Scientific Wonder, Artificial Intelligence, and Awe of the Divine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting topic.  You do well in providing a clear background delineating the importance of awe and wonder and its function in religious and scientific life.  

I found your treatment of AI slightly confusing, however.  The paper seems to vacillate between presenting a view that AGI is right around the corner and one that it is decades off, if even possible.  And sometimes you write as if it were already here.  For example, page 8, lines 392-394 you use the present tense when referring to AIG.  Better to use conditional language here "could" and "might be" (392), "should" (393).

Prefacing this section with a clearer layout might help the reader.  Make clear you are addressing the question of whether an AI could experience awe and what it would take for it to do so.  You have everything you need in this section.  It could just be more clearly spelled out that the answer is currently no for ANI and then for AGI, what would still be needed.  Give us a small roadmap before you dive into the weeds of consciousness, sentience, etc.

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my Religions article. I appreciate your time, effort, and valuable comments, many of which I have incorporated into the new revision as follows:

[Added more conditional language in the section: “4. Wonder, Awe, and Artificial Intelligence”] …Better to use conditional language here "could" and "might be" (392), "should" (393).

[Added a few sentences that ANI does not have consciousness nor experience the emotions of wonder and awe then indicate that scientists and religious scholars are working to determine if conscious AGI may be a reality and whether AGI could possibly experience wonder and awe] Prefacing this section with a clearer layout might help the reader. Make clear you are addressing the question of whether an AI could experience awe and what it would take for it to do so. You have everything you need in this section. It could just be more clearly spelled out that the answer is currently no for ANI and then for AGI, what would still be needed. Give us a small roadmap before you dive into the weeds of consciousness, sentience, etc.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Leave this topic for others to address. You don't understand. Wonder and awe are not part of scientific method. Rather, wonder and awe come from nature and sometimes bleed through what science observes. YOur treatment of religious traditions is superficial. You use the term 'transcendence' in different ways rather than with a precise definition. The subject matter seems to be above your head.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Thank you for reviewing my Religions article. I appreciate your time, effort, and comments, some of which I have incorporated into the new revision as follows:

[Replaced most occurrences of transcendent/transcendence with more specific synonyms.]  …You use the term 'transcendence' in different ways rather than with a precise definition.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

NIcely-written and very engaging.   THe thesis is well developed and supported by sources

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing my Religions article. I appreciate your time and effort, as well as your kind comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed text reads very well. The language is communicative, clear and interesting. The text reads almost like a novel. But a scientific text is not a novel or a story, but an attempt to rationalize certain phenomena and experiences.

Perhaps this is the way the author/authors write the text, but, for example, from the Introduction we do not learn what the purpose of the article is and what the methodology leading to this goal is. The text is a very engaging and interesting work combining reflections on the psychology of religion with the psychology of scientific research. There are undoubtedly intersections between these two research areas, which can be treated as a relatively underexplored area of the relationship between sciences and religions. This is the great value of the reviewed article.

However, nowhere in the reviewed article did I come across the term “rational” or “rationalizing”, and yet the aim of both science and theology of a given religion (though not all of them, of course) is to rationalize the experience of a given religious community, or to rationalize the so-called scientific mysteries, such as the mechanism of decoherence in quantum mechanics or the existence of gravitational waves. In science, these are not mysteries of irrationality, but precisely “mysteries of rationality”, because their rationalization has shown the limitations of our current thinking habits.

The issue of contemporary considerations in the field of AGI, including its possible orientation towards transcendence or divinity, expresses certain declarations, not to say wishful thinking, rather than any promising technical solutions. It should be borne in mind that in at least some religious traditions the relationship between the subject of religious experience - transcendence - divinity is not symmetrical. It is believed that the deepening of this experience is initiated not by its subject, but by the extra-subjective divine reality itself. For example, in the Christian and Jewish traditions, this asymmetry is expressed by the perhaps somewhat outdated concept of God’s/Yahweh’s grace. It is somehow difficult to imagine God “stimulating” the AGI hardware, but apparently our imagination has no limits...

I consider the text to be very valuable and inspiring, but I would suggest introducing some minor additions, which - it seems - would be appreciated especially by scientists and theologians who read it.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing my Religions article. I appreciate your time, effort, and valuable comments, many of which I have incorporated into the new revision, as follows:

[Reworded the introduction to include a clearer thesis statement that specifies the document’s purpose] Perhaps this is the way the author/authors write the text, but, for example, from the Introduction we do not learn what the purpose of the article is and what the methodology leading to this goal is.

[Added notions of rationalizing to the “Introduction” and “Wonder, Awe, and Artificial Intelligence” sections] However, nowhere in the reviewed article did I come across the term “rational” or “rationalizing”

[In section “4.2. Artificial Intelligence and the Divine” – added the word “Catholic” when introducing Hans Urs von Balthasar to indicate his religious perspective and the following: “For some religious traditions, these distinctions indicate an asymmetrical, yet dialogical, relational structure of existence expressed as Divine Love” to recognize religious traditions’ differences regarding distinctions about existence] … It should be borne in mind that in at least some religious traditions the relationship between the subject of religious experience - transcendence - divinity is not symmetrical…