Disclaimer: This text was written without any assistance of AI.
The question of what philosophy and theology have to contribute to the development of AI (and potentially AGI – artificial general intelligence) has been a matter of scholarly debates that emphasised the challenges, advantages and disadvantages of AI to the questions of morality, pastoral care, facilitating and/or serving humanity in the most exclusive (almost SCI-FI) ways. While AI entered common human lives almost abruptly and immediately, human adaptability proved impeccable: AI serving initially as a good translator or editor (possibly leaving many of this profession unemployed) became a part of life as another commodity. The question is: are we at the stage when AI is becoming an (unnecessary) necessity and is it now almost obligatory? If so, we must take a critical approach to this phenomenon which occurred without consulting the mortals as if they hold no significance and this includes academia[3] that embraces a technological development without proper policies, only because it allegedly serves the benefit of humanity, but at the same time compromises academic integrity. But is AI really for the benefit of humanity? For more fatalistic readership AI causes fear, for those in favour it is a breakthrough that leads to undreamed future possibilities. In any case, for the majority of humanity it is an unknown territory full of possibilities, for better or worse. But how is AI beneficial for some disciplines in the humanities and social sciences?[4] Instead of talking about the “non-risks” of AI (such as in the fields of medicine and other natural sciences) let us dwell into some of the risks, and the downsides of AI:
- AI represents a simulation of intelligence – an algorithm, a complex system of the totality of information that can operate independently
- AI’s intelligence is decoupled from consciousness and has no ontology
- AI does not have ethics and morals and thus no moral authority
- AI disperses human sense of judgment
- AI does not distinguish between reality and falsity in a sense that it can recreate reality randomly and represent the historical and the real as relative and subjective points of view.
- AI reshapes the understandings and meanings of humanity, spirituality and God
As such, AI may provide plentiful information, but it can also serve as a tool for absolute control in totalitarian society (economic control, control and surveillance of social and private life), if not on a global level yet, certainly on a more localised level in the hands of dictatorial regime(s). The problem of freedom and tyranny has been a matter of debates of theologians and philosophers over the centuries with some of the most prominent works unsurprisingly emerging in the twentieth century – the age of totalitarianism. However, the question of ‘in whose hands lies AI’ is irrelevant, as the whole concept of AI is already established on highly problematic principles, one might say – an error in the so-called ‘perfect creation’.[5] While AI provides immense possibilities broadly speaking, at the same time it provides a whole new level of fabricated reality whose service and capabilities are dangerously close to depriving human beings of their unique capacities of thinking and freedom (of act and action)[6].
From a theological point of view freedom is always ontological, and as such cannot be reduced to mere choice between a and b, likewise knowledge is neither an opinion nor a totality of information. Knowledge, in a theological sense, is a path of transformation, and is bound ontological freedom, and according to Saint Isaac the Syrian, there are two types of knowledge: “knowledge that precedes faith and knowledge that is born of faith…The knowledge that precedes faith is physical, natural knowledge (γνώσις φυσική), and that which is born of faith is spiritual knowledge (γνώσις πνευματική). Natural knowledge consists in distinguishing good from evil, and spiritual knowledge is the feeling of mystery (αιοϋησις των μύστηρίων), the feeling of what is hidden (των κρυπτών), the seeing of the invisible (των αοράτων). This is a theological perspective that shows human knowledge has an ethical value, that it is moral and to know as to be known is the transformative dimension of human existence.”[7] Theosis (θέωσις), which is the final goal of this path, is not a matter of instant spirituality or uniformed existence but an authentic existence that embraces the community together with the ‘foreign other’ and all creation. In the words of St Gregory Palamas the knowledge of God is transformative and one must be purified through virtue.[8] Thus it is a path of constant struggle (“between Tabor and Gethsemane”[9]) where character development is crucial in the educational process. Morality, an attribute of the human being as an intelligent being, this first pillar of the formation of the character according to which one acts cannot be divorced from consciousness. Morality is however not the goal itself – rather it is unconditional love that comes from ontological affinity.[10]
