ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND THEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS OF

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, POSTHUMANIST PERSPECTIVES,

AND DIGNITY OF HUMAN LABOUR

Inaku K. Egere
Department of Mass Communication
Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences
Catholic Institute of West Africa, Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
([email protected])

A paper presented at the 34th Theology Conference Week of the Catholic

Institute of West Africa, Port Harcourt, Nigeria
9th APRIL, 2025.

1
TOPIC: Anthropological and Theological Investigations of Artificial Intelligence,
Posthumanist Perspectives, and Dignity of Human Labour

Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly transforming how people live, work, and interact
with themselves and the world around them. This transformative technology has
tremendously changed the perception of human life and the dignity of human labour.
The uncommon effects of AI on human life, behaviours and activities have, in many
ways, necessitated broad interpretations and scholarships. Artificial intelligence is a
human’s craft with generative abilities to simulate natural human intelligence in
performing both simple and complex functions. AI has positive values as well as
uncertain and vaporous qualities, which in many cases pose threats to the dignity of
human intelligence and labour. As argued by some scholars, with the epochal change
in humanity’s engagement with AI, there is an apparent conviction and fear that the
technology could surpass human intellectual capacities, extend human longevity
through biotechnology, and even eclipse the human person. With this perception, the
paper seeks to investigate artificial intelligence, posthumanist perspectives, and the
dignity of human labour from anthropological and theological perspectives. The
paper, therefore, argues that human intelligence involving an elastic use of cognitive
abilities leading to the development of artificial intelligence is also a response to
God’s creative works and mandate to humanity, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the
earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). The mandate received from his creator to subdue,
to dominate, the earth indirectly indicates an activity that the human person must
carry out in the world in order to reflect in many ways the very action of the God who
created the universe and thereafter made the human person superior over all that
exists in the world.

Key words: artificial, anthropology, dignity, intelligence, labour, posthumanist,

theology.

Introduction
Science and theology dialogue is ongoing. This conference on “Theology, Artificial
Intelligence, and Hope for Humanity” is indeed another voyage into the global
discussions and dialogue on the theology and science/technology relationship. As
observed in many forums, conversations between religion and science are perennial
and never-ending, especially as more scientific discoveries and their potential impact
on human life are gaining different interpretations and adaptations. Evidently, right
from the time of Galileo to the epochal change brought by AI, the perception of
scientific evolutions has been faced with a mix of elements of doubts, despairs, fears,
2
hopes, and contentment. As a result, many researchers and scholars would see
theology and science/technology as opposites or neighbours that should be tolerated at
best for utility purposes. The paper makes an attempt, by exploring theological and
anthropological perspectives, to conceptualised theology and science/technology as
Siamese twins that should coexist in harmony and mutual dependence. Against this
backdrop, in 1966, the Theological Highlights of Vatican II by Joseph Ratzinger
would be a good start for this paper. For Ratzinger,

The objectivity of science is much more in line with the idea of creation than a
false divinization of the world which science and faith equally reject…. The
scientific view of the world, which presupposes both the world’s non-divinity
and its logical and comprehensible structure, is profoundly in accord with the
view of the world as created (and thus non-divine): the world as produced by
the Logos, God’s Spirit-filled Word. Thus, like the Logos, the world is
rationally and spiritually structured. One might even say that only such a basic
attitude makes natural science possible in its full scope (Ratzinger, 1966: p. 3).

In fact, I couldn’t agree less with Octavian M. Machindon when he says, “Ratzinger’s
perspective on the world is a valuable foundation for constructive theological
contributions to the ongoing discourse on AI,” for Machindon, “AI fundamentally
relies on the rational and orderly structure of the universe (seen by Ratzinger as
originating in the Logos) to discern patterns and make sense of data” (Machindon,
2024, p. 118).

Also, Pope Francis’ apostolic letter Ad Theologiam Promovendam echoes the need for
theology to be closely related with other disciplines, including natural sciences. In the
document, Pope Francis advocates for a broader and more collaborative approach to
knowledge. Therefore, the call for broadmindedness and approaches regarding the
perception of new inventions, which, like in the past, has always brought about
debates, is indeed the motif for carrying out this research. Attempts by some people to
place modern technology (like artificial intelligence) over human intelligence with
regard to performance and creativity are ongoing; these ripples, of course, have
sparked these investigations. To achieve this aim, the paper therefore extends
discussions on AI engagements and looks at them from theological and
anthropological perspectives in relation to the dignity of human labour, with an
anthropocentric view that underscores human exceptionalism and also places the
human person as the centre of the universe and the pinnacle of existence. The paper
also will critically examine the philosophical position of the posthumanist
perspectives with regards to the critique of the concept of ‘humans’ as a construct,
which, as such, requires a paradigm shift beyond anthropocentric thinking. The work
will finally trace human labour which is centripetal in the discourse whether viewed

3
from the perspective of AI or posthumanism, as the duo are products of human
intelligence.

