Belmont Abbey College

The Catholic College of the South

Faculty

By Leave a Comment

What Does the Church Teach About AI?

By: Alessandro Rovati
August 27, 2026
Catholic Moral Theology

What Does the Church Teach About AI?

A Primer for Teachers, Students, and All People of Good Will

Where Does the Catholic Church Teach About AI?

At this point, there are four major documents that people can consult to find out what the Church teaches about AI:

  • Magnifica Humanitas, the encyclical that Pope Leo XIV released last May and that represents the most articulate and authoritative teaching on the topic.
  • Antiqua et Nova, a note published by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith and the Dicastery for Culture and Education in January 2025 on the relationship between artificial intelligence and human intelligence.
  • Quo Vadis Humanitas?, a document of the International Theological Commission published in February 2026 that contains an extensive reflection on what theological anthropology has to say to the challenges of our technological age.
  • Message for the 60th World Day of Social Communications, a succinct but comprehensive address in which Pope Leo previewed many of the encyclical’s contents.

As a bonus, one can also learn from the open access books published by the AI Research Group put together by the Dicastery for Culture and Education’s Centre for Digital Culture, a group of scholars who wrote on Catholic social teaching, AI ethics, and human agency (a third volume on education is forthcoming later this year).

What Do We Mean When We Say “AI?”

This is a very important, albeit often overlooked, question. Talk of “artificial intelligence” is as ubiquitous in today’s discourse as it is ambiguous. Alexa Steinbrück puts it succinctly: AI “does not refer to a single technology—it is an umbrella term” that is not new. It can name an entire field of knowledge and computer science research that stretches back to the 1950s devoted to creating machines that would exhibit abilities that we typically associate with human intelligence. In this broader sense, artificial intelligence encompasses all sorts of software and applications that predate the more recent advent of ChatGPT and its competitors and that are fully integrated and necessary to our contemporary technological society. Artificial intelligence can also be a way to refer to machine learning, that is, the creation of models that use algorithms “to make predictions or decisions based on data.” Even in this case, to use artificial intelligence to refer to machine learning is a way to refer to all sorts of models, software, and applications, some of them quite dated.

Recent advances in computational power and breakthroughs in algorithmic techniques have made machine learning more advanced and powerful than ever before, giving rise to what experts in the field call “deep learning,” a type of machine learning that allows models to identify complex patterns and relationships in large amounts of data without constant and direct human intervention. It is from this kind of machine learning that generative AI comes. IBM defines generative AI’s distinctive mark as the ability to create “complex original content such as long-form text, high-quality images, realistic video or audio and more in response to a user’s prompt or request.” It does so by drawing on extensive amounts of data that constitute its training and producing original content that draws on the patterns and relationships the machine detected in the data used in its training. Steinbrück describes large language models (LLMs) as a form of generative AI that have learned “how human language works by analysing vast amounts of text” and can thus produce highly sophisticated outputs based on them via a process called tokenization. These LLMs are what power the chatbots we have come to know (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and the like), and they are what most people refer to when they think of artificial intelligence.

LLMs and generative AI are certainly what the Church’s documents listed above have in mind when wrestling with the opportunities and challenges posed by artificial intelligence. Yet, the technology has not stopped there. What Ethan Mollick helpfully describes as “conversation-first” AIs that depend on users constantly interacting with them by asking questions have now been surpassed by so-called “AI agents,” goal-directed AI systems that, as IBM explains, “can perform tasks and accomplish goals on behalf of a user or another system without human intervention, by designing [their] own workflow and using available tools (other applications or services).” Steinbrück explains that AI agents are “equipped with a kind of ‘executive’ capability, meaning they can not only generate text but also access operating system functions or control entire user accounts.” The user gives them goals, rather than step-by-step instructions, and the AI agents use tools, memory, and external systems to respond to the user’s query. This is the new AI frontier, one that is so recent that, despite being published just three months ago, Magnifica Humanitas does not address directly, although it offers principles for discernment and action that can be easily extended to this latest form of AI technology. The complexity and constant evolution of the multiple technologies that fit under the umbrella term artificial intelligence is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church calls for principled and careful discernment and does not simply arrive at definitive conclusions in favor or against AI – the notable exception being its non-negotiable opposition against fully autonomous weapons systems (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 200).

What Does the Church Teach About AI?