Consciousness preconditions intelligence but consciousness, intelligence and conscience are the ‘holy triad’ of the human being. The rupture in this triadic unity results in the public sphere with atrocities on a gigantic scale, turning so-called ordinary people into monsters, a pertinent question that perplexed almost the entirety of Hannah Arendt’s thought. The AI is even more so dangerous due to the inclination of potential authoritarians to disseminating political lies in the public sphere.[12]
Furthermore, AI, performing the ‘work’ that replaces humans (judgment, risk assessment, decisions, summarising ‘knowledge’ and providing vague and morally disturbing directions[13]) potentially destroys one of the greatest faculties of humankind: the capacity of thinking. Thinking and having moral judgment stems from conscience and is one of the human capacities that enables distinguishing reality from falsehood, truth from lie. As Arendt reminds us, “the real opposite to factual truth is the fabrication of deliberate falsehoods.”[14] AI, we may argue, not only can enable the fabrication of falsehood in the public domain but infuses false senses of reality. The private sphere integrated and (re)created in the public AI sphere (also a space for conversation, advisement, and even spirituality) opens the window of opportunity for the emergence of new forms of totalitarianism, if we understand totalitarianism as a system based on “the total monopolization of human life, from its inner-most expression of thought in the private realm to (political) action and creation in the public domain.”[15] AI is nonetheless presented popularly in media exclusively as useful and necessary for human life, as advancement and progress which as such should be embraced. This claim, contested by many scholars, is not exclusively tied to AI but it did start in the media sphere and consequently spread to the digital platforms where the community of virtual “friendships” replaced real life personal experiences. In that sense, it is precisely through digital media platforms that pseudo-activism[16] emerged, paradoxically imposed by the same media to replace the grassroot solidarity. The instigation of pseudo-activism however created a false (and short-lived) sense of unity in the common cause which nonetheless requires voluntary participation.
The experiments in the media sphere started in the first half of the twentieth century: for instance, in the media world of Joseph Goebbels the ‘culture of unity in Thanatos’ was introduced through the promotion of assisted murder or euthanasia, widely propagated through Nazi cinema as a merciful act (Ich klage an, Wolfgang Liebeneiner, 1941; Erbkrank, Herbert Gerdes, 1936).[18] The aim was to convince viewers to voluntary participation in acts introduced purportedly for their own benefit and the benefit of society as a whole. To embrace something, in the context of this text the advanced technology, that potentially may take some form of primacy over humanity by initially reducing unique human potentials and changing the narrative on humanity is usually referred to as ‘transhumanism.’ To embrace something new without required critical evaluation represents a step towards voluntary servitude, discussed as early as 1577 by Étienne de La Boétie in Discourse on Voluntary Servitude[19], where act(ing) against tyranny represents an act of love for freedom, virtue and fellow human beings.[20] The question of voluntary servitude at whose roots, psychologists may claim, lies fear is the matter immortalised in Dostoevsky’s dialogue with The Grand Inquisitor but also in the literary works of George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. In that sense AI raises a number of legal, economic, political, societal, and moral questions that need to be addressed comprehensively instead of just implemented on the market.
When it comes to film dystopian futures have been a matter of cinema since Metropolis (Fritz Lang, 1927) but it is two works that deserve more attention in this context. It was Stanley Kubrick who in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR_e9y-bka0) depicted the world in which the eye of the AI controls everything, including humans. The coldness of its gaze and that of the film’s aesthetics – perfectly mathematical and geometric in the organisation of space and time – is not only the result of the AI-run reality but, as the film shows, is an existential revelation: as humans evolve their virtues dissolve and a turning point occurs when the main character Dave decides to switch off the HAL 9000. Humanity is left to be re-born after its demise masked as evolutionary progress.