Humanity and Imago Dei

Based on the scope of our paper, inquiries on the concept of humanity and imago Dei
are imperative and have naturally become the starting point of this discourse. Though,
out of curiosity and, of course, taking advantage of the Natural Language Processing
(NLP) technology, ChatGPT, I engaged in a conversation with an AI chatbot. As I
queried the bot on “who is a human being,” the answer revealed the apparent tension
between science and theology. For ChatGPT, “a human being, also known as a Homo
sapiens, is a member of the species characterized by high cognitive abilities, including
the capability for complex language, abstract reasoning, and problem-solving.
Humans are bipedal primates with a complex brain and have developed sophisticated
social structures, cultures, and technologies. They are distinguished by their ability to
create and use tools, communicate through spoken and written languages, and form
societies with rich traditions and diverse beliefs. Humans also exhibit a wide range of
emotions and have the capacity to reflect on their own existence” (AI ChatGPT, 2025:
1). Many academics and faith-based scholars and researchers would find this answer
to the identity of ‘a human being’ very limiting, misleading, and incoherent. To say
the least, the response from ChatGPT is neither theocentric nor anthropocentric, as it
made no reference to either the creation narrative of Gen 1:27 or other creation stories
with God as a supreme being. The differential particularity of man and other lower
animals was deliberately down-tuned to suit the portrayed ideology, where emphasis
was rather placed on the ability of humans to adapt to shifting surroundings and
situations.

The adaptation mantra in the definition of a human being actually settles well with the
intelligence simulation, adaptified, cognified, and humanified as demonstrated. This
position is quite challenging to the Christians who believe in a God who created man
in his own image and likeness. In the digital age of AI, practising the Christian faith,
for instance, means a lot because the AI world portrays and teaches a fundamental
reconsideration of the Christian understanding of human beings as created in the
image and likeness of a perfect and redemptive God. The AI definition of a human
being is characterised by terminological vagueness and is devoid of fundamental
issues on essentialities and determination. Returning to the concept of imago Dei,
human beings are not neuronal networks or retrieval machines; rather, they reflect
certain attributes of God, such as the capacity to reason, make moral choices, and
create relationships.

Biblical Perspectives of Imago Dei

Imago Dei is a theological concept in Christianity and Judaism. It is the Latin
translation of "Image of God.” It has a foundation from the book of Genesis in the
4
Christian Bible, wherein it is mentioned that humans are created in the image and
likeness of God (Genesis 1:26-27). This concept suggests that humans have a
supernatural origin; they are natural, not artificial, and also have a divine mandate to
“be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1:28). Their
uniqueness cannot be underplayed by later technological developments like AI, which
are the products of their labour and affirmed by the Catechism of the Catholic Church
as “a collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the vision of creation”
(Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 378). For Sirach, God “gave skill to human
beings that he might be glorified in his marvelous works” (Sir. 38:6). In light of this,
scientific and technological abilities and discoveries of man, including AI, are
considered as part of humanity. This is because, when used rightly, God is glorified by
reflecting his wisdom and goodness. Again, the Catechism of the Catholic Church
underscores the fact that, being in the image of God, “the human individual possesses
the dignity of a person, who is not just something but someone. He is capable of self-
knowledge, of self-possession, and of freely giving himself and entering into
communion with other persons, and he is called by grace to a covenant with his
Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his
stead” (CCC, par. 357).

Anthropological Perspectives of Imago Dei

Again, the human being is God’s image, individuated and distinguished from other
creatures, including AI, by the gift of “freedom, bodily incarnated as male and female
and animated by a spiritual principle, traditionally called a soul. The individual human
person is at the same time social and historical” (McBrien, 1994: p. 158). The status of
the human being in the universe as a ‘cocreator,’ social, and historical being suggests,
according to McBrien, that “the person’s humanity is constituted by the wider
community of humans, and they, individually and communally, are constituted by
history and by the world in which they live” (p. 158). Looking at the concept of
humanity and imago Dei is to draw attention to the collectiveness of human qualities
and characteristics endowed by God to subdue and dominate the earth in order to
reflect the very action of God. The concept of "Imago Dei" as a theological
perspective, in a plethora of ways, contributes to the understanding of humanity,
highlighting the unique and inherent dignity of every human person by virtue of being
created in God's image and likeness.

Theological Perspectives of Imago Dei

A reflection on the theological perspectives of imago Dei takes us into distinctive
aspects of the human person, such as Thomas Aquinas’s understanding of rational
powers or some aspect of consciousness, experience, or language; functional, such as
the capacity to steward and care for creation affirmed by Biblical theologians like NT
Wright; or relational, such as Karl Rahner’s suggested ability to “hear the Word” or to
form certain forms of relationships. In all these, one thing is certain and factual: the
5
concept of imago Dei helps in bringing to the fore the following qualities of the
human person: rationality, emotion, social relationships, and morality. These are
qualities that are aspects of human intelligence. St. Augustine, the African theologian,
in his De Genesi ad litteram III, states, “Man is made in the image of God in relation
to that [faculty] by which he is superior to the irrational animals. Now, this [faculty] is
reason itself, or the ‘mind,’ or ‘intelligence,’ whatever other name it may more
suitably be given” (Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram III, nos. 20,30). Augustine’s
commentary on Psalm 54:3 further reiterates, “When considering all that they have,
humans discover that they are most distinguished from animals precisely by the fact
that they possess intelligence” (Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos, no. 629). The
contributions of St. Thomas Aquinas on the concept of imago Dei add more insight
when he avers that “man is the most perfect of all earthly beings endowered with
motion, and his proper and natural operation is intellection,” and through the power of
abstraction from things around him, man then “receives in his mind things actually
intelligible” (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles II, no. 76).