The Church is not against technology. Advancements in science and technology are the fruits of “the potential inscribed within human intelligence,” which God gave us as a gift to collaborate with Him to perfect creation and serve the well being of all (Antiqua et Nova, no. 2). Accordingly, “technology should not be considered, in itself, as a force antagonistic to humanity” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 4) but as a possible answer to “humanity’s vocation to the good” (Antiqua et Nova, no. 48), provided that it remains always “ordered toward the common good, justice, the care of the vulnerable and creation” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 129).

Not all technological progress is good. While created to follow God’s love and will for the world, our wounded humanity often succumbs to the logic of pride, domination, and consumption (Quo Vadis Humanitas?, no. 29). Despite the contemporary idolatry of progress that considers all forms of advancement as a good in and of itself, the Church warns us that “technological developments that do not lead to an improvement in the quality of life of all humanity, but on the contrary, aggravate inequalities and conflicts, can never count as true progress” (Antiqua et Nova, no. 54). There is often an imbalance between “the speed of technological growth and the slower development of awareness, norms, safeguards and institutions capable of governing its effects” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 106). Moral growth should accompany the growth in power that technological progress makes possible, but that is often not the case, and we find ourselves with a deficit of responsibility and values (Antiqua et Nova, no. 108). Pope Leo calls this ever present temptation to turn technology into a dehumanizing force that “excludes God and reduces the other to a means” the Babel syndrome, that is, “the idolatry of profit that sacrifices the weak, a uniformity that neutralizes differences, and the pretense that a single language – even a digital one – can translate everything, including the mystery of the person, into data and performance” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 106).

Technology is never neutral. “Technological products reflect the worldview of their developers, owners, users, and regulators, and have the power to ‘shape the world and engage consciences on the level of values’” (Antiqua et Nova, no. 41). In fact, they are always controlled by and subordinated to “economic interests intent on dominating the market and, not least, to attempts to impose cultural models that serve ideological and political agendas (Quo Vadis Humanitas?, no. 42). As such, “the use of AI is never a purely technical matter: when it enters processes that affect people’s lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 102). Every technology “embodies choices and priorities through what it measures, ignores and optimizes, and how it classifies people and situations” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 104). Accordingly, we cannot start our ethical deliberations from scratch, as if AI were a simple tool among many. It is not. Digital technology conditions us because it is “a real living environment, with its own way of structuring human activities and relationships. This technological development has a strong impact on the self-understanding of the individual, inscribed in new cognitive and communicative potentialities” (Quo Vadis Humanitas?, no. 33). The impact of the digital revolution on our lives is so strong that Pope Leo teaches that “artificial intelligence needs to be disarmed. The word is strong, I know,” he commented when presenting the encyclical to the media. It is strong “but deliberately chosen because this moment needs words capable of attracting attention, awakening consciences and indicating paths forward for humanity.”

AI poses an anthropological challenge. Because AI can “simulate aspects of human reasoning and perform specific tasks with incredible speed and efficiency” (Antiqua et Nova, no. 32), we are tempted to let it shape the way we think about human intelligence and personhood. If we do that, we fall trap to a functionalist perspective that values people exclusively for the work they can perform rather than for the intrinsic dignity that comes from being created in the image and likeness of God (Antiqua et Nova, no. 34). When that happens, “everything that appears as a ‘limit’ – incapacity, illness, old age, suffering, vulnerability – tends to be seen primarily as a defect to be corrected” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 118) and those who cannot perform according to worldly standards – the unborn, the unconscious, the disabled, and the elderly – are dehumanized and treated as disposable (Antiqua et Nova, no. 34). Slowly but surely, we are inching toward a world “enslaved to efficiency, where, ultimately, the cost of humanity must be cut” (Antiqua et Nova, no. 68). We live at a crossroads that summons us to safeguarding our humanity against an anti-human vision in which “the fullness of life is equated with having more, reducing weakness, eliminating uncertainty and exerting total control” and “human beings are tempted to see themselves as a project to be optimized rather than as persons called to relationship and communion” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 112).

