Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I do not have any further suggestions to improve this article.

It would be helpful if the article underwent a language review.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

It would be helpful if the article underwent a language review

I have now thoroughly language-checked me article. Thank you for the comment.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good paper.  It addresses a very relevant topic and makes a contribution to the field.  However, the following recommendations should be carefully considered and implemented before it goes to press:

1) Lonergan's critical realism must be put in the context of the critique of knowledge and other forms of critical realism for readers unfamiliar with his epistemology and metaphysics.  See chapter 2 of the book "Theology and Science in the Thought of Ian Barbour" by J. Laracy for a survey of the history and forms of critical realism.

2) The discussion on AI bots offering Confession ignores the fundamentals of Catholic sacramental theology.  All Catholic theologians would agree that such a simulation of the Sacrament would be not only illicit, but also invalid.  This must be clearly stated.

3) Modern AI research goes back to the 1950s with the first-order cybernetics movement. The paper must engage the cybernetics literature.  A good place to start would be T. Marlowe et al., “Philosophy and Cybernetics: Questions and Issues,” Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics 19, no. 4 (2021): 1-23.

4) In your discussion of the Common Good, there should be greater engagement with Catholic Social Teaching (CST).  See J. Anderson et al., “A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis of Catholic Social Teaching with Implications for Engineering and Technology” in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics 18, no. 6 (2020): 41-49.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

This is a good paper. It addresses a very relevant topic and makes a contribution to the field. However, the following recommendations should be carefully considered and implemented before it goes to press:

• Lonergan's critical realism must be put in the context of the critique of knowledge and other forms of critical realism for readers unfamiliar with his epistemology and metaphysics. See chapter 2 of the book "Theology and Science in the Thought of Ian Barbour" by J. Laracy for a survey of the history and forms of critical realism.

Thank you for your constructive feedback on my manuscript. Your suggestion to provide context for readers unfamiliar with Bernard Lonergan's epistemology and metaphysics was invaluable. In response to your recommendation, I have enriched the manuscript by situating Lonergan's critical realism within the broader critique of knowledge and other forms of critical realism. Specifically, I have incorporated a new section that precedes the detailed discussion of Lonergan's philosophy. This section highlights the philosophical underpinnings of critical realism and draws parallels to Ian Barbour's work in the field, as outlined in "Theology and Science in the Thought of Ian Barbour" by J. Laracy. This addition aims to guide readers through the historical and philosophical landscape of critical realism, facilitating a better understanding of Lonergan's approach as it applies to AI and religion. I believe this enhancement addresses your concerns and provides the necessary context for readers to fully grasp the theoretical framework of the paper.

• The discussion on AI bots offering Confession ignores the fundamentals of Catholic sacramental theology. All Catholic theologians would agree that such a simulation of the Sacrament would be not only illicit, but also invalid.  This must be clearly stated.

I appreciate your attention to the theological precision and the importance of adhering to the doctrines of Catholic sacramental theology. In response to your comment, I have revised the section discussing the potential use of AI in Catholic confessionals. I have included a clear statement that, according to the fundamental principles of Catholic sacramental theology, the simulation of the Sacrament of Confession through AI is both illicit and invalid. The revision explicitly acknowledges the necessity of the ordained priest's physical presence and spiritual authority for the validity and licitness of the sacraments, in line with the Church's teachings. This amendment ensures that the manuscript accurately reflects the theological stance of the Catholic Church and avoids any misrepresentation of the sacrament's nature. I trust that this change addresses your concern and reinforces the paper's scholarly integrity.

• Modern AI research goes back to the 1950s with the first-order cybernetics movement. The paper must engage the cybernetics literature. A good place to start would be T. Marlowe et al., “Philosophy and Cybernetics: Questions and Issues,” Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics 19, no. 4 (2021): 1-23.

Thank you for your insightful comment regarding the inclusion of cybernetics literature to contextualize modern AI research within my manuscript. Your suggestion to reference the historical foundations of AI is well-taken and has prompted a thoughtful reconsideration of the paper's scope.

Upon reflection, and after reviewing the suggested work by T. Marlowe et al., "Philosophy and Cybernetics: Questions and Issues," I have concluded that while the historical context of AI development is undoubtedly important, the focus of this paper is specifically on the application of Bernard Lonergan's critical realism to AI in contemporary religious practices. The paper aims to explore the philosophical implications of integrating AI within religious contexts, rather than providing a comprehensive history of AI or a detailed analysis of cybernetic theory.

While the cybernetics movement of the 1950s laid important groundwork for what would become AI, the specific thrust of this paper begins with the advent of more advanced AI technologies and their direct impact on religious practices and theological considerations. This is not to overlook the significance of cybernetics but rather to maintain a focused inquiry into the nuanced interplay between current AI applications and religious philosophy as framed by Lonergan's work.

