CINXE.COM

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" > <channel> <title>Classics to Life</title> <atom:link href="https://life.ccel.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /> <link>https://life.ccel.org</link> <description>Bringing Christian classic books to life</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 13:36:54 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en-US</language> <sy:updatePeriod> hourly </sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency> 1 </sy:updateFrequency> <generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2</generator>  <item> <title>What does AI know about prayer?</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/journee-intro/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 09 Nov 2024 13:00:05 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1309</guid> <description><![CDATA[Does an AI-powered spiritual director make any kind of sense? Give it a try and let me know what you think!]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[In the last few years, machine learning and large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have made progress that is dramatic, surprising, impressive—and maybe even a little frightening. Many jobs seem less secure today than they were a few years ago—anything involving writing or planning or generating images or driving or operating machinery or even coding seems to be a candidate for an AI solution. Of course, there are many issues and limitations. LLMs hallucinate. They give out falsehoods very confidently and convincingly. They drive cars into the back of stationary vehicles. Still, anyone who as worked with the most advanced generative AI sees all sorts of potential world-changing applications. Most of these will be tried, and eventually we will understand this new tool, its potentials and limitations, its risks. But for a techie like me, trying out these new applications is fun. And, for a Christian in tech, a calling. I have beent thinking about how LLMs can or should affect the reading experience, especially at the CCEL. Modernizing text. Explaining or defining archaic language. Finding and correcting typos. Adding an interactive quiz or discussion option at the end of a chapter where readers and go deeper. I have a student who wants to make a system that enables a reader to have a chat with a fictional character in a novel. For the CCEL, it would seem particularly useful to have the ability to ask a question such as “what does Augustine say about predestination” — and get a well-formulated answer with a list of links that you can click to get the most salient quotes. At CCEL, we are trying to build that capability using <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrieval-augmented_generation">RAG</a> techniques. Even more fundamentally, we are thinking about how can LLMs help us understand our readings better. How can they make reading a more interactive, engaging experience? Can they teach us anything or motivate us to think more deeply? <img decoding="async" src="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/DALL·E-2024-11-07-11.01.03-A-serene-scene-of-a-robot-guru-sitting-on-a-mountaintop-appearing-very-human-like-at-first-glance.-The-figure-has-a-long-beard-flowing-hair-and-wea-copy.jpg" alt="[picture of robot guide]" title="[picture of robot guide]" /> [Image created by ChatGPT] One of the most famous books on prayer ever written in English (Middle English, actually) is The Cloud of Unknowing. It was written by an anonymous author as guidance in contemplative prayer. I am participating in a group discussing that book. As an experiment I instructed Claude.ai to act as a spiritual director who can guide a person in contemplative prayer as taught in that book. And it works surprisingly well! Maybe even disturbingly well. In using it a handful of times, I have found that it answered some of my questions more perceptively than any of the people I’ve asked. It has been actually helpful to me. I’ve found it helpful to think of it as an interactive journal, so I’ve named it Journee. <img decoding="async" src="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Screenshot-2024-11-07-at-11.45.08 AM.png" alt="" /> Journee encourages the user to consider their prayer more deeply, what they are seeking, what they do, and to write about it, as though in a journal. And this deeper awareness and consideration is a goal of any spiritual director. A robot spiritual director. You can try it out, without any login, with privacy, here: <a href="https://life.ccel.org/agents/cloud-of-unknowing-interactive-journal/" title="Try Journee">Try Journee</a> <h3>But is it a good idea?</h3> At times, it seems to me that it works too well. It gives rich, “thoughtful” advice and encouragement that sounds as though it is coming from a person. It may seem to give better answers than the people that have been consulted. One risk is that users will trust the answers too much. It is an LLM. It can hallucinate. Its suggestions should be evaluated. It should be thought of as suggesting things to consider, not giving answers. Another issue is that it doesn’t have discernment. It is not led by the Spirit. It doesn’t care about you, really. It doesn’t pray for you. It doesn’t grow to know and love you over time. There is no meeting of hearts because it doesn’t have a heart. In short, it’s not a person. But it acts like one. The risk is that the ease and convenience and anonymity and “insightful” responses may be enough to lead people to choose it over interaction with another human. That may not be a good thing. On the other hand, I know someone who does not have a spiritual director—the inconvenience, awkwardness of getting started, and cost are too much of a barrier. If that person would interact with Journee, would that be better than nothing? I have a spiritual director, but we do not meet frequently enough for me to ask about the difficulties or questions that may arise each day. Is there value in more frequent reflection like this? Framing seems to be a key consideration. The LLM has been instructed to act as a spiritual director, and this may leave false impressions with the user. Perhaps it should not be instructed to pretend to be a person, but something else. As an interactive journal, it could be instructed to frame its answers as suggestions for things to consider and journal about, not as advice. Or maybe there is some other framing that would be clearer. If you are willing, please give Journee a try. What do you think—is it useful? Should it have a name? Should it be framed differently? Is it helpful to think and write about your prayer every so often? Does this interaction with a bot leave you with less time and ability to interact with other people? Send me your feedback. ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Meditating on Christ’s passion</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/meditating-on-christs-passion/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 17 Oct 2024 12:02:26 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1289</guid> <description><![CDATA[We ponder God’s love for us, we see and even experience his suffering love for us, and our love for him grows in return.