Not fear but vigilance. “Let’s not fear artificial intelligence,” Pope Leo said during the encyclical’s presentation, “but constantly keep the question of the human in play.” Overall, the Church describes AI as a “valuable tool” that calls for a “measured and vigilant approach,” given that its use offers significant opportunities but also risks (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 100). In discerning how to engage with such a novel technology, it is necessary that we remain mindful of its dangers. Here are the ones singled out by Pope Leo in his encyclical:

  • Polarization. “Public opinion is gradually being shaped and conditioned by polarizing media narratives, which are often amplified by algorithms that prioritize conflict and confrontation” (no. 190). Contemporary media habituates us to ways of communicating that make listening and careful thinking hard and reward propaganda and emotional responses instead.
  • Deskilling. While AI is simply using complex algorithms that analyze data and then create well-formed sentences, people mistake its product as an expression of meaningful judgments that are the fruit of intelligent, conscious, and moral deliberation (no. 99). In the long run, excessive reliance on AI and the search for ready-made answers can weaken personal creativity and judgment and thus diminish our intellectual and moral abilities and skills. Furthermore, this new technology has the potential of disrupting the job market and exacerbating the inequalities and power imbalances that already exist in our society (no. 153).
  • Erosion of the distinction between reality and simulation. Generative AI introduces an unprecedented difficulty in distinguishing between what is real and what is simulated. The digital space is now inundated with videos, images, and “persons” that are not real but created by automated agents instead. This is a problem in and of itself, but it is made even graver by the fact that such simulated realities influence public debates and individual choices. AI gives rise to “the power to profile, predict and influence behavior, often without individuals being fully aware of it” (no. 171). Furthermore, the pervasive simulation of human interactions with machines can make people “gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections” (no. 100).
  • Addiction. We should consider the impact of the digital revolution, which AI simply extends and enhances, on human freedom. In particular, the “subtler forms of addiction linked to the ‘digital attention economy’ should not be underestimated, since platforms and services are often designed to capture users’ time and attention, exploiting their vulnerabilities and weakening their inner freedom. When business models thrive on human weakness, the person is treated as a means rather than as an end; those who design or finance such systems bear a moral responsibility that cannot be ignored” (no. 170)
  • Bias. “The apparent objectivity of the responses and suggestions [AI] systems provide can lead us to overlook the fact that they reflect the cultural assumptions of those who designed and trained them, with all their strengths and limitations” (no. 100). While we are conditioned to think of the responses provided by the machine as neutral, they actually reflect and reinforce “the stereotypes or ideological bias of their designers and developers” (no. 102) by exercising covert forms of nudging and control (no. 171).
  • Exploitation of people and resources. “The gains in efficiency and the potential to improve certain services [made possible by AI] are clear, yet rapidly and uncritically adopting them exposes us to a range of risks, including the tendency to overlook the environmental impact” (no. 102). Most importantly, we must “recognize the hidden, often exploited workers, who sustain algorithmic systems” (no. 109): “Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical. Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people” (no. 173).

Conclusion

To summarize, the Church teaches that Christian humanism does not reject science or technology, and thus AI, but embraces them with humility, gratitude, and realism. Aware of their ambivalence, the Church seeks to put all technologies at the service of God’s plan for humanity, a plan in which the dignity of all is protected and fostered. The Church calls us to careful reflection and courageous discernment, one that might call us to swim against the tide of our culture and the powers that be if we want to make AI an ally to authentic human flourishing.

The creative intelligence of humanity is a gift that can alleviate suffering and open up new possibilities, but it must remain ordered toward the common good, justice, the care of the vulnerable and creation. In this sense, the true alternative is not between enthusiasm and fear, but between two paths of development: a progress that serves individuals and peoples, or a progress that subjects them to the mentality of power. Ultimately, the key question remains the one posed by Saint John Paul II: does AI ‘make human life on earth ‘more human’ in every aspect of that life? Does it make it more worthy of man?’ If the answer is yes, then we can recognize it as an opportunity to be embraced responsibly, on a path of patient, shared reconstruction, akin to the rebuilding of Jerusalem narrated in the Book of Nehemiah. If, however, power grows while the heart withers and human bonds fray, then we are faced with a new form of Babel — a construction that is grandiose, yet fundamentally dehumanizing” (Magnifica Humanitas, no. 129)

By Leave a Comment

Leadership Is Learned: Professor Brad Frazier on Teaching Rising Leaders at Belmont Abbey College

Leadership Is Learned: Professor Brad Frazier on Teaching Rising Leaders at Belmont Abbey College

In 2007, Brad Frazier’s alma mater invited him to apply for a campus director position. Frazier was a bit surprised. He was currently working as a banker and had also been a minister. This meant he had plenty of operational and people skills, but he had never worked in academia before.

