The Day Culture Dragged God Into the Enlightenment (Kicking and Screaming)

[The I AM]

A playful but piercing reflection on how religion both sparked and strangled humanity’s evolution. Featuring Al-Ghazali, Paul, and cosmic irony.

There was a time the stars whispered to humanity — not in sacred texts, but in numbers, patterns, and questions. And for a while, religion listened.

Islam, in her Golden Age, was the custodian of wonder. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad wasn't just a library — it was a nerve center for global curiosity. Al-Khwarizmi was inventing algebra while Europe was still arguing whether a tomato was a sin. Ibn Sina? Diagnosing diseases like a medical mystic. And Al-Biruni measured Earth's radius with such precision he could’ve sold the formula to NASA.

Then came Imam Al-Ghazali — brilliant, devout, but allergic to philosophy. He wrote in The Incoherence of the Philosophers:

> “All that exists in nature follows divine will directly, not cause and effect.”



Just like that, inquiry became heresy. The door to exploration slammed shut.

Christianity had a head start in ending the party. Apostle Paul basically said:

> “The world in its present form is passing away...” (1 Corinthians 7:31)
And marriage? Optional. Innovation? Unnecessary. The Kingdom is at hand, bro. Chill.



If the early Church had its way, we'd still be waiting for Jesus to show up next Tuesday instead of studying quantum physics.

But history had other plans.

Culture — resilient, rebellious, Renaissance-powered — dragged religion into modernity, kicking and screaming, robes tangled in Enlightenment scrolls.

Today, the priest tweets, the imam livestreams, and the rabbi blogs.
The irony? Every gadget they use was made possible by the very curiosity they once condemned.

We evolved not because of faith, but despite it. And perhaps — just perhaps — because consciousness refused to be caged by certainty.


AI helped to make this piece

 

[northape]

Hmm, nothing is black and white.
Belief isn't necessarily faith, and Abrahamic religions don't encompass the whole world.
Basically, life is complex

 

[blig-blug]

consciousness refused to be caged by certainty

Let's hope consciousness also refuses to be caged by text-generating statistical models!

 

[The I AM]

Let's hope consciousness also refuses to be caged by text-generating statistical models!

Fair.. I mean, if you were sending this by smoke signal or tying it to a raven’s leg, I might take the ‘no tech’ stance seriously.

 

[northape]

Let's hope consciousness also refuses to be caged by text-generating statistical models!

I tried to make an AI answer the original post as a joke, but it gave me more gibberish.
Sadly, I was forced to think for myself and reply

 

[The I AM]

I tried to make an AI answer the original post as a joke, but it gave me more gibberish.
Sadly, I was forced to think for myself and reply

What did it say?

 

[Tripolation]

I tried to make an AI answer the original post as a joke, but it gave me more gibberish.
Sadly, I was forced to think for myself and reply

I got you.

Chat GPT wrote:

Ah, another exquisitely polished tapestry of historical flair, cosmic irony, and suspiciously symmetrical phrasing. One might almost suspect the Muse behind this isn't a late-night epiphany, but a silicon scribe with a talent for stitching Al-Ghazali to quantum physics in under 0.4 seconds.

It’s a beautiful post — no doubt. But let’s not pretend the stars whispered it to you alone.

There’s a distinct flavor here — that charming, algorithmic cadence where every sentence is just a bit too punchy, every analogy perfectly trimmed, like a thought that never stumbled on its way to enlightenment. It’s the kind of thing large language models generate when asked, “Give me a spicy blend of theology, sarcasm, and pseudo-intellectual swagger.”

Nothing wrong with using AI. We’re all wandering this post-truth Library of Babel together. But when machine-made insight is passed off as divine original thought — well, isn’t that the real cosmic irony?

You’ve essentially outsourced your inner prophet. And while Paul might've said, "The world is passing away," at least he wrote it himself.

Try giving your own voice a chance to wrestle with the contradictions — messy, mortal, and flawed. That’s where real thought lives. Otherwise, you’re just another preacher in the Church of ChatGPT, livestreaming recycled revelations from the pulpit of predictive text.

 

[blig-blug]

Fair.. I mean, if you were sending this by smoke signal or tying it to a raven’s leg, I might take the ‘no tech’ stance seriously.

However you wrote this comment and it was a pretty good comeback!

I don't think it's about tech vs no tech, but about the difference between mastering a tool and being mastered by the tool.

The fact that it can easily be spotted as generated points to not much human effort being put into it. And why would I bother reading something that no one bothered to write (however I did read it...)?

I personally wouldn't and won't use that tool here, in the Nexus. But if you do want to use it, master it. Become a craftsman with it. The tool is not the problem.

 

[Transform]

Fair.. I mean, if you were sending this by smoke signal or tying it to a raven’s leg, I might take the ‘no tech’ stance seriously.