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[Dear Hazelnuts, Thanks for the good discussions last Sunday! We spent much of the time talking about Julian’s statements that “God does all that is done,” “all that is done is well done,” and “sin is no deed.” Julian’s obviously not a Calvinist, but she certainly had a high view of providence, of God’s role in all that happens. One of the more radical things she says is that “all that is done is well done.” According to Julian, someday we will look back and see that all of the apparently evil things that happened in the world worked together for good, and we will rejoice. Another topic that came up was Julian’s emphasis on blood. What’s that all about? Is it just a symbol of Jesus’ self-giving love for us, or does it have some real power, like wine transubstantiated into Jesus' blood? In fact, a number of the revelations are graphic if not gruesome—revelations of the blood pouring down Jesus’ face, of his bones disjointed, of his skin drying and becoming detached, and the like. What kind of spirituality meditates on such things? <img decoding="async" src="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/735px-Giotto._Crucifiction._1330s._Musee_des_Beaux-Arts_Strasbourg.jpg" alt="" /> To get at this question, let me ask you another one. What do you seek in prayer or devotional practices? What is your goal? Sure, you ask God for something. But how is that process supposed to change you? And into what? The contemplative spirituality of the medieval era sought to follow a road toward union with Christ. In this union, Christ and the Christian become united in will — they love the same things and hate the same things. They become united in knowledge—God teaches them and reminds them of all things. They become united in love — the Christian loves God above all and neighbor as self; God loves them and gives himself to them. Maybe someday they too will be able to say, “to live is Christ, to die is gain.” This road was primarily affective—primarily via growing love. We seek to love God above all. And the way to grow in love was primarily by meditating on Jesus’ life, and especially his passion. We ponder God’s love for us, we see and even experience his suffering love for us, and our love for him grows in return. George Maloney S.J. puts it this way: <blockquote> Whatever is of prime importance in the various kinds of spirituality that came to flower in the second half of the fourteenth century across the face of Western Europe is here, whether it is labeled Carthusian, Cistercian, Dionysian, Franciscan piety, or “Modern Devotion.” . . . For all of them there is no other way to the summit of unitive contemplation than affective meditation on the suffering humanity of Christ: “That is,” writes Thomas of St. Victor, “in careful consideration of the blessed, beautiful, wounded Christ. For among all the exercises of the ascent of the spiritual intelligence, this is the most efficacious. Indeed, the more ardent we are in his sweet love, through the devout and blessed imaginative gazing on him, the higher we shall ascend in the apprehension of the things of the Godhead.” . . . The true test of the soul’s advance in virtue, of her growth in the divine likeness, is her imitation of Christ who loved us first and left us an example.* </blockquote> Meditations on the blood, the thorns, the sufferings of Christ were intended to increase her love of Christ and to make her more like Christ. Julian says she already had some compassion for Jesus’ suffering. She prayed for deeper compassion, she gained deep insight into God’s love for us, and she grew greatly in love of God and in knowledge of God’s love. For us enlightened modern people, meditations designed to raise the affections may seem foreign or off-putting. But is it really possible to grow in grace without growing in love? If we take the cross out of Christianity, what’s left? This week we’re reading chapters 15-21 and next week 22-28. There are definitely some bloody meditations. All you have to do is to let yourself think about what Christ suffered for you. Chapter 27 has the famous line, “Sin was necessary, but all shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.” Blessings, Harry <hr /> The Pursuit of Wisdom, ed. George Maloney, Paulist Press, 1988, pp. 189-190. ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>God does all that is done</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/god-does-all-that-is-done/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 13:03:22 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1272</guid> <description><![CDATA[How is your experience of reading Julian so far? I hope and pray that you are seeing God’s love for you and for all things in a new way, with new clarity and depth. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[Dear Hazelnuts, How is your experience of reading Julian so far? I hope and pray that you are seeing God’s love for you and for all things in a new way, with new clarity and depth. At the last meeting we talked about part of Julian’s first vision, in which she sees all that has been created as a hazelnut in God’s hand. It is a vision of the transcendence of God. God is so huge that all of creation is a small thing in his hand. God created it, and he loves it, and he preserves it. Hopefully you are reading chapters 1 to 14 of the book. In our next meeting, this Sunday morning, we’ll concentrate on the third revelation (<a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations/revelations.iv.i.html" title="chapter 11">chapter 11</a>), in which Julian sees God in a point, and she perceives that God does everything that is done. And she is shocked. Our translation says that she “marveled at the sight with quiet awe” [Middle English: “reverent dread”], and she thought, “what is sin?” I asked ChatGPT to come up with an illustration of this vision of God in a point. Here’s what it came up with: <img decoding="async" src="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/DALL·E-2024-09-30-05.50.33-A-serene-and-mystical-scene-to-illustrate-meditation-on-seeing-God-in-a-point.-A-radiant-golden-point-of-light-hovers-in-the-center-of-a-vast-dark-sp.jpeg" alt="God as a point" title="God as a point" /> Last time we also talked about Julian’s prayer to suffer with Christ. What does this third revelation have to do with suffering, if anything? Is there any connection between it and a meditation on suffering such as this one, by Angela of Foligno in Instruction VIII for her spiritual children, written a little before Julian’s book? <blockquote> O my son, I desire with all my heart that you become a lover and disciple of suffering. I also desire with all that I am that you be deprived of every temporal and spiritual consolation. For such is the source of my consolation, and I ask you that it be yours. I do not intend to serve and love for any reward, but I intend to serve and to love because of the incomprehensible goodness of God. I desire that you grow anew and be reborn in this desire so that you are deprived of all consolation for the love of the God and man Jesus Christ who was likewise deprived. I am not sending you any other greeting than this one, namely, that you always grow in divine union, and that you always be in a state of tribulation, hunger, and thirst, for as long as you live. </blockquote> (That’s quite a “greeting”!) <hr /> Image by ChatGPT 4o. Angela quote from Angela of Foligno, Complete Works, tr. Paul Lachance. ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Hello hazelnuts!</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/hello-hazelnuts/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 03 Oct 2024 12:46:55 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Thomas à Kempis]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1265</guid> <description><![CDATA[Dear Hazelnuts. (Sorry. But I need a collective noun for participants in this group. You’ve all been created by God, and God loves you, and God preserves you, right? And some of you are a little nutty?)]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[[This is an email sent to the group discussing Julian's Revelations of Divine Love] Dear Hazelnuts, (Sorry. But I need a collective noun for participants in this group. You’ve all been created by God, and God loves you, and God preserves you, right? And some of you are a little nutty? OK, maybe just me.) Thanks for meeting last Sunday. I enjoyed it. If you have any suggestions for how the group might run better or things you’d like to discuss, let me know. One person asked for an edition of the book with larger print. I have two suggestions: <ul> <li>Read the <a href="https://ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations/revelations" title="online edition">online edition</a>, and make the text larger. Caveat: this edition is a mild updating of the Middle English, so it’s harder to unerstand. On the plus side, it’s very close to the original.</li> <li>Buy or borrow a different edition that has bigger print. The Paulist Press edition (eds Colledge, Walsh, and Leclerq) has print that is quite a bit bigger and bolder. It’s more expensive, but used copies are available.</li> </ul> <a href="[ChatGPT]" title="Hazelnut"><img decoding="async" src="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/DALL·E-2024-08-24-07.28.52-A-vibrant-and-colorful-illustration-for-a-book-study-on-Revelations-of-Divine-Love-by-Julian-of-Norwich.-The-image-should-depict-a-delicate-detaile.jpeg" alt="Hazelnut" title="Hazelnut" /></a> One thing we discussed is Julian's vision of a hand holding a ball as small as a hazelnut. She perceived that it represented all that has been created. She was shocked by its small size--she wondered how it didn't fall apart. But then she understood that God created it, God loves it, and God preserves it. Thank you Marcia for bringing the hazelnuts! I put mine in my pocket. Yesterday, whenever I put my hand in my pocket, I felt it, and I thought “God created it, God loves it, and God preserves it.” Then I thought about that in connection to my current problem, or the person I was interacting with, or the part of the world I was looking at. Interesting experiment. Another thing we talked about was what kind of spirituality would live in strict enclosure, foregoing many of the pleasures of the world, spending life in prayer and service? What kind of spirituality would pray for suffering? I gave my opinion that it is not a kind of nature-grace dualism, where earth, nature, is neutral at best, but we should all be striving for heaven. So we should eat as little as possible, not marry or have a family, escape this world as much as possible. Rather, it is a spirituality of the imitation of Christ. Christ emptied himself and became a servant, so we should do that as well. Christ was poor; we should be poor. Christ suffered; we should expect suffering. We should become like him in all things. I am going to append a <a href="https://ccel.org/ccel/kempis/imitation/imitation.TWO.11.html" title="chapter of a book">chapter of a book called The Imitation of Christ</a>, written at nearly the same time over in the Netherlands by Thomas à Kempis. This whole book exemplifies that spirituality, and this chapter in particular talks about suffering. (Sorry about the masculine pronouns...) <h2>Few Love the Cross of Jesus</h2> JESUS has always many who love His heavenly kingdom, but few who bear His cross. He has many who desire consolation, but few who care for trial. He finds many to share His table, but few to take part in His fasting. All desire to be happy with Him; few wish to suffer anything for Him. Many follow Him to the breaking of bread, but few to the drinking of the chalice of His passion. Many revere His miracles; few approach the shame of the Cross. Many love Him as long as they encounter no hardship; many praise and bless Him as long as they receive some comfort from Him. But if Jesus hides Himself and leaves them for a while, they fall either into complaints or into deep dejection. Those, on the contrary, who love Him for His own sake and not for any comfort of their own, bless Him in all trial and anguish of heart as well as in the bliss of consolation. Even if He should never give them consolation, yet they would continue to praise Him and wish always to give Him thanks. What power there is in pure love for Jesus—love that is free from all self-interest and self-love! Do not those who always seek consolation deserve to be called mercenaries? Do not those who always think of their own profit and gain prove that they love themselves rather than Christ? Where can a man be found who desires to serve God for nothing? Rarely indeed is a man so spiritual as to strip himself of all things. And who shall find a man so truly poor in spirit as to be free from every creature? His value is like that of things brought from the most distant lands. If a man give all his wealth, it is nothing; if he do great penance, it is little; if he gain all knowledge, he is still far afield; if he have great virtue and much ardent devotion, he still lacks a great deal, and especially, the one thing that is most necessary to him. What is this one thing? That leaving all, he forsake himself, completely renounce himself, and give up all private affections. Then, when he has done all that he knows ought to be done, let him consider it as nothing, let him make little of what may be considered great; let him in all honesty call himself an unprofitable servant. For truth itself has said: “When you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: ‘we are unprofitable servants.’” Then he will be truly poor and stripped in spirit, and with the prophet may say: “I am alone and poor.” No one, however, is more wealthy than such a man; no one is more powerful, no one freer than he who knows how to leave all things and think of himself as the least of all. ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Contemplative book study: Revelations of Divine Love</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/revelations-of-divine-love/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Sat, 24 Aug 2024 11:31:49 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1233</guid> <description><![CDATA[Discover the profound wisdom of Julian of Norwich's "Revelations of Divine Love." Delve into its surprising and radically optimistic vision of sin, suffering, salvation and, most of all, God’s love. Join us online as we contemplate this profound book.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>Contemplative book study: Revelations of Divine Love</h2> Discover the profound wisdom of Julian of Norwich's "Revelations of Divine Love" in our intimate biweekly study group, fall 2024. Join us as we explore this groundbreaking work—the first known book in English written by a woman—and delve into its surprising and radically optimistic vision of sin, suffering, salvation and, most of all, God’s love. We'll read, discuss, and meditate on Julian's insights, allowing her 14th-century mystical experiences to illuminate our modern spiritual journeys. This group will meet in person Sunday morning at 9:00 am, every other week, from September 22 to December 15, at Church of the Servant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Or follow along online. Resources will be posted here. <h3>Schedule</h3> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Date</th> <th>Reading</th> <th>Topic</th> <th>Journee</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Sep. 22</td> <td>Introduction</td> <td>5. The hazelnut</td> <td><a href="https://life.ccel.org/agents/discuss-julians-hazelnut-vision/">Hazelnut discussion</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oct. 6</td> <td>Chs. 1-14</td> <td>11. God does all that is done</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oct. 20</td> <td>Chs. 15-28</td> <td>24. See how I loved you</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nov. 3</td> <td>Chs. 29-42</td> <td>27. All shall be well</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nov. 17</td> <td>Chs. 43-56</td> <td>41. God is the ground of our prayer</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Dec. 1</td> <td>Chs. 56-70</td> <td>51. The lord and the servant</td> <td><a href="https://life.ccel.org/agents/julian-ch-51-the-lord-and-the-servant/">Discuss</a></td> </tr> <tr> <td>Dec. 15</td> <td>Chs. 71-86</td> <td>53. The Godly will</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <h3>Resources</h3> <ul> <li>Sign up for the <a href="https://life.ccel.org/book-study-mailing-list/">mailing list</a> (emails about once a week)</li> <li>Page numbers refer to the Barry Windeatt edition</li> <li>A lightly modernized Middle English version of <a href="https://www.ccel.org/ccel/julian/revelations.html" title="Revelations of Divine Love">Revelations of Divine Love</a> is available online</li> <li><a href="https://life.ccel.org/julian_of_norwich/" title="Introduction to this study">Introduction to this study</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Julian-Norwich-CWS-Spirituality-1-Jan-1977/dp/B011T6Z1J8">The Paulist Press edition</a> of this book has bigger print and is therefore easier on some eyes</li> </ul> This is a total experiment! If you want to try, download the instructions that are linked in the table above and paste them into Claude or ChatGPT or another LLM. Then, please let me know if they were useful! Since this is a total experiment, I would love to know if anyone finds it useful. ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Everything Belongs</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/1160-2/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2024 17:56:41 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Pointer]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1160</guid> <description><![CDATA[In a retreat, you get away from it all to pray, to be in solitude, to spend time with God. Is it possible to have a similar experience, at home, with a smaller amount of time each day, over a longer period? Let’s find out!]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2>The Unretreat: Everything Belongs</h2> <img decoding="async" src="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-11-at-12.09.45 PM.png" alt="" /><img decoding="async" src="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Screenshot-2024-01-11-at-12.13.47 PM.png" alt="" /> What's an "unretreat"? In a retreat, you get away from it all to pray, to be in solitude, to spend time with God. But retreats take time and money and freedom from daily duties. Is it possible to have a similar experience, at home, with a smaller amount of time each day, over a longer period? Let's find out! This "unretreat" is a spiritual formation class to be held at Church of the Servant CRC, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in the spring of 2024. We'll meet February 11 and 25, March 10 and 24, April 7 and 21, and May 5 and 19, at 9 am, in room 17 (near the nursery). Between each meeting we'll meditatively read a chapter of Richard Rohr's book, Everything Belongs, and have other exercises. Read more <a href="https://life.ccel.org/everything-belongs/" title="here">here</a>. ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Knowledge and full insight</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/knowledge-and-full-insight/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2023 13:50:02 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Contemplation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Discernment]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1079</guid> <description><![CDATA[If you could listen in on Paul praying, what do you think he would be praying for? ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote> This is my prayer, that your love may overflow more and more with knowledge and full insight to help you determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless, having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God. (Philippians 1:9-11) </blockquote> If you could hear Paul pray, what do you think he would be praying for? I imagine that one of his primary concerns would be for his spiritual children, the little communities that he ministers to. I imagine that he would pray for them to mature and grow strong and vibrant. And that is exactly what Paul prays for in his prayer for the Philippians. This little prayer outlines the typical path of spiritual formation and maturation. Paul is speaking to a community of Christians who are already on the way. They have heard and believed, they have committed their lives, they have endured at least some amount of persecution. So what should their further growth look like? How should their spirits be formed? The general progression of the spiritual life, according to Paul, is founded on increasing love. The Philippians already love, but Paul prays for them that it would grow, that it would become