This morning I had ChatGPT write me an essay on artificial intelligence in the classroom. I asked it 1) to define AI, 2) to talk about some of the ethical issues with AI, 3) whether students use it to cheat, 4) some positive classroom uses, and 5) to provide a sample activity. It did a good job. Nothing too mind blowing, but a good job nonetheless. I then asked if someone on here would run it through plagiarism detection software to see just how bad it was. @AJP_PhD stepped up. The results shocked us both.

So today has been interesting. Now that the other tweet (linked below) has cooled a bit, here's some nuance for those who are interested.

Let's start with the "the Bible is clear" ideology that the tweet aimed to critique. I consider this ideology nonsensical for a few reasons. First, as a seminary prof of mine was fond of saying: "The Bible is not a book. It's a library. And it makes no sense to walk into a library, ask what the library says about X, and then expect to receive a single response."

People: “tHe BibLe is cLeaR!”
Me: “Cool. Let’s read Matthew.” I’ve seen a few “what’s your point?” tweets. The point is that people who argue for the “clarity” of the Bible are often working from English translations of a critical edition, both of which serve to make the text a lot “tidier” than it actually is.

I get why people are wanting to point out that "the Bible" has lots to say about predatory lending practices and the need to forgive debts. Trust me, I get it. A few things to keep in mind, though: The impulse to point this out seems to be coming from the desire to show that Christians who are opposed to the forgiveness of student debts are cherry picking in terms of what texts they're paying attention to and what texts they're choosing to ignore.

Bible Twitter is abuzz lately about a new "translation" of the New Testament. Its creators call it "The Pure Word." This is a snippet from their website about what readers can expect. Here are a few thoughts. I'll start with a positive. As the John 3:16 example makes clear, these "translators" are not interested in seeking a "word for word" correspondence between English and Greek. And that's a good thing. "Word for word" translations treat texts as messages to be decoded. And that's not how language works.

I've decided to start a podcast on open heart surgery. My PhD is in early Christianity, but I should be fine because I have a heart and am also really interested in the topic. And you should know that on my podcast I will be critiquing research on open heart surgery and offering alternatives. If any cardiovascular surgeons say I’m not qualified, they’re just appealing to authority.

Seven of my ten years of graduate training in religious studies were at @MarquetteU. And the Jesuit approach to theology and scholarship in the @MarquetteTheo department shaped how I think about academic discourse. 1/? @MarquetteU @MarquetteTheo One of the ground rules for Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises is the presupposition of charity. In short: when approaching discussion, assume that your interlocutor seeks true understanding, and assume that they come to the table with good intentions. 2/?