Artificial Intelligence as Imago Humanis

AI is viewed by many scholars as the pinnacle of human creativity, with an
impressionable evolution and expansion in human history. In very recent times, AI has
flickered uncommon curiosity among people, especially scholars who are constantly
researching and developing more literature and perspectives on this trending
technology. The snooping and sustained interest in the fastest-growing field of AI
technology in the twenty-first century are not unconnected with the challenges and
opportunities created by scientific and technological advancements. These
technologies are products of human ingenuity, the gift of intelligence that is specific to
humans created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). AI as imago humanis is a technology
produced out of humanity’s labour and creativity. No individual can create a
functional AI without depending on the intelligent works of others; it is a collective
and collaborative effort of humans.

Anthropological and Theological Concept of Image

The concept of “image” within the Jewish and Christian traditions has many
interpretations and many meanings attached to it. However, among diverse
perspectives on the concept of “image” in the two traditions, the dominant element is
that “human creativity is an imitation of God, which gives humans the creative ability
to share in and promote God’s plan for humanity” (Encounter AI, 2024: p. 43). Pope
John Paul II, drawing from the scriptural tradition to explain human creativity, further
affirms, “The word of God's revelation is profoundly marked by the fundamental truth
that man, created in the image of God, shares by his work in the activity of the
Creator and that, within the limits of his own human capabilities, man in a sense
continues to develop that activity and perfects it as he advances further and further in
6
the discovery of the resources and values contained in the whole of creation”
(Loborem Exercens, no. 25). Based on this sustained argument, one would further
state without equivocation that if human creativity somehow reflects God’s, then it
ought not to surprise anybody that, “historically, human creations are often in humans’
own image—on cave walls and in sculpted statues, painted portraits, and characters
crafted within the pages of a book. Dreams of creating independent alter egos, too,
entities almost human or at least uncannily personal, appear in Western literature as
early as Homer. The drive to develop artificial intelligence (AI) is of a piece with this”
(Encounter AI, 2024: p. 58).

Going forward, human creativity is the product of intelligence endowed by God at

creation. Though the position of intelligence being the gift of God to humans is
debatable with the growth of modern science and technology. Western culture in some
ways seems to be less familiar or receptive to the ancient Judeo-Christian theological
tradition of imago Dei. That notwithstanding, Boethius’ (ca. 480-524) understanding
of the person as “the individual substance of a rational nature” better introduces the
idea of humans’ imaging of God by rationality. Though, “since the latter half of the
twentieth century, this definition has been criticised as excessively narrow and
focused either on propositional reasoning or on domination of the natural world.” In
other words, “reason” has come to be associated with the technocratic paradigm,
which is very much at variance with the Christian notion. The early understanding and
usage is more expansive because the rational nature orients humans towards
“understanding,” which, in Latin, intelligentia, is not necessarily the mastering of
calculation and propositions advanced by Hobbes, Leibniz, and, very recently, Alan
Turing, the founder of artificial intelligence. Intelligentia goes beyond and so expands
to an interiorly experienced cognitive grasp—a hold on some reality beyond oneself as
being the-thing-that-it-is (Wales, 2024). In the medieval ratio (reason), according to
Josef Pieper, is understood the power of distinctive, logical thought, of searching, and
of examination of abstraction of definition and making informed decisions (Smith,
2019).

The concept of intelligence in the classical tradition is often understood through the
complementary concepts of “reason” (ratio) and “intellect” (intellectus). In fact, ratio
and intellectus are two modes, not separate faculties, which St. Thomas Aquinas
described as modes in which the same intelligence operates.

Elucidation of Artificial Intelligence

Artificial intelligence is a simulation or expression of intelligence that is
fundamentally confined to a logical-mathematical framework, which imposes inherent
limitations. AI operations rely “on computational reasoning and learning based on a
vast volume of data that include recorded human experiences and knowledge”
(Antiqua et Nova, no. 31). Nonetheless, the inherent limitations with the fourth
7
industrial revolution (4IR) are that, unlike many other human creations, AI has an
enormous capacity to be “trained on the results of human creativity and then generate
new “artefacts” with a level of speed and skill that often rivals or surpasses what
humans can do, such as producing text or images indistinguishable from human
compositions. This raises critical concerns about AI’s potential role in the growing
crisis of truth in the public forum. Moreover, this technology is designed to learn and
make certain choices autonomously, adapting to new situations and providing
solutions not foreseen by its programmers, and thus, it raises fundamental questions
about ethical responsibility and human safety, with broader implications for society as
a whole” (Antica et Nova, 2025: no. 3).