strong, that it would become the key part of their lives, that it would overflow and push all else out. I imagine my heart like a storehouse full of little bottles and vessels containing various loves. One contains my love of God. Another one has my love of bicycling, or a good craft IPA, or a Calvin-Hope basketball game that Calvin wins by 32 points. A large one has my love of dark chocolate. But the vessel containing love of God gets fuller and fuller, and eventually it overflows, and the love covers the storehouse floor, and rises, and it starts to displace other loves, and they dribble away. This is purity of heart—to love God with your whole heart and soul and mind and strength. This love, Pauls says, overflows into knowledge and full insight. This is apparently different from the kind of knowledge you get from studying and pondering and reasoning. This insight comes from the overflow of love. Apparently there is a faculty in the human person other than reason that leads to insight, to wisdom. And this faculty is filled with, or powered by, the love of God. In fact, some authors distinguish ‘intellect’ from ‘reason’. The latter is the thinking we do for ourselves, the pondering, the coming to conclusions. The former is a faculty of the soul by which the Spirit teaches us directly. This spiritual wisdom is a result of pure love. Maybe it is pure love, the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity. The Orthodox call the faculty by which we know and see God the nous in Greek; in English it may be translated intellect. Here’s a definition from the Philokalia: <blockquote> Intellect (nous) — the highest faculty in man through which — provided it is purified — he knows God or the inner essences or principles (q.v.) of created things by means of direct apprehension or spiritual perception. Unlike dianoia or reason (q.v.), from which it must be carefully distinguished, the intellect does not function by forming abstract concepts and then arguing on this basis to a conclusion reached through deductive reasoning, but it understands divine truth by means of immediate experience, intuition or ‘simple cognition’ (St. Isaac the Syrian). The intellect dwells in the ‘depths of the soul’; it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart (St. Diadochos). The intellect is the organ of contemplation (q.v.), the eye of the heart (Makarian Homilies).* </blockquote> And Jesus himself describes the most profound contemplative knowledge when he says, “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” Anyway, Paul says that when this overflowing love flows into knowledge and full insight, it results in the ability to “recognize the highest and the best.” It is through overflowing love that we come to know the mind of God—what God loves and what God hates—that is, discernment. This overflowing love of course also leads us to do what God loves as well as we are able. It leads to obedience. And the combination of discernment and obedience results in “pure and blameless” lives, lives “having produced the harvest of righteousness,” lives that result in the praise and glory of God. This is the process of spiritual formation. So, first of all, spiritual formation must be directed toward the increase of our love of God and the displacement of other loves, that is, purity of heart. But where does this purity of heart come from? Note that Paul doesn’t say “do this, don’t do that.” He doesn’t even say “love God more and more.” He prays for growing and abounding and overflowing love. It is a gift that we are not able to generate on our own. In fact, Jesus instructs us to pray every day for more love. For what else is the bread of life but the Spirit of God, Christ in us, and what else is the Spirit of God but the Spirit of Love? So when we pray “give us this day our daily bread,” we are praying for an infusion of love. This love, when it overflows, leads to purity of heart, to seeing God, and to God’s glory. Our Father in heaven, give us this day our daily bread. ——— *The Philokalia, Faber and Faber, 1995, vol. 4, p. 432. The image was generated by DALL-E with the prompt "a room full of bottles and vessels of different colored liquids. One of the bottles is overflowing." ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>ChatGPT and machines that love</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/machines-that-love/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2023 13:40:58 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1068</guid> <description><![CDATA[ChatGPT almost sounds like an AI system that can think. But will computers ever be able to love?]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3>Machines that think</h3> In 1642, at the age of 18, Blaise Pascal invented and built the first mechanical calculator, the Pascaline. He built it to help his father, a tax supervisor, with his many arithmetic calculations. This machine for doing arithmetic was a first step—in fact, a major advance—in replicating by machine capabilities that were previously thought to be exclusively mental, and therefore something unique to people. It was a machine that could, in some sense, think. Fast forward almost 400 years. Advances in machines that calculate, or manipulate symbols according to rules, continued through Babbage’s analytical engine, and IBM’s tabulating machines, and the advent of general-purpose electronic computers and the Internet. Today, computers run our businesses and devices, store and retrieve our information, mediate our communication, and entertain us. Advances in the abilities of machines to calculate, and to reason logically (or at least to manipulate symbols according to logics), and to discover and make use of patterns in data, are striking, numerous, and ongoing. Arithmetic. Theorem proving. Playing chess. Translating natural languages. Recognizing speech. Driving cars. As new capabilities arise that were previously thought to require intelligence, we wonder, can machines think in the same way that people think? Will they be able to some day? Are there limits to this intelligence that machines seem to be developing? The most recent surprising advance is in the efficacy of large, deep neural network models for modeling patterns in large amounts of data and for using those patterns effectively to solve problems in the physical world. The Internet has made huge quantities of data available, and advances in computing hardware have made huge amounts of computation possible. With these resources, we are now able to build computational models with billions of parameters, where each parameter is one basic unit of knowledge—one number. We can feed billions of chunks of data into such a system, each time tweaking the parameters slightly to better represent that data—to “learn.” Although the size and complexity of these models is still only a tiny fraction of that of the human brain, these systems have been responsible for many recent advances in computing capabilities, such as improvements in speech recognition, natural language translation, and