One difficulty is that there is no single unified world view - but rather a wide range of views that are sometimes completely opposite. Eg the article says that God didn't allow a nuclear exchange between USSR & USA. That idea is complete conjecture z based on a specific world view. The ORT (open & relational theology) perspective is quite different - that God can't and doesn't actively intervene in situations like this (& similarly God did not intervene in the Trump assassination attempt)
Thanks for the comment David! You're right that I simplify things by not mentioning that there are multiple views on the subject of God's intervention in human affairs, but I don't think ORT makes much difference to the conclusion other than underlining even more strongly that we shouldn't rely on God to stop people from making mistakes with AI. Are there other places where you think the diversity of worldviews should be better reflected?
Thanks. You also mention our 'christian worldview' near the end of the article - it seems to me that there are multiple versions of this also. Regarding the range of views of Gods 'control' - it seems to me that the range if these is so broad (from total control to no control) that the readers perspective potentially outweighs your good reasoning. ie there should be completely different responses depending on whether the reader believes God is totally in control cf God not controlling at all. Hence, unless you address these range if views in the article or elsewhere, it will be difficult to progress your arguments
One difficulty is that there is no single unified world view - but rather a wide range of views that are sometimes completely opposite. Eg the article says that God didn't allow a nuclear exchange between USSR & USA. That idea is complete conjecture z based on a specific world view. The ORT (open & relational theology) perspective is quite different - that God can't and doesn't actively intervene in situations like this (& similarly God did not intervene in the Trump assassination attempt)
Thanks for the comment David! You're right that I simplify things by not mentioning that there are multiple views on the subject of God's intervention in human affairs, but I don't think ORT makes much difference to the conclusion other than underlining even more strongly that we shouldn't rely on God to stop people from making mistakes with AI. Are there other places where you think the diversity of worldviews should be better reflected?
Thanks. You also mention our 'christian worldview' near the end of the article - it seems to me that there are multiple versions of this also. Regarding the range of views of Gods 'control' - it seems to me that the range if these is so broad (from total control to no control) that the readers perspective potentially outweighs your good reasoning. ie there should be completely different responses depending on whether the reader believes God is totally in control cf God not controlling at all. Hence, unless you address these range if views in the article or elsewhere, it will be difficult to progress your arguments