was committed to living according to God’s wisdom (Matthew 4:1-11). For Christians, progress must be rooted in an increasing alignment with God’s wisdom rather than an obsession with efficiency.
Rather than making our comfort level the standard for assessing progress, Christians adopt a standard leading us toward increasing conformity to Christ. Any other “advancement” must be considered by its capacity to help rather than hinder us in our imitation of Jesus.
Progress is a relative term in that it is only intelligible when understood in relation to some end, goal, or vision. To speak of progress is to speak about our movement toward a defined, future desired state.
In Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton argues, “Progress should mean that we are always changing the world to suit the vision.”
Progress assumes a stable vision against which we can assess our relative position. If where we are headed is undefined or wrongly defined, it is impossible to determine what constitutes progress or how to achieve it.
Discussions of progress don’t always make explicit the vision or standard toward which progressive initiatives lead.
For instance, in recognizing artificial intelligence, virtual reality, self-driving cars, etc., as progress, we also accept, in whole or in part, the vision or standard toward which such projects seek to contribute.
It is not so much that all of these projects are “bad,” as the progress they represent may hinder our progress toward a specifically Christian vision. To progress, Christians may find they need to move in a new direction.
As C. S. Lewis notes, “If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”
What the world identifies as progress is often designed to mitigate the burdens of this life. The comfort of this sort of progress won’t last because it is in a constant state of misalignment with God’s order (Revelation 21:1-27).
No one can keep a world broken by sin from experiencing the consequences of sin. We can only hope to save some out of such a world through the proclamation of the gospel (1 Peter 2:11-12).
While it may well be appropriate to press for various social and cultural reforms, we must do so in ways that enhance discipleship and provide opportunities for us to share the gospel. We do not get to set aside the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) as we press for social change.
When we use words like progress, regress, better, and worse, we often assume a vision of the future in which we are more comfortable.
When we claim the world has gotten worse and harken back to a more wholesome time, we lower our standards and advocate for a world broken in ways we are willing to tolerate (if not enjoy).
When we say our lives are made “better” or that we have made progress, we often think of the reduction of some burden or the development of a new capacity.
One problem with thinking of “regress” and “progress” in these terms is that it tends to focus on what has been gained (e.g., more time, increased security, greater wealth, etc.) without considering what has been lost.
Progress is a form of change, and all change involves loss. Being unwilling to consider the losses made by progress may put us in the position to lose ourselves as we lose sight of God and our neighbor.
When we limit our understanding of progress to that which makes life easier or allows us to avoid suffering of various sorts, we too often neglect the personal and collective solidarity and growth forged from struggling together.
Perhaps more importantly, as we embrace a vision for the future rooted in human effort, we risk forgetting God (Deuteronomy 8:11-20).
While a vision of the future that involves eradicating disease, poverty, famine, and other catastrophes may seem to align with a biblical vision, we cannot substitute a utopia built by human hands with the new heavens and earth God will (re)create.
To do so surrenders a biblical and theological vision by marginalizing, if not eliminating, the need for God.
If we opt into a utopia that can be achieved without God, we may well come to replace Jesus with a technological savior that offers the ease of pseudo-progress without the burdens of true discipleship.
In addition to losing God, certain forms of so-called progress can also result in a loss of our neighbor.
In Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life, philosopher Albert Borgmann distinguishes between devices and things. A “thing…is inseparable from its context, namely, its world, and from our commerce with the thing and its world, namely, engagement.”
In contrast, a device makes goods “technologically available…without imposing burdens on us.” A thing, in other words, requires that we participate with it and with others in ways a device does not.
Borgmann illustrates this distinction by contrasting a wood-burning stove with a central heating system.
Whereas a central heating system provides heat without any particular effort, a stove, as Borgmann suggests, “provided for the entire family a regular and bodily engagement with the rhythm of the seasons that was woven together of the threat of cold and the solace of warmth, the smell of wood smoke, the exertion of sawing and of carrying, the teaching of skills, and the fidelity to daily tasks.”
Devices unburden us and, in the process, make room for us to depend more on anonymous individuals who create and support those devices (I’m not sure who built my house or installed my thermostat, let alone who actually put the components together) and less on those we see every day (my children and I have little need to go out and chop wood to heat our home or cook).
Devices allow us to set aside the burdens involved in “regular and bodily engagement” and the accompanying interactions.
To be fair, even a wood-burning stove is a technology that provides a more efficient means of warmth than, for example, a campfire. The point is not to eliminate all forms of technology but to think critically before accepting some new technology (like AI) as an advancement.
Progress, if it is truly progress, will not hinder us from loving God and our neighbor, nor will it foster an obsession with “the cares and riches” of the world.
Progress demands a vision of a desired future state. That desired future state can certainly involve efficiency, but it cannot only involve efficiency. It can involve leisure and ease, but it cannot involve the elimination of burdens that push us toward God and one another.
Our desired future must have God at the center. There is no actual progress that does not lead us toward God.
As Christians, think about progress, then consider what it means to exist as individual people and as members of the body of Christ, sojourning together as citizens of heaven while we “await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20).
If we don’t understand who we are, what we are supposed to be doing, or where we are going, we will be far more likely to embrace pseudo-advancements that make us more comfortable rather than accepting the struggles and burdens associated with discipleship.
Related:
For further reading:
7 Steps to Using Technology for God’s Glory
How Can We Read the Bible as Culture Changes?
Is the Future of the Church Online?
Photo Credit: ©iStock/Getty Images Plus/David Gyung