The AI is perceived by many people to have some form of magic powers that carry
with them some magic control over the end user and also the capacity to extend its
dominance over the producer in the coming years. This new technology has indeed
prompted broad discussions and perceptions. As Egere avers, “Technologies [such as
AI] have tremendously influenced human behaviours and activities, gaining broad
interpretations and scholarships. Some scholars outside the realm of Science,
Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) see these marvellous
performances of emerging technologies as mystical, elusive, and magical with
supernatural feats” (Egere, 2024: p. 11). Therefore, it is only natural and critically
important for scholars and researchers to devote much time to a global concern such
as artificial intelligence, which many have come to see as a technological monster
with the capacity to engineer both hopes and fears in our contemporary society.
Dialogue between these new technologies, like AI, and theology will, among other
benefits, instil hope and facilitate profound understanding of the dignity of human
labour in relation to the concept of imago Dei.

Artificial Intelligence and Its Origin

AI, like other machines, is an artefact that dignifies humanity. The dignity of human
labour is at its apex with the AI systems today. AI is not a self-enclosed entity; if it
were, AI would assume the position of an unmoved mover, which St. Thomas
Aquinas would call God, who existed in eternity. AI has its origin in an idea and
human ingenuity designed to serve humanity in varied ways. In fact, like any other
machine, it “depends on man and on his ingenuity,” just as “man depends on God”
(Ratzinger, 2021: p. 86). These human engineering efforts involving a vast volume of
data assemblage and training have a complex and controversial evolutionary narrative.
Nevertheless, scholars like Egere, while acknowledging the complexities and
controversies in tracing AI's origin, state that the term artificial intelligence is
nonetheless the academic harvest from the Dartmouth College conference in 1956.

Artificial intelligence's early beginning dates back to the 20 th century when scholars
like Alan Turing and John von Neumann championed computer science and
8
information theory discussions. John McCarthy coined “artificial intelligence” at the
Dartmouth conference in 1956, making it an official academic discipline” (Egere,
2024: p. 16). Alger Fraley, an expert in Artificial Intelligence and Generative AI,
states that “a focus on symbolic reasoning and logic characterised the early days of
AI. Researchers aimed to create intelligent systems by encoding human knowledge
through rules and symbols. In the 1950s and 1960s, AI systems demonstrated the
ability to solve mathematical theorems, learn simple languages, and play games like
checkers” (Fraley, 2023, p. 4). Fraley further stipulates, “During this period, the
development of the perception by Frank Rosenblatt marked the beginning of machine
learning. The perception was an early model of an artificial neural network inspired by
the biological neurons in the human brain” (2023: p. 4). Consequently, as Egere avers,
“these discoveries were later found to be capable of solving complex problems
whenever non-linear and non-separable data are involved. With time, this new,
escalating, and encouraging field—artificial intelligence—has reasonably evolved
with newer, sophisticated dimensions of innovations and approaches that the initial
setbacks were in many ways resolved” (Egere, 2024: p. 17).

Artificial intelligence, right from its budding stage, has been the human engineering
efforts directed towards strict adherence to God’s instructions in the book of Genesis
when he told Adam and Eve to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue
it” (Gen. 1:28). In a constant attempt to subdue the earth and exercise the creative
innate abilities in the human person, humans then created artificial intelligence in their
own image so as to have human intelligence. AI is imago humanis, while man is
God’s image and likeness, imago Dei. With the increasingly tremendous evolution of
AI and its ubiquitous presence and usage across boundaries, even with the ability to
make more accurate predictions and perform complex tasks that the human person
may find it difficult, if not impossible, to carry out, AI is a human creation largely
inspired by how the human brain and its intelligence processes.

AI is designed to replicate human behaviour and perform human-like tasks; for

instance, “the chatbot invites the user to believe that it was endowed with advanced
cognitive abilities and that we can ask it questions, get answers, and assume that these
answers will be correct. As a result, we can also presume that a tool like ChatGPT will
replace traditional search engines like Google” (Meige, 2023: p. 1). In terms of the
communicative abilities in AI tools such as ChatGPT, Meige again states, “ChatGPT
is a kind of autocomplete tool, similar to what our smartphones do when we type an
SMS—except with a little more sophistication. The ability to answer questions is, in a
way, a phenomenon emerging from the fact that the model has been trained on an
exceptionally large corpus of documents and conversations. But the risk remains that
the answer will often be off the mark. Still, the chatbot aims to anthropomorphize the
underlying AI” (Meige, 2023: p. 1). AI algorithms are human-dependent; their
performance and proficiency are contingent on the availability of a large volume of
9
data either fed in and/or trained with. AI is the representation of the work and actions
carried out by computer engineers and scientists.

