Sunday, June 11, 2023

An Artificial Intelligence Preached the Gospel. Can We Humans Do Better?

The Artificial Intelligence (AI) preacher modestly began by saying “Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year’s convention of Protestants in Germany.” During a 40-minute church service, various AI personalities were projected onto a screen near the altar as their artificial voices came from loudspeakers. The avatars took on the appearance of different men and women. The congregation of more than three hundred worshippers filled historic St. Paul’s Lutheran Church on Dr. Martin Luther King Square in Fürth, Bavaria. The church's glorious architecture stood as a monument of human creativity, while the congregation heard a computer lecture them about the Christian faith. It was a truly historic event.

Jonas Simmerlein, a theologian from the University of Vienna wanted to see whether he could produce an artificial worship service. According to news reports, “the believers in the church listened attentively as the artificial intelligence preached about leaving the past behind, focusing on the challenges of the present, overcoming fear of death, and never losing trust in Jesus Christ.” A bunch of platitudes similar to those heard at Christian churches every week.  

So, yes, okay, it finally happened. An artificial intelligence (AI) with four or so avatars delivered a sermon on a general Christian topic.  The IT specialist/programmer/theologian gave the AI a few prompts and let it rip. (There wasn’t just a sermon; apparently there were also AI hymns, testimonies, and whatnot.) The artificial sermon sort of worked. People laughed only occasionally. Is that because technology is grand? Or is it because people expect little from their sermons, and thus are hard to disappoint? I suspect that the latter is the genuine answer. The AI succeeded, to a degree, because human preachers aren’t consistently setting a high bar. Let’s look at that.

Another Lutheran pastor who attended the event commented that, “I had actually imagined it to be worse. But I was positively surprised how well it worked. Also the language of the AI worked well, even though it was still a bit bumpy at times.”

To no one’s surprise, the worshippers complained that the avatars spoke with no feeling or emotion. I’m sure that a vocal variety plug-in could correct that.

The fact that this experiment worked at all represents, not only a triumph of artificial intelligence, but also a condemnation of the inconsistent state of Christian preaching. Too much of what Christian worshippers typically hear on Sunday morning (or Saturday evening) is a collection of recycled platitudes, often only tangentially related to holy scripture or ancient traditions, which simply repeat trite words that previous generations of pastors have droned on about. “Overcome fear of death?” “Never lose trust in Jesus Christ?” Although that message is fine, as far as it goes, it is no wonder that an AI could do the job.

Now, I don’t mean to denigrate the thousands of enthusiastic Christian ministers who take the time to learn their subject and to speak about it with sincerity and interest. The fact remains, however, that there has long been a hidden underbelly of lazy approaches to preaching.

For one thing, religious bookstores have long carried entire volumes of pre-written sermons. Ministers, elders, or priests can simply go to the bookstore, spend a few hundred dollars on books, and be ready to preach for the rest of their career. Each Sabbath, all you need to do is photocopy the day’s sermon and read it word for word. Of course, this has become easier and cheaper in the Internet age. Today, any number of websites provide sermons ready for ministers and priests to print up and read aloud to their congregations. An old trick is for the preacher to start with, “As John Wesley once said, and I quote, …” and let their congregation assume that the quotation ends after the first sentence rather than after the first hour.

No, I’m not going to give links or citations to any of those sources. I have no wish to give lazy or dishonest preachers any help whatsoever.

Is there an alternative? Surely there is! Allow me, a public speaking teacher, to offer some suggestions for giving good, truly human sermons. These are general comments that can be adapted to various religious traditions. Indeed, different religious traditions call for sermons that might be conversational or energetic, loud or quiet, personal or intellectual. All of those options are fine. What is important is to educate and exhort the congregation in their religious tradition and faith. 

First, the true preacher’s usual method is to ponder the day’s Bible lesson, do in-depth research, explain what the text means, and give historical context.

This is why ultra-conservative Bible scholar Henry Halley, author of Halley’s Bible Handbook, is absolutely right that Christian congregations never tire of learning about the Bible. Why do so many pastors forget that? Of course, long and careful study, regardless of whether it is in seminary or the library, is the necessary and sometimes tedious prerequisite. The preacher should certainly know the subject, and the congregation has every right to expect to learn something new and important every time the preacher speaks. Instead of just repeating what the congregation has heard before, the preacher can dig into the day’s subject anew, endowing the lesson with historical and theological context. The AI presented boring platitudes. A real speaker can and should do better.