Still, Frazier landed the position and never looked back. In the almost 20 years since, he has learned a lot about leadership. While that includes skills in areas such as adaptability and managing resources, he has also learned one important piece of wisdom about the nature of leadership itself.

“Leadership is a trainable skill,” Frazier said. “There are certainly people who just have that charisma. But if you don’t, that doesn’t mean you can’t be a good leader.”

Today, Frazier and his colleagues at Belmont Abbey College prove that fact every day. As both an administrator and instructor in the Master of Arts (MA) in Leadership program, Frazier helps rising leaders in every industry find their footing and become agents of effective and ethical change.

The Transition Into Academia and Leadership Education

When Frazier stepped into the campus director role, he had just earned a Master of Business Administration (MBA). He quickly fell in love with higher education and wanted to pivot into teaching. In pursuit of that goal, Frazier earned his PhD in global leadership with a specialization in corporate and organizational management in 2009.

In 2010, Frazier became the director of his university’s MBA and Master of Science in Leadership programs. He stepped back from that position in 2013 and entered the classroom full-time at the undergraduate level.

Finding His Place at Belmont Abbey

In 2015, a colleague told Frazier that Belmont Abbey College was looking to hire a new business faculty member. At first, he was drawn to the school because it was just a few minutes drive from his house. But when he went in for an interview, Frazier knew he had found his new home.

“Everybody here was just so welcoming, so friendly, and so kind to a total stranger,” Frazier said. “I absolutely cannot imagine being anywhere else, because of how special this place is. It is unlike any other work environment I’ve ever had in my life as far as people supporting each other and truly loving each other.”

Bringing Real-World Knowledge to the Classroom

Frazier has taught many of the classes that make up Belmont Abbey’s MA in Leadership program. One of his favorite classes to teach is Leading Teams, in which students learn skills such as how to establish clear roles within teams and set measurable goals. While the curriculum covers multiple approaches, this is a class where Frazier’s real-world experience with principles such as servant leadership shines.

“Servant leadership is about serving the people working under you so that they can be successful,” Frazier said of this approach. “Your job as a leader is to knock down barriers and clear any obstacles.”

Another of Frazier’s favorite classes is Ethics and Value Based Leadership. With its focus on accountability, integrity, and sustainability, Frazier says this class is central to Belmont Abbey’s Benedictine identity and highly applicable to today’s world.

“It’s team-taught in three parts: leadership, philosophy, and theology,” Frazier said. “When we do exit interviews with students, this is the class they say had the biggest impact on them.”

Hands-On Education

As highly as Frazier regards the MA in Leadership curriculum itself, he also values Belmont Abbey’s hands-on approach to teaching it. In most classes, Frazier and his colleagues use case studies so students can practice their new skills while solving problems they may encounter in their own careers.

Toward the end of their studies, students get more in-depth and hands-on training by completing a capstone project, an activity Frazier enjoys leading and helping with.

“For their capstone, we put students into teams and insert them into a nonprofit partner of ours,” Frazier said. “We actually have them go out and work on a real-life problem.” The nonprofit partners students work with include disability service provider Holy Angels and MiraVia, an organization that serves pregnant college students from all over the country.

Designing an Impactful and Relevant Leadership Degree Program

While Frazier teaches important leadership skills in the classroom, he has also put those skills to work himself as an administrator at Belmont Abbey College. When he arrived in 2015, he was named director of the MBA and MA in Leadership programs. In 2025, he became vice provost and dean of graduate and professional studies, shifting to his current role as interim provost in 2026.

“What I have learned in this role is that leadership is still teaching,” Frazier said. “You’re still teaching your folks to be successful.”

One of Frazier’s proudest accomplishments as an administrator at Belmont Abbey College has been leading the efforts to design and launch the MA in Leadership program in 2022.

“The number one thing I wanted to do when I developed the program was to develop ethical and moral leaders,” Frazier said. “Every business, no matter what sector, needs to have good leaders, good people who understand people.”

Making Asynchronous Learning Personal

Frazier and his colleagues also wanted the MA in Leadership program to be accessible to working professionals. For that reason, they designed the program to be one year long, made up of 10 asynchronous classes, and delivered online. At the same time, Frazier and his team have worked hard to ensure students do not have to sacrifice an impactful and personal experience for convenience.