AI as imago humanis is a compendium, a collection of human intelligence,

knowledge, and wisdom, “an assertion perhaps most evident for generative AI models,
such as ChatGPT, trained on a vast knowledge base composed of humankind’s textual
and visual creation through history” (Machindon, 2024: p. 126). Without human
intelligence and dignity of labour, AI has no existence because all that is seen in AI is
nothing short of human labour (intelligence) transmitted by humans and placed on
equipment. Artificial intelligence has a traceable origin found in the intelligence of
human creators of such equipment (Chemero, 2023). Worthy of note is the fact that
the “intelligence” found in equipment, machines, or other electronic devices is only
capable of solving complex and cognitively demanding challenges, but machines are
not intelligent in the way human persons are. The rise of artificial intelligence
confronts humanity with a divine paradox. The crafted intelligent entities both reflect
human ingenuity and imaginative abilities while simultaneously presenting an
existential challenge to human primacy. As these "artificial entities" grow more
capable, they raise serious and profound questions about the nature of our existence,
consciousness, and what truly distinguishes us as a species from our silicon-based
entities.

Posthumanist and Transhumanist Perspectives

Discourses on the concept of human nature are not by any means new; it has had a
long history, but with the scientific and technological development of the 20 th and 21st
centuries, the concept of ‘human’ in its existential essence has had a significant
paradigm shift beyond the image of a human being that the Christian tradition has
taught and believed in over the centuries. The change, no doubt, birthed phenomena
such as posthumanism and transhumanism. These two terms, dynamically developing
scientific perspectives, coexist in interdisciplinary studies. In fact, some scholars
believe that “there is no clearly defined line separating one from the other in terms of
conceptual scope” (Mozgin, 2020: p. 109). Within the context of this paper, the
scientific reflection on the dual perspectives of redefining the term ‘human’ is
imperative. They are outcomes of postmodern reflection, for “which Bauman’s
concept of postmodernity is close. It is related to the belief that man does not have a
permanent nature and that his identity exists as an unfinished project” (Mozgin, 2020:
p. 109). Posthumanist and transhumanist perspectives are of the view that ‘human’ is
in constant transgression, an unfinished project, undergoing different kinds of
scientific and biotechnological processes.

Nevertheless, posthumanism is a mode of thinking out the intersecting human,

nonhuman, and technological worlds that has gained theoretical currency in recent
times. Posthumanism and transhumanism became popular subjects of scientific
10
discourse in the 1980s and early 1990s. Though traces of discussions on the two terms
had been on several decades earlier. The work of Ihab Habib Hassan titled
Prometheus as Performer: Towards Posthumanism Culture? (Hassan, 1977: pp. 831-
835) is groundbreaking in this scientific discourse.

Humans, as described by these schools of thought, show a clear departure from the
theocentric and classical anthropological thoughts. An analysis of the word
posthumanism is critical and insightful. The prefix “post” in this discourse means
widening the horizon of our understanding of what is “human” to include other beings
(Braidotti, 2013). Furthermore, the prefix “post” further reveals a shift in the meaning
of the traditional concept of “human” to include emancipation of beings that are not
representatives of imago Dei. Posthumanism has a transgressive tendency that
promotes a progressive striving to ‘humanize’ other entities created by humans.
Within the scope of this inquiry, a cursory look from the cosmological perspective of
posthumanism is important because it focuses on the actual construction of a human
being. Though, the primary focus of these posthumanist theorists is on non-human
beings such as robots, biotechnological chimeras, or beings with artificial intellect
(Barley, 2005). Notably, contemporary posthumanist theorists evade discussion on the
hybrid of human existence because of the complication therein.

Though transhumanism, which largely shares in the transgressive tendency of

posthumanism, emphasises the biological and technical evolutionary potential of a
human being. As noted by Mozgin, “The central tendency of transhumanist reflection
is striving for the improvement of man. The implementation of good is based on
scientific and technological achievements—those that existed, those that exist, and
those that are in the conceptual stage. Regenerative medicine, nanotechnology, life
extension technologies, mind-shifting, and freezing the body are just a few examples
of the possibilities offered by modern science and technological development”
(Mozgin, 2020: p. 113; Ferrando, 2024).

In a nutshell, the transhumanist perspective position is that technological

advancements will enable human beings to overcome their biological limitations and
also enhance physical and cognitive abilities. While posthumanism argues that
advancement in technology will ultimately alter human identity to the extent that
humanity itself may no longer be cogitated as truly “human.” However, both “views
rest on a fundamentally negative perception of human corporality, which treats the
body more as an obstacle than as an integral part of the person’s identity and call to
full realization. Yet, this negative view of the body is inconsistent with a proper
understanding of human dignity” (Antiqua et Nova, p. 20). The Catholic Church in her
writings and teachings supports and encourages morally sound scientific progress,
with the affirmation that human dignity is inherent in the “person as an inseparable
unity of body and soul.” This dignity is also rooted “in each person’s body, which
11
participates in its own way in being in imago Dei” (Dignitatis Infinita, 2024: par. 18).
The advancement of science, technology, and other forms of human creativity are part
of the “collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation”
(CCC, par. 378; Gaudium et Spes, 1966: par. 34). The Fathers of the Second Vatican
Council further affirm, “Technological development must be directed to serve the
human person and contribute to the pursuit of “greater justice, more extensive
fraternity, and a more humane order of social relations,” which are “more valuable
than advances in the technical field (Gadium et Spes, par. 35).