Second, congregations often expect the preacher to apply the daily lesson to everyday life or current events. Most people attend religious services because they hope to improve themselves. Accordingly, the preacher should give them a boost. It is, however, a mistake to use the sermon as an excuse to impose one’s own personal political prejudices or bigotry on people. If a preacher uses a captive audience as an opportunity to claim divine inspiration for his or her ridiculous political opinions, well, that’s worse than an AI.

Finally, a preacher must prepare sermons with care. Dr. Rev. Jack B. North, the inspiring minister who married my wife and me 45 years ago, routinely spent three days preparing each week’s sermon. That was not overkill. Good results require hard work. Indeed, no matter how confident a speaker is, the preacher should rehearse the sermon three or four times, out loud, with feeling. Silent practice is no practice at all. Indeed, to override artificial intelligence, the preacher must speak with enthusiasm, compassion, and a caring attitude. Follow those simple steps, and then no one will mistake the preacher for a computer.

Yes, many preachers already do those things. To those who don’t, perhaps an AI computer can remind us that we need a change.

How can you detect a human preacher who is not better than an AI? It’s not often hard. If your minister, priest, or elder reads sermons word for word, droning along, stumbling over big words that he or she has never seen before (because he or she didn’t write them), you might be tempted to engage in uncharitable and unworthy suspicion of the preacher’s level of preparation. 

We have not reached the point where an AI can duplicate the thoughts and feelings of a speaker who has sincere religious faith. The AI in Bavaria could, however, easily duplicate the platitudes of a typical Sunday morning presentation. That is sad, not because technology should scare us, but because many congregations have come to expect trite, banal sermons. 

Let me wish peace and blessings for all my readers, regardless of whatever religious views you do or do not hold. Thanks for reading!
_________________________

By the way, here are blog posts that I’ve written about sermons that I think were admirable.

Also, by the way, I am always looking for worthy sermons to analyze on this website. The preacher does not need to be famous. I would need an accurate transcript. If applicable, a video link would also be appreciated. You can post it in the comments below, e-mail me at wdharpine@hotmail.com, or tag me on Twitter at @WHarpine.



Friday, June 9, 2023

Tom Hanks, Truth, and the American Way at Harvard University

Harvard University
Truth seems to be a graduation theme in 2023. In his May 25, 2023 commencement speech at Harvard University, movie star Tom Hanks cited a pop-culture character to remind his audience that truth is a basic American value. Ceremonial speeches remind the audience about their values, and Hanks made the point that, not only is truth a great value, but it is a fundamental value of American tradition. Nothing, he showed, could be more patriotic or more traditional than to speak the truth. And what could be more American, more traditional, than Superman’s flowing red cape?

In an era when liars proudly call themselves patriots, Hanks asked us to return to values that we once treasured. Instead of quoting Thomas Jefferson, however, Hanks cited that heroic cultural icon, Superman, to bring his audience back to our traditional American values. No, in real life, truth did not always rule in Superman’s heyday.  Instead, Superman’s values were ideals to strive for. Still, Hanks reminded us of that perhaps-forgotten ideal. What better goal can a speech serve? Hanks reminded us about honor and self-respect. He reminded us that it is we, ourselves, who must stand for truth. No one else will do it for us. Hanks taught a lesson we needed to hear: a lesson that has disappeared in a blizzard of conspiracy theories, news cycles, and the endless scratching for temporary advantage. 

While Liz Cheney’s commencement address at Colorado College defended truth by citing a biblical quotation, movie star Tom Hanks reminded the students about Superman:
“Some of us here can recite by repetition the preamble for a television show we might have seen 5 days a week about a strange being from another planet with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men.”
That preamble, Hanks then cleverly reminded us, cited the three values for which Superman fought:
“Superman, you see, and his prox[ies], Wonder Woman, Captain America, Black Panther and Black Widow and the Fantastic (Four) … are all enmeshed in that never-ending battle for truth, justice and the American way. And in such a struggle, being a Superman is a plus.” [Italics added]
As Hanks cleverly noted, truth ranked first among Superman’s red, white, and blue values. Generations of boys and girls grew up hearing on television that “truth, justice, and the American way,” above all others, gave the United States of America its moral focus. Truth was the American way. 

