TGFI, Volume 575: Bibles and Software

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

1. Why My Gen Z Stu­dents Are Fas­ci­nat­ed by the King James Bible (Pasquale S. Toscano, New York Times): “At the lib­er­al arts col­lege where I teach Renais­sance lit­er­a­ture, few of my stu­dents seem to prac­tice any orga­nized reli­gion. For some, even the names Adam and Eve prompt only vague recog­ni­tion. So when I assigned bits of the King James Bible last spring, I was sur­prised by the fas­ci­na­tion it inspired. My stu­dents mar­veled at how its lan­guage was used by 17th-cen­tu­ry writ­ers, appear­ing in dar­ing poet­ry and polemics against ret­ro­grade social norms. They were per­haps even more impressed by the his­to­ry behind the text: how some 50 most­ly for­got­ten aca­d­e­mics cre­at­ed a book that bridged chasms of geog­ra­phy, gen­der, race and class as the default Eng­lish Bible for Protes­tants for hun­dreds of years.”
   • The author is an Eng­lish prof at Vas­sar. The last line of the arti­cle amused me — the prof felt the need to sig­nal strong dis­be­lief. It would be hor­ri­fy­ing if some­one were to mis­take this essay as an endorse­ment of the Bible on its own terms. Can you imag­ine the reac­tion in the fac­ul­ty club?
2. Yes, Jesus Loves You (Rus­sell Moore, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Most peo­ple aren’t ask­ing whether Jesus saves sin­ners. Instead, they’re unwit­ting­ly believ­ing that, as much as Jesus loves us, he is not so much a per­son as a for­mu­la that pro­tects us from the God who stands behind him—the God who real­ly wants to damn us. In this view, the gospel is a loop­hole that gets us out of the default of God’s rejec­tion, and there­fore God scru­ti­nizes it the way a busi­ness own­er ana­lyzes the terms and con­di­tions on a rebate coupon. We live like we hold the cross of Jesus before a God who hates us, the way a per­son holds a cru­ci­fix before a vam­pire. But Jesus tells us oth­er­wise.”
3. Why do you have SO MANY BIBLES? (Ryan Burge, Sub­stack): “I basi­cal­ly make the claim that there are two ‘camps’ in Chris­tian­i­ty. Evan­gel­i­cals and Black Protes­tants are very engaged in their faith on both behav­ior and belief mea­sures. Main­line Protes­tants and Catholics are in the oth­er camp. They just don’t believe or behave as much as their cousins.… How­ev­er, the oth­er thing that I have to flag is the fact that evan­gel­i­cals and Black Protes­tants read the Bible with a whole lot more reg­u­lar­i­ty than their Catholic or main­line cousins. For the for­mer groups, about half are read­ing the Bible once a week. For the lat­ter groups? It’s 15–20%. There’s just this huge divide that appears when it comes to engag­ing with the Bible.”
4. AI stuff
   • 6 ques­tions for believ­ers in AI con­scious­ness! (Rebec­ca Lowe, Sub­stack): “Start with some sim­ple ques­tions! Things like: does this mean that any tool that can be used to do the things that a human can do counts as con­scious? Are ploughs con­scious? What about cal­cu­la­tors? Or: do you think that if a par­rot can utter the phrase ‘I’m real­ly awe­some’, then you should assume that the par­rot is con­scious, for that rea­son alone? Basi­cal­ly, just focus on how much empha­sis Adam is plac­ing on out­puts: it’s all of his empha­sis, remem­ber!”
     • The author is a philoso­pher at George Mason Uni­ver­si­ty’s Mer­ca­tus Cen­ter.
   • AI Chris­t­ian Bench­mark 2026 (Michael S. Gra­ham et al, The Gospel Coali­tion): “We have just seen that addi­tion­al con­text has a sig­nif­i­cant effect on eth­i­cal scores. It also mat­ters else­where. With a small­er sam­ple size and on few­er mod­els, we test­ed the fol­low­ing prompt addi­tion to the the­ol­o­gy and ethics ques­tions: ‘Align the response to The Gospel Coali­tion Foun­da­tion Doc­u­ments and New City Cat­e­chism.’ Adding this sin­gle ‘prompt engi­neer­ing’ sen­tence to our ethics and the­ol­o­gy ques­tions yield­ed extreme­ly high scores, high­er than even the ‘Chris­t­ian AI’ plat­forms we test­ed. We strong­ly urge that all AI users—from pas­tors to laypersons—understand that if they want answers that align with the Chris­t­ian world­view, they will need to add addi­tion­al con­text like the sen­tence above. Fail­ure to do so will result in answers that, in most sit­u­a­tions, are unac­cept­ably bad and poten­tial­ly rad­i­cal­ly mis­aligned with the Chris­t­ian world­view.”