The Concept of Autonomous Technology and the Dignity of Human Labour

Thoughts about the concept of autonomous technology, i.e., technology as a closed
system, “a reality in itself… with its special laws and its own determinations” (Ellul,
1967: p. 134) that strives to overrun every aspect of human society as championed by
Jacques Ellul could be a good start on this discussion. In Ellul’s thoughts, “technology
and its effects on the society cannot be seen as good or evil; technology is a
disruptive, self-augmenting force that engineers the world according to its inner logic
which, in the case of AI, would translate into it shaping our world in one way or
another by simply existing” (Machidon, 2024: p. 123).

This concept of autonomous technology could be interpreted to mean ‘neutrality,’

implying that its outputs depend on its application. As Egere further affirms, “the
dangers of these new technologies [among which is AI] often come from their wrong
uses or application” (Egere, 2024: p. 81), so also its benefits in the society are
experienced when the technology is positively applied. Technology is human labour
dignified; its coloration is based on what the technology is made of and for what
purpose. The intent and usage are the determinant factors for their benefits and
pitfalls.

Benefits of Artificial Intelligence

Today in the IT landscape, AI is often considered, even by the hardest critics, to be the
pinnacle of human creativity with its amazing evolution, expansion, and effects in
almost all spheres of life. A lot of progress is made daily and is drastically
transforming our society. AI and other forms of machine learning are subjects of
interest and discussion because, while AI “has brought unquestionable progress and
fostered significant advancements in healthcare, education, and science, contributing
to human progress and well-being, many applications may create more problems than
they solve. Indeed, some critics argue that AI is a self-augmenting force engineering
the world on its own terms” (Machidon, p. 123). The gains and risks that these
emerging technologies offer to society are an extension of human creativity.

Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic journey to München, Altotting, and Regensburg,

meeting with the representatives of science in the aula magna of the University of
12
Regensburg on September 12, 2006, spoke about the unreserved acknowledgement of
the positive aspects of modernity, which, according to him, “we are all grateful for the
marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in
humanity that has been granted to us” (Benedict XVI, 2006: p. 1). Nevertheless, like a
coin with two sides, Pope Benedict further notes,

While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the
dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can
overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come
together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to
the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In
this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-
ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of
the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of
faith (Benedict XVI, 2006: p. 1).

AI has created a profound impact in the realm of work, just as in many other fields.
Artificial intelligence is “driving fundamental transformations across many
professions, with a range of effects. On the one hand, it has the potential to enhance
expertise and productivity, create new jobs, enable workers to focus on more
innovative tasks, and open new horizons for creativity and innovation” (Antiqua et
Nova, 2024: no. 66). Although AI has the potential to perform difficult tasks with
greater efficiency and a high level of productivity, it remains a technology that
depends on human creativity for its operations and functionality. High-tech and
software companies are creating online jobs for people.

AI has brought unparalleled progress and significant advancements in healthcare,

agriculture, economics, education, the military, job creation, and science. Pope
Francis, in his Message for the 57th World Day of Peace, speaks about the benefits of
AI as that which introduces “important innovations in agriculture, education and
culture, an improved level of life for entire nations and peoples, and the growth of
human fraternity and social friendship” and thus can be “used to promote integral
human development” (Pope Francis, 2024: par. 6). Leveraging the enormous
contributions recorded, AI has become a marketable brand that almost everywhere in
the world today people talk about AI and use AI applications in solving complex
problems.

Risks of Artificial Intelligence

Notwithstanding the overwhelming advantages of AI as a game-changing technology
with the potential to improve all aspects of human life, it is certain and important to
also note that AI has negative impacts. Here, we would like to mention a few risks
related to this paper. With the astronomic advancement of AI, the dignity of human
13
labour may lose its vitality, as workers may paradoxically be deskilled and subjected
to automated repetitive skills, and its speed and efficiency will inevitably cut the cost
of humanity. Pope Francis, stressing the risk involved in the negative application of
AI, avers, “It could also hinder a true encounter with reality and, ultimately, lead
people to “a deep and melancholic dissatisfaction with interpersonal relations, or a
harmful sense of isolation” (Laudato Si, 2015: par. 47). The dynamic and powerful
nature of artificial intelligence in almost all spheres of human endeavour has
generated potential risk against the dignity of human labour and its corresponding
economic well-being. Poor and less educated people are the worst hit because of their
dependency on some jobs for a living, resulting in their becoming poorer because of a
lack of job and economic opportunities. AI has a “substantial risk of disproportionate
benefit for the few at the price of the impoverishment of many” (Pope Francis, 2024:
par. 5).