The Zero Theorem (2013) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKfSAycq_Jo), as this article is entitled, takes on a dystopian future, which Terry Gilliam called “our present” where in an AI-virtual-reality-run world one man employed by “management” sits wired in his job (where the task is to prove that “everything must equal to zero”) and spends the little of his free time in waiting for a ‘phone-call’. This phone-call is to take place in his home, which Gilliam constructed as a building that is an abandoned Church (filmed in Romania). The opening scene in which the main protagonist (Christoph Waltz) sits naked in the dark anxiously waiting for the call, with the mise-en-scene of frescos surrounding him – indicates the central topic of the film. A man lost in a technological world, where everything equals to nothing, emerges as a man made in the image of God, the path of liberation that he is yet to discover. The call – is both the ‘call of being’ (in the Heideggerian sense) and a call from God. In questioning why everything must equal zero the main protagonist disconnects from the utopian way-of-being and falsehood of his identity to search for his ‘true human identity’ even if this point is beyond reach. For Gilliam “the advances of technology and our collective subjugation are a concern” however “he has not given up on us all.”[22] While The Zero Theorem represents an exploration of the lost meaning and dignity of the human being in an AI world, its theology so to speak is a strange mixture of a dystopian and ascetic way of being where the mise-en-scene of the home indicates man’s true purpose, love and freedom, that is, Godlikeness.[23] In that sense, the reality of the call that does not literally happen remains a metaphor that signifies the real reality versus the falsehood of his world. The Zero Theorem questions all the above listed downsides of AI, and our world, to finally abolish it through the action of a single person.
While theological perspectives on AI are not completely negative[24] with a wide range of theologians and communities[25] recognising the advantages of technology in administrative work, the digital preservation of world heritage, or translation, the risks of its implementation even within the most democratic societies remain a grey area. This is not because of the possible (and almost certain) misuse, some-time, some-where, but because of the essential tasks that impair man on a daily basis through a voluntary act of participation which allegedly somehow ‘eases’ the work and provides more quality time and with which contemporary, one could argue nihilistic, humanity does not seem to know what to do. The technological development is in great disproportion with the ethical and moral state of the world today. AI can potentially and gradually further cripple (rather than equipe) humanity by depriving it from its own unique faculties and abilities.
Is the solution simple where one only needs to press the switch-off button and would this (non-participatory) act represent an act of rejection of voluntary self-enslavement to technocratic society (would it be punishable)? Perhaps such a world in ‘darkness’ would provide more light than the blinding flashing of the screen. Perhaps this would be the best prevention of The Grand Inquisitor and new catastrophes on a global scale, or simply a prevention of the growing indifference, alienation and potential psychological, cognitive and physical illnesses. What is the ‘advancement’ of technology for if the meaning and purpose of humanity are lost? However, in order not to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”, instead of being a ‘blind recipient’ society must consider all these issues and continue dialogue and open debates taking a more multidisciplinary approach to the topic of AI in our highly problematic and divided world.
Perhaps, the very existence of AI testifies to the human “capacity to create” that is “evidence that we ourselves were created in the image and likeness of God”[26] and perhaps AI is ‘replacing God’, so to speak, in a new totalitarian nihilistic society. If the latter should be the case, we should bear in mind the former: that the human being created in the image of God is the “ray of the microcosm”[27], unpredictable and always novel and authentic who can reject voluntary self-enslavement at any given moment of time. In that sense “the future is unwritten”[28] and no artificial intelligence can predict it, and “zero cannot equal 100%.”
Footnotes:
[1] The Zero Theorem, Terry Gilliam, 2013.
[2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:CC-Zero#/media/File:Cc-zero.svg
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/29/students-ai-critics-chatgpt-covid-education-system
[4] See Filipović, A., Beck, C., van Elk, N., Tröbinger, C., Michl, J. (2025). “Conceptions of education and ethics of AI in higher education: An exploratory qualitative study.” Journal of Open, Distance, and Digital Education, 2(1), 1-24.
[5] The list of the errors and its evaluation would take a separate paper, however, in theology, one of those would be AI-generated icons, where not only that the meaning is lost but randomly invented.