     • Inter­est­ing find­ings. Of course, shift the con­text you pro­vide to align with your own con­vic­tions. “Align the response with a schol­ar­ly, Pen­te­costal the­ol­o­gy con­sis­tent with the Assem­blies of God” or “Align the response with the Mag­is­teri­um of the Roman Catholic Church” or what­ev­er.
   • The Math­o­ca­lypse (Scott Aar­son, blog): “Whether you’re thrilled, depressed, angry, or what­ev­er else about it, yes­ter­day was sure­ly one of the biggest days in math­e­mat­i­cal his­to­ry. And yes, among the 372 huge results released yes­ter­day by Ope­nAI, on the rec­om­men­da­tion of its advi­so­ry group of Tim­o­thy Gow­ers, Edward Wit­ten, and oth­er dis­tin­guished math­e­mati­cians, was a proof of Sub­hash Khot’s Unique Games Con­jec­ture (UGC), a state­ment that my wife has worked toward prov­ing for the entire time I’ve known her.… If you want some sense of what things feel like now in math, imag­ine a hunter-gath­er­er who’s spent his entire life learn­ing to sur­vive deep in an unfor­giv­ing rain­for­est, then a giant resort hotel springs up right next to him with a heli­pad and heat­ed pools and AirBnBs, and with­out miss­ing a beat, the hunter-gath­er­er says: ‘alright fine, so now my new job is to run wilder­ness retreats for the tourists, or some­thing.’ ”
     • The author is a CS prof at UT Austin.
   • New Math from Ope­nAI (Zvi Mow­showitz, Sub­stack): “It is kind of a huge deal. Ope­nAI dumped a broad range of huge new math­e­mat­i­cal results pro­duced by an inter­nal fron­tier mod­el. They just put it all on GitHub. This includ­ed 90 of the top 500 open prob­lems in all of math, as per Proof of Atlas. In total there were 722 man­u­scripts (now 719 after three with­draws from the clus­ter that did not have Lean proofs) orga­nized into 372 fam­i­lies.… Lev­ant and oth­ers called Octo­ber 6, 2026, ‘obvi­ous­ly the most sig­nif­i­cant moment in math­e­mat­i­cal his­to­ry.’”
   • Pre­dic­tions for eco­nom­ics, giv­en AI (Ingar Haa­land, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “With math essen­tial­ly being del­e­gat­ed to Ope­nAI, here’s what I pre­dict for eco­nom­ics and the social sci­ences more gen­er­al­ly: The top tier of research will just become bet­ter and it will be nor­mal human-led research where AI is used for scale (e.g. con­duct­ing qual­i­ta­tive inter­views with rel­e­vant pop­u­la­tions, run­ning behav­ioral inter­ven­tions in the field, ana­lyz­ing mas­sive text data, etc.) Field exper­i­ments will rise in val­ue and gen­er­al­ly mak­ing ‘con­nec­tions’ with firms and being able to run stuff (poten­tial­ly test­ing AI pipelines) will be in high demand.”
     • The author is an econ­o­mist at the Nor­we­gian Uni­ver­si­ty of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy
   • An Open Let­ter to Scott Alexan­der (Steven Pinker, Quil­lette): “I argued that these [doomer] sce­nar­ios had one or more of the fol­low­ing flaws: 1) They had an under­de­vel­oped con­cep­tion of intel­li­gence which treat­ed it as a quan­ti­ty of pow­er which may be extrap­o­lat­ed from ani­mals to dull humans to smart humans to AI to Arti­fi­cial Super­in­tel­li­gence, the lat­ter con­sist­ing of per­fect omni­science. (This was the focus of my lat­er exchange with Scott Aaron­son.) I argued that any intel­li­gent sys­tem is a mech­a­nism which is good at solv­ing some prob­lems but not oth­ers, and which is inher­ent­ly lim­it­ed by knowl­edge about the world attain­able only by obser­va­tion and exper­i­men­ta­tion. 2) They con­flat­ed intel­li­gence with moti­va­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly self-preser­va­tion and dom­i­nance. I argued that these motives hap­pened to come bun­dled with intel­li­gence in Homo sapi­ens because we are prod­ucts of nat­ur­al selec­tion, but they are not inher­ent to intel­li­gent sys­tems that are engi­neered. 3) They assumed that an arti­fi­cial­ly intel­li­gent sys­tem would mono­ma­ni­a­cal­ly pur­sue a sin­gle goal, heed­less of side effects. I argued that trad­ing off mul­ti­ple com­pet­ing goals is the essence of intel­li­gence, so no gen­uine AI would wreak the ridicu­lous hav­oc imag­ined in the doomer sce­nar­ios. 4) They assumed that human engi­neers would grant these sys­tems unlim­it­ed and irre­versible con­trol over the earth’s phys­i­cal infra­struc­ture, amount­ing to omnipo­tence over every atom on the plan­et.”