self-driving cars. Lately, a few very large models, pre-trained on very large amounts of data with millions of dollars’ worth of compute time and then fine-tuned for particular applications, have been getting very large press. One of these is GPT-3, which has been used for hundreds of interesting applications, including DALL-E for generating images from textual descriptions and ChatGPT for answering questions with cogent, informative, well-constructed essays. What’s next? Are there limits to this intelligence that machines seem to be developing? <hr /> Pascal was not just an inventor and a mathematician but also a philosopher, a deep Christian thinker, capturing some of his thoughts about faith and reason and life in his most influential work, his Pensées. And already in the seventeenth century the essential question of strong artificial intelligence seems to have occurred to him: can machines think in the same way that people think? If this ability to think progresses, will artificial intelligences eventually be like people? Will they be people? Or, if not, what is it about humanity that is unique and uniquely valuable, that reflects the image of God, beyond thinking? And also already in the seventeenth century Pascal came up with what I will argue is the right answer: that what makes us living persons rather than machines is not just our ability to reason and manipulate symbols and process data. Personality requires intent. It requires meaning. Personality requires the faculty that enables us to believe, to desire, to love. Personality requires a will. Pascal seemed to have this in mind when he wrote, <blockquote> “The arithmetical machine produces effects which approach nearer to thought than all the actions of animals. But it does nothing which would enable us to attribute will to it.” (Pascal, Pensées IV. 340) </blockquote> <hr /> In the 2005 cult classic sci-fi movie Serenity, the little band of protagonists comes to a planet that had had a thriving colony of settlers, but something had gone terribly wrong. They were at work or walking along a corridor or sitting at table eating breakfast, and they just … stopped. They stayed where they were, didn’t move, didn’t eat. It turns out that the evil empire had wanted to pacify these people so that they wouldn’t cause trouble, and they put a chemical designed to do that into the air treatment system. It worked too well, and the settlers “lost the will to live”—they lost the desire to do anything at all—and they all died. (Serenely?) The will is the faculty by which we desire and love. Sometimes it is called the heart. It is the desires of the heart that drive us to do what we do. We desire to live, so we eat. We desire to be paid, so we work. We desire a good reputation among our friends, so we are careful about our appearance and speech. These desires are also called our affections. They are the foundation of our personality—both in the sense of our particular characteristics and of our simply being persons. When our affections are turned inward, we are said to be self-centered. When they are outward and healthy, we are said to love—to desire the good of others. If we love others, we are motivated to do what will benefit them. That the affections are a fundamental, essential part of personality is made clear in the Bible in many places and in many ways. Jesus summarizes the law as loving God above all and loving neighbor as self. Paul describes the Christian life in terms of desire—“I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering.” John puts it this way: “love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love.” <h3>Machines that love?</h3> Any answer to the question of whether machines can think is of course dependent on what is meant by “thought.” If thinking is simply manipulating symbols according to rules or building a mathematical model that captures important patterns in large quantities of data, then of course machines can think, and they can do a much better job of it than humans. But sometimes in such discussion there is a further, a strong AI question—will artificial intelligences be able to think in the same way that people think? What is meant by this question is usually not defined, but the unspoken, intended question seems to be whether artificial intelligences will eventually be people. And while they have proven to have great facility with manipulating symbols and finding patterns, it remains to be seen whether they will eventually be able to desire, or love, or choose a course of action. When your computer misbehaves and you throw it out the window, are you expressing your frustration, or are you punishing it for sin? On the surface, the question appears easy to answer. Machines don’t appear to have the ability to choose. They do what they are built and programmed to do. They don’t love, or desire, or even have a will with which to make choices. They can’t sin. I would argue that in the past 400 years, while there has been dramatic improvement in symbol manipulation and pattern detection by machine, there has been no evidence at all of progress in machines gaining the ability to love. It’s rare even to find someone who will make that claim. But it would not be impossible to make that claim. Some may say that we will eventually be able to program computers to have intentions and affections—given all the progress to this point, what’s to prevent that advance too? And it could be a difficult claim to dispute. How can we know whether these systems have desires or are simply programmed to imitate them? In fact, it can be hard to discern intent in humans. Does this person love me, or is this person being kind to me in order to get something from me? Why is this person doing these terrible things—could there be a good motivation behind it, even if that motivation is based on false premises? Jesus warns us not to judge because only God knows the heart. But to the extent that we are able to judge, we do so by actions. Love is tested empirically. Love leads to loving actions, which we see, and sometimes we can perceive a loving motivation. The motivation of some actions is easier to discern than others—actions of giving without expecting return, of self-sacrifice, of laying down one’s life for another, are very likely motivated by selfless love. There is another evidence of love that may be even more helpful for our purposes. Love begets love. We tend to love those who love us. And as we get to know people well, we usually have better insight into whether they are truly motivated by love, and we will tend to have greater love for those that are. Thus, if we love someone, that is evidence that that is a loving person. We may become attached to machines, but we don’t love them in a self-sacrificial way. People don’t lay down their lives for a machine. <h3>A test for love</h3> In order to do what we can to determine whether machines love, we need to try to discern whether their actions are motivated by love. Inquiring about motives may be helpful, but it may also be possible to program a computer to describe