The general typology for the dialogue between religion and science is built on the assumption that there is an objective world, one reality that can be described. In this paper, I present an alternative epistemological framework for the dialogue that understands all descriptions of reality as symbolic. Therefore, this understanding creates a new possibility for mutual enrichment between the two dialogue partners. I demonstrate the usefulness of this framework by applying it to the dialogue between artificial intelligence (AI) and theology. (...) I discuss an advanced AI project: Cog, a humanoid robot. After briefly describing this project, its assumptions, and the emotions it creates (mainly hope and fear), I show how the project can be enriched by theological insight. The concept ofimago Dei—the understanding of humans created in the image of God—can be applied to the Cog project especially when it is presented in a way that takes the metaphorical character of both theological and scientific theories seriously. (shrink)

This is a reply to comments on my paper Cog, a Humanoid Robot, and the Questions of the Image of God; one was written by Mary Gerhart and Allan Melvin Russell, and another one by Helmut Reich. I will start with the suggested analogy of the relationship between God and us and the one between us and the humanoid robot Cog and will show why this analogy is not helpful for the dialogue between theology and artificial intelligence (AI). Such a (...) dialogue can succeed only if both our fascination for humanoids and our fear of them are equally accepted. Any avoidance of these emotions, as well as any rejection of the possibility that Cog might one day be humanlike, destroy the dialogue. The interpretation of both scientific theories and religious metaphors as stories replaces seemingly “rational” arguments with the confession of the respective commitments to a body of stories and opens up a space for exchange and friendship between AI‐researchers and theologians—an option that usually remains closed. (shrink)

Theology and science generally conduct research independently, with no interchange. The possibility for mutual enrichment often is thwarted because people working in the two fields have very different worldviews, which are mostly held subconsciously. In this paper I will try to establish a dialogue of mutual enrichment. I have chosen artificial intelligence (AI) as an exemplary scientific discipline and the theology of Paul Tillich as a complement. I reinterpret Tillich's concept of sin to introduce a framework for a dialogue between (...) the two. This framework aims to prevent people from either camp from assuming the existence of absolute truth and thus creating a dogmatism. Paradoxically, it also prevents people from being relativistic. The aim is to overcome mutual indifference and ignorance. (shrink)