That said, I do acknowledge the value of grounding the discussion in a broader historical perspective. To honor the spirit of your suggestion, I will ensure that the introduction briefly acknowledges the evolution of AI from its roots in cybernetics to the present day, thus providing readers with a cursory overview of its developmental trajectory. This acknowledgment will situate the contemporary discussion within the larger historical framework without diverting the paper’s core focus.

• In your discussion of the Common Good, there should be greater engagement with Catholic Social Teaching (CST).  See J. Anderson et al., “A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis of Catholic Social Teaching with Implications for Engineering and Technology” in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics 18, no. 6 (2020): 41-49.

Thank you for your constructive feedback on incorporating Catholic Social Teaching (CST) into the discussion of the Common Good within my manuscript.

In response to your valuable input, I have augmented the section on the Common Good (Section 6.2) to include a thoughtful engagement with CST. I drew upon the insights from J. Anderson et al. in "A Multi-Disciplinary Analysis of Catholic Social Teaching with Implications for Engineering and Technology" (2020), integrating the key tenets of CST that resonate with Bernard Lonergan's conception of the common good.

This revision emphasizes the alignment of AI deployment in religious practices with the CST principles of upholding human dignity, fostering community flourishing, and promoting justice and peace. By doing so, I believe the manuscript now offers a more robust ethical framework that ensures technological advancements in religious settings are evaluated through the lens of CST, thus addressing the integral development and well-being of all individuals within the community.

I appreciate the opportunity to deepen the manuscript's engagement with CST and trust that this addition will strengthen the paper's contribution to the field.

Reviewer 3 Report

PEER REVIEWER’S COMMENTS

The Intersection of Bernard Lonergan's Critical Realism, the Common Good, and AI in Modern Religious Practices

1.     The paper addresses the influence of Artificial intelligence (AI) in the societal structures and religious traditions. The author was analysing how artificial intelligence and religious traditions share some commonalities using Bernard Lonergan's critical realism lens. The paper navigates on the negotiation between religious values and technological innovation, assessing how AI can bolster religious life while maintaining its core essence. AI's role in shaping religious symbols, values, and practices in Christianity, Islam and Hinduism sacred scriptures were analysed independently with the aim of justifying how artificial negligence threats the whole religious spectrum.

2.     The author ventured into fairly new territory in the field of research. The research of artificial intelligence had not received scholarly attention especially to analyse its intersection with religion. For example, the role of AI in constructing new sacred spaces and relationships with the religions of the books brings a unique scope of the study.

3.     The Bernard Lonergan’s critical realism lens used in the paper was well presented more importantly on how the lens is used to understand how human engage and interpret the world around them. Lonergan's critical realism was used to accentuates the notion that human understanding of reality is not direct but rather is mediated through a series of cognitive processes. The paper demonstrated that the understanding of the cognitive process is not a static or passive, but it is a dynamic, evolving process where humans are not spectators but rather active participants, constantly constructing and reconstructing their understanding of the world based on new experiences and insights.

4.     The arguments of the paper are in consistent with the arguments presented. The author

was able to demonstrates that the impact of AI in religious tradition continues to give religion relevance even in the world of technology. It also presents a rich tradition which justifies the Muslims ’pilgrimage to Mecca or the nuanced interpretation of ancient texts like the Bible and the Bhagavad Gita.

5.     The author demonstrated high level of understanding the filed. His/ her ability to intersect AI with three different religions makes the paper unique.

6.     This study is a new ground in academia as most of the sources cited are between 2020 and 2023.

7.     Overally, the paper is recommended for publications with a very minor correction of naming AI in full in the topic.

Author Response

I am deeply grateful for your encouraging and insightful feedback on my manuscript.

Your appreciation of the paper's exploration into the uncharted territory of AI's intersection with religious traditions is particularly heartening. I am glad that the paper's use of Bernard Lonergan's critical realism to analyze the dynamic interplay between religious values and technological innovation has resonated well with you and the core arguments have been found consistent and meaningful.

Your recognition of the unique scope of this study, particularly in examining AI's role in shaping religious symbols and practices across Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, is very encouraging. It is gratifying to know that the effort to illuminate the nuances of this emerging field of study has been successful and contributes to its academic relevance.

I acknowledge your suggestion to name AI in full in the topic for clarity, and I will ensure this minor correction is made. It is indeed essential that the manuscript's title accurately reflects its content and is easily understood by a broad readership.

Once again, I thank you for your thoughtful review and recommendations, which have undoubtedly enhanced the quality of this work. I am enthusiastic about the potential impact of this research and its contribution to the ongoing discourse at the intersection of technology and religion.