Yes, people often want supernatural heroes like Superman to solve their problems and put the world right. Superman, however, does not exist. As Hanks next said, it is we, ordinary people, who must fight for what is right:
“But, hey, there ain’t no Superman or anyone else in his Justice League, there’s just us on this planet.”
If not Superman, who is going to stand for truth, justice, and the American way? Hanks pounded on the theme that it must be us, all of us, who work for what is right:
“Even though, yes, we are all but human. Still, we’d like to look up in the sky and see not a bird, not a plane, but, well someone who is young and strong and super, who will fight the never-ending battle, for truth, for justice and for the American way, someone who will take on that work.” [Italics added]
There is nothing new, of course, about people who talk about justice, while pretending that lies are truth or that the truth is a lie. The United States of America has reached a terrible point where falsehood dominates large chunks of American culture. Hanks continued:
Truth is mined at the intersections of our chosen behaviors and our fixed habits and our personal boundaries. Truth has synonyms such as honesty, honor, transparency.” [Italics added]
Anyone who follows cable news or talk radio, or devours conspiracy theories on the Internet, can see at a glance that truth does not always reach forward toward us. We need to look for it. 

Furthermore, telling lies is not the only way to oppose truth. For instance, we can distract people’s attention from the truth. We can say something that is factual, but leave out crucial information, without which the listener will miss the full truth. Indeed, as Hanks wisely noted, the word “truth” means much more than simply misrepresenting facts:
“Likewise, truth has opposites. Omission. ‘You don’t need to know that.’ Distraction. ‘That’s not the real story, this is.’ Opinion masquerading as clairvoyance. ‘Oh, here is what is going to happen.’ And influence-peddling. ‘You know, a lot of people are saying …’”



In a thinly veiled reference to Kellyanne Conway’s concept of “alternative facts,” Hanks explained how the entire idea of the American way can twist around to support grifters and abusers:
“Someone will report the world to you exactly as you wish it were, full of alternative facts.… The American way can be demonstrated without ceasing as a perpetual prayer by every bigshot and any plain Jane or Joe Blow.” [italics added]
To Hanks, however, neither lies nor “alternative facts” are truth’s main enemy. The destructive force that gives truth its greatest challenge is indifference. The biggest problems arise when we don’t care. The tragedy is when we stop worrying about what is true or false, much less what is good or bad:
“Truth, too, has a nemesis, equal to any colored kryptonite. That, like a feral hound is never too far off the path in the weeds and in the shadows, lying in wait for the lethal opportunity to bring truth down. And that beast is indifference, which will make moot all the permanence found in truth. [italics added]
He had a point. We live in a nation where 70% of Republican voters believe Donald Trump’s ludicrous claim that the 2020 election was stolen. Fully 46% of Trump voters think there could be some truth to the bizarre accusation that Hillary Clinton ran a pedophile ring in the basement of a tiny pizza place that has no basement. Noble fact-checking websites like FactCheck.org have had too little effect, as liars simply accuse the fact-checkers of bias. The real problem, of course, is that it is the liars themselves who are biased: they are biased against facts. 

People try to ban books, Hanks implied in another part of his speech, not because books are bad, but because books often teach true things. Too often, we struggle for advantage, too rarely do we think about what is true or honorable. A speech reaches its highest level when the speaker reminds us about the values we treasure. Tom Hanks implicitly directed his speech against conservatives who twist truth and censor schools, but he conveyed a profoundly conservative message: he called for us to remember Superman’s American values. 


__________________

Here are some more of my posts about commencement speeches over the years:

Kamala Harris' Speech at West Point: Tradition and Innovation

The Themes of Savannah Guthrie's Commencement Speech at George Washington University

Joe Biden's 2022 University of Delaware Commencement Speech Reminds Americans that Our Nation Was Founded on an Idea

Oprah Winfrey at Skidmore College, May 20, 2017

Dolly Parton's Commencement Speech: Lively, Extemporaneous, Specific, Detailed

Tim Cook's Commencement Speech at Duke University - "Be the Last to Accept It"

For more, type "commencement" in the search box above and right. 

Thursday, June 1, 2023

Liz Cheney's Commencement Speech at Colorado College: "The Truth Shall Make You Free"

Liz Cheney at Colorado College
Have we ever had a year when so many people gave speeches about truth

Ceremonial speeches teach us about values. What value can be higher than truth? In her May 28, 2023 commencement address at her alma mater, Colorado College, former Republican representative Liz Cheney explained to the graduates that truth matters. She started with this thesis:  
“The first thing we ask of you is that you live in the truth.” 
Continuing, Cheney cited the inscription on a building on Colorado College’s gorgeous campus: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