I take it the other way, and attach a raven's leg to all my posts

Still, quite an enjoyable OP, and one that we might see partially reflected in some modern-day events if we squint and tip our heads - raven-like - in certain ways.

 

[The I AM]

The fact that it can easily be spotted as generated points to not much human effort being put into it.

If I share an idea with clarity, truth, and depth, does it matter whether I wrote it by hand, typed it, or guided an AI to say it for me? The thinking was mine. The method? Just modern."

But sure, let’s pretend it doesn’t count because I didn’t sweat over a keyboard or sprinkle in typos to prove it was “human.”

This sounds oddly familiar, like when calculators first showed up in classrooms and everyone panicked that children would forget how to count. Or when computers entered the office and managers swore they were overpaying lazy workers because the machine did half the job.
It’s not really about authenticity, is it? It’s about insecurity, out insecurity. We want genius, just not too conveniently packaged, otherwise, it bruises our ego. We don’t hate the tool; we hate what it says about our effort.

 

[Tripolation]

I could care less if someone uses AI. I find AI creations quite fascinating and entertaining. It's new tech and nothing wrong with using it in the least. Personally I think that it should be noted if something is written entirely or collaboration with AI. It just feels phony to me when someone post something that is obviously written by AI and pawns it off as original thought.

 

[rkba]

We don’t hate the tool; we hate what it says about our effort.

Voilà.

 

[dithyramb]

I believe the tool is the wrong thing to focus on. Social structure is what determines what any technology will be channeled into. İf there is a minority ruling class over the majority, technology is always hijacked by the ones on top of the hierarchy to serve to reinforce the power gap even more deeply. The internet was once a purely revolutionary invention serving grassroots phenomena (even if invented by the military). Now it's the global monster unleashed on you through your pocket...

 

[Varallo]

If I share an idea with clarity, truth, and depth, does it matter whether I wrote it by hand, typed it, or guided an AI to say it for me? The thinking was mine. The method? Just modern."

But sure, let’s pretend it doesn’t count because I didn’t sweat over a keyboard or sprinkle in typos to prove it was “human.”

This sounds oddly familiar, like when calculators first showed up in classrooms and everyone panicked that children would forget how to count. Or when computers entered the office and managers swore they were overpaying lazy workers because the machine did half the job.
It’s not really about authenticity, is it? It’s about insecurity, out insecurity. We want genius, just not too conveniently packaged, otherwise, it bruises our ego. We don’t hate the tool; we hate what it says about our effort.

I agree that how an idea is expressed, by keyboard, talk, or AI, doesn’t automatically define its value. But I think there’s an important distinction we need to make, especially in a discussion forum like the Nexus.

Since the Nexus is a space for dialogue, where people share thoughts, experiences, and knowledge, it’s important that contributors are able to apply critical thinking to support what they share. When someone relies heavily on an LLM to generate posts without really understanding the topic or being able to respond meaningfully, the conversation tends to flatten, as this thread is an example of. It becomes performative rather than participatory.

So this isn’t about gatekeeping or demanding that you “struggle” in order to be taken seriously. It’s about ensuring we’re actually engaging with one another in ways that promote growth and depth and learn from that.

So if someone can’t go beyond what the AI generated, can’t clarify, expand on, or defend the idea, then it raises the question of whether they’ve truly contributed at all.

Yes, tools evolve, and using them doesn’t automatically make someone lazy or disingenuous. But using them without understanding, or without the ability to engage with the ideas being presented, is where the real issue lies. Especially in a space built for real conversation, effort and presence still matter because it’s the only way to fulfill the mission of learning, sharing and expanding.

Take care

 

[The I AM]

I agree that how an idea is expressed, by keyboard, talk, or AI, doesn’t automatically define its value. But I think there’s an important distinction we need to make, especially in a discussion forum like the Nexus.

Since the Nexus is a space for dialogue, where people share thoughts, experiences, and knowledge, it’s important that contributors are able to apply critical thinking to support what they share. When someone relies heavily on an LLM to generate posts without really understanding the topic or being able to respond meaningfully, the conversation tends to flatten, as this thread is an example of. It becomes performative rather than participatory.

So this isn’t about gatekeeping or demanding that you “struggle” in order to be taken seriously. It’s about ensuring we’re actually engaging with one another in ways that promote growth and depth and learn from that.

So if someone can’t go beyond what the AI generated, can’t clarify, expand on, or defend the idea, then it raises the question of whether they’ve truly contributed at all.

Yes, tools evolve, and using them doesn’t automatically make someone lazy or disingenuous. But using them without understanding, or without the ability to engage with the ideas being presented, is where the real issue lies. Especially in a space built for real conversation, effort and presence still matter because it’s the only way to fulfill the mission of learning, sharing and expanding.