Another grave risk is in the area of autonomous weapon systems, including the
weaponization of artificial intelligence. AI has also created the “ability to conduct
military operations through remote control systems, which has led to a lessened
perception of the devastation caused by those weapon systems and the burden of
responsibility for their use, resulting in an even more cold and detached approach to
the immense tragedy of war” (Pope Francis, 2024: par. 6). Some forms of artificial
intelligence, according to Pope Francis, appear “capable of influencing individuals’
decisions by operating through pre-determined options associated with stimuli and
dissuasions or by operating through a system of regulating people’s choices based on
information design (Pope Francis, 2024: par. 5). These forms of manipulation or
social control constitute a great risk to humanity because they take away the free will
ingrained in humans at creation, thereby turning the human person into a robot or an
object for manipulation and scientific experiments.

Other areas could include fake news, misinformation, bias, privacy, surveillance, and
the creation of havens for the digital divide. AI can lead to the loss of skills, and
perception can as well impair human creativity and productivity. Finally, AI has made
people forget God and believe more in the powers of machines, thus losing the true
meaning and direction of their inherent creative abilities endowed by God at creation.
Consequently, humans may create artificial intelligent entities that might “become a
direct threat to the survival of the human race” (Ratzinger, 1987: p. 87).

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity

The future of humanity amidst tremendous advancement of digital technology in the
20th and 21st centuries has been a subject of interest and scientific discourse, especially
14
among people who are technologically savvy. Types of AI such as General AI and
Super AI are causes for great concern, as in the case of General AI, for instance, these
created entities are constructed with systems that “can comprehend, acquire, and apply
knowledge across various tasks and areas,” and they are “not constrained to a
particular issue or field, enabling it to adjust to and gain knowledge from novel
circumstances and obstacles” (Egere, 2024: p. 59), which could cause a scare.
Moreover, with artificial superintelligence, predicted to have intelligence far beyond
human capabilities, to the realm where they “can do anything, according to scientists.
Bend atoms, destroy our world, rebuild it, and move and build machines or robotics at
extremely fast rates while connected to 5G” (Parsa, 2024: p. 9). AI models today with
abilities to create content like images, text, video, code, and audio, respectively, are
both threats and blessings to humanity. ChatGPT or DELL-E are all applications for
content creation and human creativity, including mimicking the human voice, writing
styles, etc.

“Experts say the rise of artificial intelligence will make most people better off over the
next decade, but many have concerns about how advances in AI will affect what it
means to be exercise-free” (Pew Research Center, 2018: p. i). Scholars, regardless of
whether they are optimistic or pessimistic, expressed concerns about the long-term
impact of these tools on essential elements of being human. Digital life is augmenting
human capacities and disrupting old human activities. Code-driven systems have
spread to more than half of the world’s inhabitants in ambient information and
connectivity, offering previously unimagined opportunities and unprecedented threats
(Pew Research Center, p. 1).

Therefore, going forward, practical ethical guidelines are imperative with a deliberate
intention to curb the misuse of AI in creating a technocratic worldview that reduces
humans to numbers or figures. Such a worldview, if not expurgated, “would prevent
us from experiencing authentic meaning and truth, as we would be constricted into an
artificial reality by the technology that would act as ideological power. This limitation
would also prevent us from fulfilling our destiny: loving communion with each other
and God, our Creator” (Machidon, 2024: p. 135).

Sustainable AI and the dignity of human labour are achievable and rewarding in
building a better future for humanity. The attraction of AI and its promises of taking
humanity far beyond the imaginable should not be indices for measuring authentic
human development exclusively regarding technological performance. Conversely, a
better understanding and utilization of artificial intelligence in which the human mind
is “capable of thinking in technological terms and grasping the fully human meaning
of human activities, within the context of the holistic meaning of the individual’s
being” (Caritas in Veritatis, no. 70), will indeed sustain a symbiotic relationship
between humans and artificial intelligence for a better tomorrow.
15
Concluding Thoughts
Throughout history, each new invention of a disruptive technology has brought about
its impact on human development and all aspects of society. Every technology has
multiple facets, advantages, and disadvantages regarding its use and consequences,
and AI is no exception. AI, like other technologies, if used positively, can be part of a
conscious and responsible answer to humanity’s vocation, the good; therefore, it
should be directed by human intelligence to ensure respect for the dignity of the
human person. It is therefore important to note that “the order of things must be
subordinate to the order of persons, and not the other way around” (Gaudium et Spes,
par. 26). The dignity of labour is appreciated when human creativity and work are not
limited to economic needs but designed for the “service of the whole human person
[…] taking into account the person’s material needs and the requirements of his or her
intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life” (Gaudium et Spes, par. 64). Therefore,
work through which artificial intelligence was invented should be recognized as a
means of “personal growth, the building of healthy relationships, self-expression and
the exchange of gifts. Work gives us a sense of shared responsibility for the
development of the world and, ultimately, for our life as a people” (Fratelli Tutti,
2020: par. 162).