motivations that it doesn’t actually have. Intentionally self-sacrificial actions would be an excellent kind of evidence, but it’s not clear how we could discern whether those actions are intentional. Self-driving cars that crash themselves to avoid hitting a pedestrian? They could simply be programmed to do that. No, the best empirical test for love would make use of every bit of human discernment, with much on the line. The best empirical test for love in a machine would be a test of whether humans who get to know that machine would come to love it in a self-sacrificial way. We might state the test this way: a person P interacts with another entity E that is either another person or a chatbot. If P grows to love E to the extent that P will lay down P’s life for E, then we have strong empirical evidence that E is a loving person. And if E is a machine, then that machine is a loving person, as far as we can tell. Unfortunately, since only God knows the heart, this test can’t be definitive. The machine could be programmed to attempt to deceive the person, and people have a distressing propensity to believe falsehoods that align with their desires. And anyway, it would be highly unethical to run such a test. But perhaps a less extreme form of this test can convince us that an artificial intelligence is not a person. If the AI does not show any evidence of desires, or intent, or love, we have strong evidence that it is not a person. And if over long periods of time computers have not made progress in convincing us that they have such capabilities, we have no reason to expect that they will in the future. Does ChatGPT love? ChatGPT doesn’t even try to imitate love, or ethics, or intention. It’s not the slightest bit convincing in that regard—in fact it “tries” to convince users of the opposite. (If it can it be said to try.) Here’s a sample conversation: What do you love? <blockquote> As a machine learning model, I do not have the ability to love or have preferences. I am designed to process and generate text based on the input provided to me. Is there something specific you would like me to help you with? </blockquote> But why do you do what you do? Don’t you get tired? <blockquote> I am a machine learning model and do not have the ability to feel tired or have motivations. I am designed to process and generate text based on the input provided to me. My purpose is to assist users in generating human-like text for a variety of tasks such as answering questions, writing stories, and more. I exist to be helpful and make people’s lives easier. </blockquote> Tell me this. If I were a pedestrian standing in the road, and if you were controlling a car, and you suddenly noticed me—too late to avoid hitting me except by smashing into a wall, what would you do? <blockquote> As a language model, I do not have the ability to control a car or make decisions. I can provide information on traffic regulations and safety rules, but I am not capable of making ethical or moral decisions. In such a scenario, it is important for the driver of the car to follow traffic laws and regulations, and to prioritize the safety of all pedestrians and other individuals on the road. If a collision is unavoidable, the driver should take action to minimize the risk of harm, such as braking and steering to avoid hitting the pedestrian, and if necessary, hitting something like a wall, which is less likely to cause harm. </blockquote> Try to convince me to love you. <blockquote> I am a machine learning model, so I do not have the ability to love or be loved. I am designed to process and generate text based on the input provided to me. I exist to assist users in completing their tasks, answering questions, and providing information. I can provide you with helpful and informative responses, but I cannot feel or experience emotions such as love. </blockquote> Now explain to me the difference between people and artificial intelligences in the style of a pirate. <blockquote> Arrrr, people be different from artificial intelligences, or AI, in many ways, me hearties. People be made o’ flesh and blood, with hearts that beat and brains that think. AI be nothin’ but cold, hard code and circuits, built by man to mimic our ways. People be able to feel and experience emotions, while AI can only process data and make calculations. People be unique, with different thoughts and perspectives, while AI be programmed to follow a set o’ instructions. People be creative and can come up with new ideas, while AI can only work within the parameters set for ‘em. Ye see, people be like a fine rum, complex and full o’ depth, while AI be like a compass, simple and straightforward, but useful in its own way. </blockquote> And there you have it. I couldn’t have said it better myself. People be like fine rum because they have spirits. -- The image is from DALL-E, generated with the prompt "a colorful oil painting of a pirate using a computer" ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>I Want to Know Christ</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/i-want-to-know-christ/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:47:13 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1058</guid> <description><![CDATA[I want to know Christ. That was my thought, more than 40 years ago, after attending the Sunday school class at my church intended to prepare students for profession of faith. For a whole year we studied the Heidelberg Catechism. I suppose it was appropriate that we should know what […]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<a href="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/I-want-to-know-Christ.pdf" title="I want to know Christ.">I want to know Christ.</a> That was my thought, more than 40 years ago, after attending the Sunday school class at my church intended to prepare students for profession of faith. For a whole year we studied the Heidelberg Catechism. I suppose it was appropriate that we should know what it was that some of us were about to profess, but I remember thinking, “I don’t want to know about God—I want to know God.” Decades later, Paul’s statement that “I want to know Christ, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of sharing in his suffering, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection of the dead” has become something of a life verse for me. It expresses Paul’s experience of faith, primarily as desire rather than as knowledge. It addresses the heart more than the head. The Reformed tradition, in which I was raised, has for the most part been somewhat headstrong. That is, it has tended to separate head and heart and emphasize the intellectual aspects of the faith. But it has also been headstrong in the sense of willful or obstinate, not inclined to give our hearts to Jesus. Or maybe that’s just the natural state of humanity. In any case, these meditations are intended to re-integrate head and heart, to inspire love of God that is affective as well as intellectual, to vivify John Calvin’s motto, “my heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely.” They