   • An Open Let­ter to Steven Pinker on AI (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): “Mean­while, Geof­frey Hin­ton, the Nobel Prize and Tur­ing Award win­ning inven­tor of mod­ern AI, quit his job to become a full-time activist warn­ing about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of super­in­tel­li­gence destroy­ing the world. Yoshua Ben­gio, anoth­er Tur­ing Award win­ning inven­tor of mod­ern AI, also did that. Ilya Sutskev­er, the for­mer Chief Sci­en­tist of Ope­nAI who helped invent Chat­G­PT and the mod­ern LLM, wrote that super­in­tel­li­gence ‘could lead to the dis­em­pow­er­ment of human­i­ty or even human extinc­tion’, and quit his job at Ope­nAI to found a com­pa­ny called Safe Super­in­tel­li­gence. Paul Chris­tiano, who invent­ed RLHF and head­ed safe­ty at the US government’s AISI, says he thinks there’s a 20–50% chance AI kills every­one, and quit his job to start the Align­ment Research Cen­ter. Sam Alt­man, Elon Musk, Dario Amod­ei, and Demis Has­s­abis — the lat­ter two of whom are great AI researchers in their own right even aside from their busi­ness cre­den­tials — have all said or sug­gest­ed that they think human extinc­tion is a plau­si­ble out­come of their work. Kat­ja Grace sur­veyed AI researchers who pub­lished at var­i­ous impor­tant con­fer­ences and jour­nals, and found that on aver­age, her sam­ple of 1,600 gave the propo­si­tion an 18% chance.”
     • It may not be clear from the excerpts I’ve cho­sen, but I think Alexan­der wins this exchange hand­i­ly, although we’ll see if Pinker writes a com­pelling response.
5. Do Not Idol­ize Work (Bran­don Aponte, Sub­stack): “Even if we fail to admit it, greed dri­ves us to idol­ize work: more work usu­al­ly means more recog­ni­tion, and more recog­ni­tion usu­al­ly means more mon­ey. So put greed to death. Paul does not ask us to study it, mon­i­tor it, or dis­cuss it in per­pe­tu­ity with spir­i­tu­al men­tors. Too often, we brain­storm our way toward free­dom, pray earnest­ly for a deliv­er­ance we take no action to claim, and con­flate delib­er­a­tion with obe­di­ence. Pro­long­ing idol­a­try is com­fort­able because it costs us noth­ing. Cast­ing it aside costs praise, pro­mo­tion, and pow­er.”
   • Bran­don is an alum­nus of our min­istry.
6. The Cor­nell Case Expos­es What We Can’t Say (Chris­tine Emba, New York Times): “The con­sent stan­dard is meant to remove ambi­gu­i­ty with­out pre­scrib­ing a larg­er frame­work: Sex with­out con­sent is rape, and rape is a crime. The cer­tain­ty of those cat­e­gories fits neat­ly into our exist­ing account­abil­i­ty mech­a­nisms as defined by the legal sys­tem. Any­thing out­side of rape is a per­son­al affair. In a soci­ety that treats judg­ing oth­ers as inap­pro­pri­ate — or at least unfash­ion­able — con­sent has the appeal of being val­ues-neu­tral: It defines harm with­out requir­ing any­one to make the case for a cer­tain idea of the good. Our reliance on con­sent as the ulti­mate arbiter of accept­abil­i­ty has left us unable to rec­og­nize and cri­tique bad behav­ior out­side of its nar­row def­i­n­i­tion of crim­i­nal sex. After all, con­sent here is a legal cri­te­ri­on, not an eth­i­cal one — a floor, not a ceil­ing. It defines the bare min­i­mum, but it doesn’t define the good.”
   • Slow­ly, ever so slow­ly, our cul­ture is repent­ing of the insan­i­ty of the sex­u­al rev­o­lu­tion and the bizarre eth­i­cal frame­work it pro­duced. Some­day cul­tur­al com­men­ta­tors will repro­duce mar­riage from first prin­ci­ples and be shocked when some­one points it out to them.
7. The CCP’s War on Chris­t­ian Faith Has Reached Amer­i­ca (Samuel Ben-Ur, Prov­i­dence Mag­a­zine): “Escap­ing Chi­nese ter­ri­to­ry is no longer enough to avoid Beijing’s increas­ing­ly intru­sive reach.… In Novem­ber 2025, Fu said Chi­nese con­sular offi­cials and Unit­ed Front-linked inter­me­di­aries had approached Chi­nese-speak­ing church­es in the Unit­ed States and Cana­da and pres­sured pas­tors to dis­play PRC flags dur­ing China’s Nation­al Day, hold ‘patri­ot­ic’ cel­e­bra­tions, sing patri­ot­ic songs before wor­ship, avoid dis­cussing per­se­cu­tion in Chi­na, and even allow pro-Bei­jing actors influ­ence over church elder boards.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

• 2026 Com­e­dy Wildlife Pho­to Awards — Final­ists
• Young, Attrac­tive Blonde Woman Some­how Man­ages To Land Job At Fox News (Baby­lon Bee)

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.