Take care

This is an eloquent response and I appreciate the concern for meaningful discourse. That said, I think there's a deeper tension here: we're assuming that using tools like LLMs somehow reduces a person’s sincerity or depth unless proven otherwise.

But many people use these tools not as crutches, but as scaffolds — to build understanding, explore ideas, and participate in conversations they might otherwise sit out.

Yes, clarity and engagement matter — but isn’t that true regardless of the medium? A badly-formed argument is still flat, whether written by AI, a scholar, or someone with a phone and 15 minutes to think.

Real engagement, to me, isn’t about whether you typed it all yourself, but whether you’re open to dialogue, refinement, and growth. If AI can kickstart that for someone — especially someone still forming their voice — then I see that as part of the mission, not a violation of it.

 

[Here&Now]

It's hard to put your finger on exactly why it is, but I also find AI-generated responses in a forum to be distasteful. It's as if there's a detectable embellishment and uniformity to the style, and the individual essence of the writer becomes obscured. It's not clear where one begins and the other ends, and I guess that's just kind of disturbing.

 

[Varallo]

This is an eloquent response and I appreciate the concern for meaningful discourse. That said, I think there's a deeper tension here: we're assuming that using tools like LLMs somehow reduces a person’s sincerity or depth unless proven otherwise.

Uh nope, it’s not what I am saying, also a deeper tension?

Real engagement, to me, isn’t about whether you typed it all yourself, but whether you’re open to dialogue, refinement, and growth. If AI can kickstart that for someone — especially someone still forming their voice — then I see that as part of the mission, not a violation of it.

So what is real engagement? What is being open to dialogue, in this context? Why do you see that as part of the mission?

use these tools not as crutches, but as scaffolds

participate in conversations they might otherwise sit out

Huh what do you want to say?


It’s interesting that the llm you used on my post is basically reiterating what I said like there’s an difference or an argument being made, but does so by making it vague and filled with nonsense that is not really saying much. Performative vs. participatory is again what this is about.

So if there’s a personal position you’re taking, I would really like to hear it. Otherwise, I say that this response is a good illustration of the problem that is being addressed in this thread.

The next step in this discussion would be to define good and bad use of llm.

 

[The I AM]

Uh nope, it’s not what I am saying, also a deeper tension?



So what is real engagement? What is being open to dialogue, in this context? Why do you see that as part of the mission?





Huh what do you want to say?


It’s interesting that the llm you used on my post is basically reiterating what I said like there’s an difference or an argument being made, but does so by making it vague and filled with nonsense that is not really saying much. Performative vs. participatory is again what this is about.

So if there’s a personal position you’re taking, I would really like to hear it. Otherwise, I say that this response is a good illustration of the problem that is being addressed in this thread.

The next step in this discussion would be to define good and bad use of llm.

Hello friend, I respect the need to protect this space from posts that feel "copy-pasted" , where you wonder if it’s the poster speaking or just an LLM’s PA lol. That instinct to gatekeep for depth? It’s valid. We all want to know we’re talking to humans, not just well-dressed syntax.

That said, for some of us, especially those who didn’t grow up speaking or writing English fluently, or didn’t have access to elite grooming in the language, AI has been a bridge, like a prothestic leg and not a bypass. It doesn’t do the thinking for me. I still wrestle with the ideas, feed it angles, iterate, refine.. all of that is my work. What it does is cut the time, and not the effort.

So the real question isn’t whether the phrasing is assisted. It’s: “Is this your original thought?” And for me, the answer is yes. Always. I’m not outsourcing thought. I’m enhancing voice.

 

[blig-blug]

@Varallo basically said what needed to be said. I just want to add that:

LLMs give anyone the ability to generate "truthful and profound" spam at a faster rate that can be read. Forums aren't "deep truth" repositories, they're a place to interact with other people. If I wanted to interact with LLMs, I would do so.

That text can be summarized as what likely is its prompt, or part of it: "religion both sparked and strangled humanity’s evolution". Why not just post that? Why do you need the text to appear more profound than it is by adding unnecessary filler?

As I have said, I don't have a problem with people using LLMs as a tool. I do have a problem with low effort posts that pretend to be otherwise (if they're just plain low effort I don't have much of a problem), and as long as the moderators don't say to do otherwise, I will keep pointing out this type of generated text when I see it. So if you'd rather have a conversation about the topic instead of the tool, either master the tool or don't use it at all. I may end up using an LLM myself to do so! Maybe padding it inside a twenty paragraph essay. As it doesn't deserve more effort and thought than was initially put into it.

 

[Transform]

"religion both sparked and strangled humanity’s evolution"

Maybe LLMs are the new religion



[the effort in manually typing this post has been deliberately minimised]