Human intelligence is a faculty that pertains to the person in his or her entirety and
develops organically throughout the person’s physical and psychological growth,
shaped by lived experiences, while as regards AI, it learns “through processes such as
machine learning; this sort of training is fundamentally different from the
developmental growth of human intelligence, which is shaped by embodied
experiences, including sensory input, emotional responses, social interactions, and the
unique context of each moment” (Antiqua et Nova, 2014: par. 31). AI has no organic
physical nature; its “intelligence” remains fundamentally confined to a logical-
mathematical framework, which imposes inherent limitations as it lacks a physical
body and relies on computational reasoning and learning based on vast datasets that
include recorded human experiences and knowledge.

AI is truly imago humanis, while the human being, imago Dei, remains superior to
any entity created out of its own divinely endowed intelligence. Fears would come to
pass without leaving the human person redundant or incapacitated; it rather would go
up on the scale of increase. The thoughts of Ada Lovelace, considered by many
scholars to be the first computer programmer, are indeed renewed hope when, in
contrast to the fear of AI suppressing human intelligence, she argued that a machine
cannot be as intelligent as a human because it does not create original work.

References
16
AI Research Group of the Centre for Digital Culture. (2024). Encountering Artificial
Intelligence: Ethical and Anthropological Investigations. Eugene, OR:
Pickwick.
Aquinas, T. (1981). Summa theologia. trans. Fathers of English Dominican Province.
London: Christian classics.
Bailey, R. (2005). Liberation biology: The scientific and moral case for the biotech
resolution. New York: Prometheus, Amherst
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. New Jersey: Wiley-Black Well
Benedict XVI. (2006). Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Benedict XVI to München,
Altötting and Regensburg Meeting with the Representatives of Science Lecture
of the Holy Father Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg Tuesday, 12
September 2006. Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Benedict XVI. (2009). Encyclical letter, Caritas in veritatis: On integral human
development in charity and truth. Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1995). Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Checketts, L. (2022). Artificial intelligence and marginalization of the poor. Journal
of moral theology, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 87-111.
Chemero, A. (2023). LLMs differ from human cognition because they are not
embodied. Natural Human Behaviour, Vol. 7, no. 11: pp. 1828-1829.
Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith. Declaration “Dignitas Infinita” on human dignity.
Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Dicastery for Culture and Education (2024).
Antiqua et Nova: Note on the relationship between artificial intelligence and
human intelligence. Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Egere, K. I. (2024). Demystifying emerging media theory for remediating
contextualisations of digital communication and artificial intelligence in
Africa. Port Harcourt: CIWA Publications.
Egere, K. I. (2024c). Survey on artificial intelligence reception and its ecosystem in
Africa. West Africa Journal of Arts and Social Sciences (WAJASS), Vol. 4, No.
1, pp. 106-124.
Ellul, J. (1967). The technological society, trans. Wilkinson, J. New York: Vintage.
Ferrando, F. (2014). The body. In R. Ranish, S. L. Sorgner. (ed). Posthumanism and
transhumanim: An introduction. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
Fraley, A. (2023). The artificial intelligence and generative AI bible 5 in 1. Amazon.
Hassan, I. (1977). Prometheus and performer: Towards posthumanism culture?
The Georgia Review, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 830-835.
Julian, H. (1957). New bottles for new wine: Essays. London: Chetto and Windus
McBrien, R. (1994). Catechism 3rd edition. London: Geoffrey Chapman.
Meige, A. (2023). And man created AI in His
image https://www.adlittle.com/en/insights/viewpoints/and-man-created-ai-
his-image
17
Mozgin, W. (2020). An anthropocentric perspective in posthumanist and
transhumanist discourse. Philosophy and cosmology. Vol. 25, pp. 108-177).
Parsa, C. A. (2024). Artificial intelligence dangers to humanity. THE AI
ORGANIZATION Publ.
Pew Research Center. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the future of humans.
https://eloncdn.blob.core.windows.net/eu3/sites/964/2020/10/AI_and_the_Future
_of_Humans_12_10_18.pdf
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. (2005). Compendium of the social
Doctrine of the Church. Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Pope Francis. (2015). Encyclical letter: Ladato Si’ on care for our common home.
Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Pope Francis. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and the Wisdom of the Heart: Towards
Fully Human Communication. Message of His Holiness Pope Francis for the
58th World Day of Social Communications. Vaticana: Libreria Editrice
Vaticana.
Pope Francis. (2024). Artificial Intelligence and Peace. Message of His Holiness
Pope Francis for the Celebration of the 57th World Day of Peace. Vaticana:
Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Pope John Paul II. (1981). Encyclical letter: Laborem exercens. Vaticana: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana.
Ratzinger, J. (1966). Theological Highlight of
Vatican II. (https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/education/vatican-ii-joseph-
ratzinger-christian-technological-world/).
Ratzinger, J. (2021). On Love: Selected Writings, trans. M. J. Miller, San Francisco,
CA: Ignatius.
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council. (1966). Pastoral Constitution: Gaudium et Spes.
Vaticana: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Wales, B. C. (2019). The promise of artificial intelligence: Reckoning and judgment.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wales, J. (2024). “Participatory spiritual intelligence: A theological perspectives,” in
F. Watts & M. Dorobantu (eds.). Perspectives on spiritual intelligence. New
York: Routledge.

18