Cheney immediately followed that noble premise by reminding the graduates that:
“…after the 2020 election and the attack of January 6th, my fellow Republicans wanted me to lie. They wanted me to say the 2020 election was stolen, the attack of January 6th wasn’t a big deal, and Donald Trump wasn’t dangerous. I had to choose between lying and losing my position in House leadership.”
Continuing, Cheney talked about her final meeting as Chair of the Republican House Conference:
“As I spoke to my colleagues on my last morning as chair of the Republican conference, I told them that if they wanted a leader who would lie, they should choose someone else.”
How can we disagree? Cheney was right that it is, indeed, a basic life rule: to be free, we must embrace truth. Cheney continued:
“It is a fundamental fact - we cannot remain a free nation if we abandon the truth. As you go out to change the world, resolve to stand in truth.”
Yes, truth is life’s most basic virtue. How can we expect our plans and ideas to work out if they arise from falsehood? Why should it surprise us that lies never turn out to be true? That relationships based on lies mean nothing? 

For her second value, Cheney asked the students to “do good and be kind to each other.” That is also a basic value, but it is, once again, subordinate to truth. If we live in lies, all else falters.

Liz Cheney concluded by repeating her values:
“Class of 2023, go forth. Stand in truth. Do good and be kind. Always do the next right thing. Be heroes. Be incandescent with courage. Defend our democracy. Love and serve our country. She – and we – have never needed you more.”
Yes, it’s easy to talk about truth. It is easy to say that we each have our own truths. It is, unfortunately, all too easy for us to fabricate beliefs that we know, deep inside, to be false. We often admire the truth as a principle, while rejecting its harsh reality. Truth challenges us. In contrast, all too often, lies comfort us. 

Cheney was not only applauded but booed during her speech, perhaps partly by Trump supporters, but also by many students who protested her conservative views. More generally, Cheney paid a price for her integrity. She was essentially expelled from the Wyoming Republican Party. She was censured by the Republican National Committee, which, astonishingly, held that the January 6 Capitol riot was “legitimate political discourse.” Rejected by Democrats for being too conservative, rejected by most Republicans for being too honest, she wanders without a political home. She chose to rely, instead, on truth. 

Cheney was absolutely correct to tell the students to honor truth. She rightly told them that this requires courage. It is, after all, often much easier to tell lies. Her successor as Republican Conference Chair, Elise Stefanik, happily and falsely tells people that the 2020 election was stolen, and her voters and the caucus alike seem to love her. Stefanik won almost 60% of the vote in her rural New York State district. The point is not that liars never prosper. Nor is it even true; indeed, we all know that liars often triumph. No, the point is that people tell lies when they know they are in the wrong, and yet do not care. The point is that liars never know what it means to be free. 

Ceremonial speeches are about values. Cheney talked about the most important value of all, the value of truth. Although she is just as dedicated to right-wing policies as the typical Republican voter, she refused to lie about Donald Trump or the 2020 election. That ended her political career. She discovered that it was too much to speak even one word of truth to people who didn’t want to hear it. Truth could turn her into an exile, a pariah. So it was.


Liz Cheney and the Firehose of Truth: Using the Republicans' Text Messages Against Them

Liz Cheney is a very smart woman. She knows that her party has rejected truth. She knows that she will never again win any election as a Republican. She gave this speech, I imagine, because she hopes that the new generation of leaders can learn more integrity than the old ones.

Almost a year ago, Liz Cheney told the Select Committee investigating January 6 that, “Tonight, I say this to my Republican colleagues who are defending the indefensible: There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone, but your dishonor will remain.” In this remarkable commencement address at Colorado College. Cheney was speaking to history. This was not only a speech for our times, and not just a speech about the danger that Trumpism still poses to the United States of America. It was a speech for the ages.

Liz Cheney's Courageous Speech Asking Republicans to Reject Trump's False Election Claims

______________________

Research Note: Speech scholars have various theories of ceremonial or epideictic speaking. A good ceremonial speech is never just empty show. A good ceremonial speaker appeals to basic values, reminds the audience about what is important, and aims for social cohesion. In his Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle said that epideictic speaking aims at the goal of honor. That is true enough, and Cheney honored truth. Belgian philosophers Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca expounded the idea that epideictic speeches promote social cohesion by stressing shared values.

Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca also introduced the postmodern idea that the audience exists in the speaker's mind. From that viewpoint, Cheney spoke to multiple audiences, not just to the students, but also to the audience of the future. She spoke for history. 

Of course, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free” is from the King James Bible, John 8:32.


Image: Lonnie Timmons III / Colorado College. Used by permission.