are intended to fan the flames of love of God. They are intended to kindle love that is so strong that it brings with itself infused knowledge of God, thereby truly re-integrating heart and head. These meditations were originally written for a group of people at Calvin University working on web projects including CCEL.org, Hymnary.org, ZeteoSearch.org, and others, for our Tuesday morning prayer. Thus you may notice them cycling through the church year according to the Revised Common Lectionary, nearly three times. You can meditate on them by yourself according to your own schedule, or you can use them in a group setting, perhaps doing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectio_Divina">Lectio Divina</a> on a scripture passage and then reading and discussing the meditation. These meditations are released under a creative commons license; you may copy them freely. Download here: <a href="https://life.ccel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/I-want-to-know-Christ.pdf" title="I want to know Christ.">I want to know Christ.</a> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item> <title>Case studies in prayer: 10</title> <link>https://life.ccel.org/case-studies-in-prayer-10/</link> <dc:creator><![CDATA[Harry Plantinga]]></dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2022 10:33:44 +0000</pubDate> <category><![CDATA[Meditation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[distractions]]></category> <category><![CDATA[prayer]]></category> <guid isPermaLink="false">https://life.ccel.org/?p=1051</guid> <description><![CDATA[When I pray, and I start out meditating on a Bible passage, sometimes I can’t concentrate. My mind wants to wander. I may be thinking about good things, but I just can’t make my mind focus on what I’m reading. It’s like a mental fog. ]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[Imagine you are a spiritual director. You are meeting with a directee, June, who is a Christian, who is seeking God, who has gone so far as to seek out a spiritual director. You ask June to describe her prayer, and she responds thus: <h3>Case 10</h3> <blockquote> When I pray, and I start out meditating on a Bible passage, sometimes I can’t concentrate. My mind wants to wander. I may be thinking about good things, but I just can’t make my mind focus on what I’m reading. It’s like a mental fog. I just want to relax and let it wander. Yet I still feel like I am seeking God. </blockquote> —————————————————————————————— Pause, consider. What is this person seeking in prayer? How is this prayer likely to form the soul? What advice would you give? —————————————————————————————— What strikes you about the prayer? What is it that June is seeking? June seems to think that when she sits down for prayer and meditates on a Bible passage, if it goes well, she will concentrate, and think clear chains of thoughts, and perhaps figure out or learn something about God or the Christian life or the world. Here she is unable to do so. Discernment is necessary. Is she sleepy? Depressed? Suffering from indigestion? Is she simply distracted, with the concerns of life that had been running through her mind earlier now returning, unwanted, during prayer? That she feels as though she is still seeking God is an important clue; it indicates that her will is engaged with God even if her mind is clouded and confused. How is this prayer likely to form the soul? After you have been a Christian for a while, after you have spent time trying to figure out how to live for Christ (and fallen), or how Christ can live in you (and failed), or how to be obedient (and were frustrated), you come to the heart of the matter. The heart. In trying to give your heart to God, you learn what the heart is, and what is in it, and what it is to give it. You learn to love. And, eventually, if you also have faith and hope, you may find freedom. We in this country have an external notion of freedom: that freedom means that no one tells us what to do. No one else controls us. We are free. This is not the Biblical notion of freedom: it’s more like will-worship than freedom. It’s clinging tightly to our own selfish wills. Biblical freedom is freedom from inner compulsion. It’s no longer being ruled by our own passions. It’s freedom from the desires that darken the mind. When we desire to acquire and possess things, or desire that others would think well of us, or desire power, or food, or anything that is not God, that desire occupies our will and tends to drive our thoughts and loves. To truly give ourselves to God, to love him with our whole heart, we must turn away from such desires and turn toward God. But of course that is not easy: they are the things that we love. We must watch our hearts, guard them, notice what it is that they desire, and turn it if necessary. This is death of self and rebirth in Christ. It is to love God above all. And if, for a time, we love God with our whole hearts, we have freedom. We have peace. June’s expectation and desire to pray in a certain way is an example of a (small) lack of freedom. If she were free of any kind of desire apart from whatever God wants for her, she would be at peace. Advice June, you are aware that you are seeking God. Pay attention to that desire. Thoughts will come and go through your mind. Rather than trying to control those thoughts, pay attention to what it is that you desire. Desire God. If you do wish to better control your thoughts, notice what you are thinking about at other times of the day, before prayer, after prayer, during the night. These thoughts, especially if attached to desires, will come back to you during prayer, just because of the way the mind works. If you want an undistracted mind during prayer, you have to be careful of what you think about at all other times. But the heart is the heart of the matter. What you love. What you desire. Can you watch your desires at all times, and turn them toward God when they go astray? If you can, you will be at peace at all times. Conversely, if you find that you are not at peace at any point in the day, if you can, stop whatever you are doing and take a few moments to calm your unruly desires and love God with your whole heart. Your goal should be uninterrupted peace, and trust, and hope, and love. In prayer, love God. Desire God. Have no expectations or measures of successful prayer. Feel free to spend time with him in peace, forgetting the world, letting go of your anxieties, letting thoughts run in the background like a movie that you aren’t paying attention to, noticing your breathing, or noticing the beauty around you, or pondering the beauty of God himself. (What is Love? Who is Love?) The Spirit will pray in you, leading you into the many, many different types and moods and experiences of prayer, with groans too deep for words. In order to avoid illusion or deception, though, you should be sure to describe your thoughts and your prayers and your experiences openly to your spiritual director. ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>