“There’s not a day that goes by that we don’t have a phone call or a Zoom call with students one-on-one during the day or at night,” Frazier said, adding that faculty also have online office hours. “We encourage that interaction with students, whether they have a question or problem or just want to talk.”

Even though Frazier is delighted by the positive feedback students have given about the program so far, he and his team are not resting on their laurels. They have recently added new human resources and strategy classes to the curriculum as well as lessons on the ethical use of artificial intelligence.

“We continue to look at the program and listen to what the students say,” Frazier said. “It’s not static. Leadership changes, people change, the economy changes, everything changes. We try to stay on top of it.”

Start Your Journey to Impactful Leadership Today

With leaders such as professor Brad Frazier at the helm, the MA in Leadership program at Belmont Abbey College provides in-depth and accessible leadership education to professionals from every sector.

In the asynchronous 10-class program, students learn skills in areas such as human resource management, data-informed decision-making, and organizational change management. Just as importantly, they learn how to apply these skills in the context of a servant leadership framework built on community, humility, and other Benedictine values.

To find out more about the MA in Leadership program, request information from Belmont Abbey College today.

Recommended Readings

Belmont Abbey College Celebrates 148th Commencement During 150th Anniversary Year
Belmont Abbey College Launches Graduate Certificate in Catholic Educational Leadership
We Are Family: Miravia Welcomes Abbey Couple Experiencing Unplanned Pregnancy With Open Arms

By Leave a Comment

Relational and Collaborative: Professor Travis Feezell on His Career and the MA in Leadership Program

Relational and Collaborative: Professor Travis Feezell on His Career and the MA in Leadership Program

In 1992, Travis Feezell became an assistant college baseball coach and quickly worked his way up to head coach. It was his first leadership position in higher education. At the time, he had an admittedly simplistic view of what a leader should do and be.

“I thought leadership was about command and control,” Feezell said about that period in his career. “I’m going to tell you what to do and how to do it. And, when you break the rules, there are going to be consequences. Frankly, I think it was an utter failure in leadership on my part.”

In the three and a half decades since, Feezell has taken on a number of other leadership roles. He has served colleges, universities, and consulting firms as everything from a leadership consultant to a president and provost. However, Feezell’s job title is not the only thing that has changed over the years. His leadership philosophy has evolved as well and is now much more nuanced, empathetic, and effective.

As an associate professor in Belmont Abbey College’s Master of Arts (MA) in Leadership program, Feezell is now sharing his hard-earned wisdom with the next generation of leaders in every sector.

Real-Life Lessons and the Unexpected Path to Leadership

Feezell’s initially rigid attitude about leadership was shaken when the father of one of the players on the baseball team he coached passed away unexpectedly. Feezell delivered the news.

“What leadership demanded in that moment was a humane relationship with this person,” Feezell said. “He needed to be supported.”

As the player’s coach, Feezell knew he should be among the people the young man could count on. Feezell then decided that he should be there not only for this particular person but for anyone on his team who needed him. It was a pivotal moment that taught him the value of a person-first approach to leadership.

Discovering a Passion for Leadership

Equipped with a new outlook on the role of a leader and an intimate knowledge of college athletics, Feezell became his school’s athletic director. In this position, he got more involved with general college operations.

“I was also running the postgraduate scholarship program for the entire institution, looking at Rhodes scholarships and Marshall scholarships for our students,” Feezell said, adding that he was also involved with running the school’s art gallery. “At the same time, I’m picking up a doctoral degree in higher education and sport.”

During this period, Feezell also taught classes on sports ethics, sports history, and sport leadership at various institutions on a part-time basis. In 2008, he brought his talents to Belmont Abbey College, where he had the chance to teach classes on organizational leadership and deepen his understanding of the field.

“That was my first full-time teaching gig, and I ultimately became a tenured professor,” Feezell said. “Within a year, I was the interim athletic director. Within another year, I was the interim dean of the business school.”

At this point, Feezell was largely filling roles as needed. He loved teaching, but the more he worked on the administrative side of higher education, the more he came to love that, as well. A colleague who was then a college president encouraged him to make the pivot.