[6] See Radovic, Milja: Film, Religion and Activist Citizens: An Ontology of Transformative Acts, New York: Routledge, 2019.
[7] St Justin the New: Gnoseology of Saint Isaac the Syrian III (ГНОСЕОЛОГИЈА СВЕТОГ ИСААКА СИРИНА), my translation. https://svetosavlje.org/gnoseologija-svetog-isaaka-sirina/5/
[8] St. Gregory Palamas, Triads.
[9] Sumares, Manuel. “Hesychasm and magnanimity: Elder Sophrony’s hypostatic principle and the ontology of prayer” in Annals of the University of Bucharest Philosophy Series, Vol. LXVIII, No. 1, 2019.
[10] Zizioulas, John: Being as Communion, London: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd., 2014.
[11] Courtesy of Abbott Sava, the Dečani Monastery. https://www.decani.org/en/treasury/icons
[12] Hannah Arendt TRUTH AND POLITICS, Originally published in The New Yorker, February 25, 1967.
[13] AI already acts as a moral agent, for example it determines the framing of the topic / or questions as morally or inappropriately constructed.
[14] F. Merchner Barnard, p. 41 file:///C:/Users/M%20Radovic%23/Downloads/13716-Article%20Text-10328-2-10-20150618.pdf
[15] Hannah Arendt: “The Origins of Totalitarianism” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1973), pp. 470-478 in Radovic, Mina: Framing Totalitarianism: Language and Film in Nazi Germany, London: Goldsmiths’ University of London, 2024.
[16] See Radovic, Milja: Ibid.
[17] Adoration of the Golden Calf, Dominico Gargiulo 1609-1675 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Adoration_of_the_Golden_Calf_(Domenico).jpg
[18] Radovic, Mina: Framing Totalitarianism: Language and Film in Nazi Germany, London: Goldsmith’s University of London, 2024.
[19] This issue was discussed over centuries by various thinkers such as Rousseau, Hobbes, Smith, or Gene Sharp.
[20] It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honour and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it. Therefore, if the inhabitants of a country have found some great personage who has shown rare foresight in protecting them in an emergency, rare boldness in defending them, rare solicitude in governing them, and if, from that point on, they contract the habit of obeying him and depending on him to such an extent that they grant him certain prerogatives, I fear that such a procedure is not prudent, inasmuch as they remove him from a position in which he was doing good and advance him to a dignity in which he may do evil. Certainly, while he continues to manifest good will one need fear no harm from a man who seems to be generally well disposed. https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/etienne-de-la-boetie-discourse-of-voluntary-servitude-1576
[21] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Science_fiction_environment_white.jpg
[22] Terry Gilliam unravels The Zero Theorem, Jon Lyus, March 14, 2014. https://www.heyuguys.com/terry-gilliam-interview-the-zero-theorem/
[23] God became human so that we might become God “Αὐτὸς γὰρ ἐνηνθρώπησεν͵ ἵνα ἡμεῖς θεοποιηθῶμεν” St. Athanasius of Alexandria On the Incarnation.
[24] https://efi.ed.ac.uk/understanding-ai-from-a-theological-perspective/
[25] https://www.theology.ox.ac.uk/article/launch-oxford-collaboration-theology-and-artificial-intelligence-octai
[26] Tarkovsky, Andrei: Sculpting in Time, London: Faber & Faber, 1989, p. 241-242.
[27] Petar II Petrovic Njegoš: The Ray of Microcosm (Луча микрокозма) translated by Anica Savić Rebac, Svet Knjige, Belgrade 2013.
[28] Joe Strummer: The Future is Unwritten, 2007.
[29] The Monastery’s Old Refectory. Courtesy of Abbott Sava, the Dečani Monastery. https://www.decani.org/en/monastery-buildings/refectory
Photocredits Title image: (C) Wikimedia Commons
RaT-Blog Nr. 16/2025