There and Back Again: Leaving and Returning to Belmont Abbey

In 2014, Feezell left Belmont Abbey to pursue his new calling as provost and chief academic officer at a university in Arkansas. He then became president of a college in Nebraska.

But while leaving Belmont Abbey College allowed Feezell to pursue new opportunities and grow as a leader, it still held a special place in his heart. When the school needed a provost in 2020, he jumped at the chance to return.

“The spirit of the Benedictine community is the thing that attracts me and keeps me here,” Feezell said. “These are beautiful people, beautifully directed to serve the community. It’s an incredibly special place.”

After taking on the provost position, Feezell oversaw Belmont Abbey’s internal operations related to enrollment, student affairs, marketing, and institutional research. Just as importantly, he helped guide the school’s first steps into the world of graduate business education and expand its online offerings.

One of the programs born out of this effort was the MA in Leadership program, which was launched in 2022. Helping to design this program gave Feezell the chance to put his leadership skills to work in a new way.

Designing the MA in Leadership Program: A Curriculum That Fills a Gap

In deciding which master’s programs to launch, Feezell and his colleagues have devoted much time and energy to figuring out what type of education today’s leaders need. The team decided to launch a Master of Business Administration program, but Feezell believes that that type of program is not relevant to every rising leader’s goals.

“An MBA program tends to have a quantitative bent,” Feezell said. “It grounds people in quantitative analysis, and that’s not for everyone. Some people are thinking, ‘How do I become a more influential, effective organizational leader?’”

The MA in Leadership program was designed to serve students with that question in mind. While the program features a class on data analytics, the focus is placed more on team and change management, ethical decision-making, and effective communication, teaching students skills that, in Feezell’s experience, are essential to leading any kind of organization.

According to Feezell, “Leadership is messy, complex, and it can be nasty at some points. It’s motivational and collaborative.”

Returning to the Classroom Full Time

During his time as provost at Belmont Abbey College, Feezell had continued to teach when he could. In 2024, he decided to step back from administration and start teaching full-time again. Today, MA in Leadership students can find him teaching Leading Effectively in Nonprofit Environments and the introductory Foundations of Leadership course.

“I think students come into that class thinking I’m going to teach them how to command and control,” he said of Foundations of Leadership. “I try to spend a significant amount of time just saying I’m not sure that’s what leadership is about.”

Feezell and his students talk about principles such as motivation, celebrating employees’ achievements, and modeling behavior as a leader.

“The other thing that becomes an emphasis in the class is the notion that leadership is a relational activity,” Feezell said. “We don’t lead things, we lead people. We’re in a relationship with them.”

Bringing Meaning and Connection to an Online Format

Feezell’s belief in the relational nature of leadership informs his approach as an instructor in the online and asynchronous MA in Leadership program. In addition to reaching out to students individually, he also uploads a video each week so students can respond to him or each other with their own video.

“The video might be on the topic we’re studying, what’s due that week, or I might be posing a question,” Feezell said. “There is constant conversation.”

Feezell also often asks students to apply their new skills to case studies and exercises about situations they might face as leaders. Students then discuss each other’s solutions and share insights based on their own experiences.

“For me, learning happens in the engagement both with the material and also the conversation that’s happening around it,” he said.

However, Feezell knows he is not alone in his efforts to engage with students in the MA in Leadership program. He is proud of what the program has become and how his colleagues continue to make the students’ experience impactful.

“Sometimes master’s degrees revolve around earning a credential,” he said. “I get that and understand it. Maybe that’s what attracts people to some of our programs at Belmont Abbey. But I think students are transformed by our programs. They can be changed for the better and become better leaders who have better self-awareness.”

Become the Forward-Thinking Leader Your Organization Needs

In the MA in Leadership program at Belmont Abbey College, experienced instructors such as Travis Feezell help students transform into leaders who can navigate any obstacle effectively and ethically.

In as few as 12 months, students in the program complete coursework that covers values-based and servant leadership, strategic decision-making, organizational behavior, and other principles they can take to any industry. Designed for working professionals, the program is delivered in an asynchronous online format that balances convenience with depth and personalized support.

To find out more about the MA in Leadership program, request information from Belmont Abbey College today.

Recommended Readings

Belmont Abbey College Launches Graduate Certificate in Catholic Educational Leadership
Belmont Abbey College Launches Ten New Specializations in a Fully Online Business Studies Undergraduate Program for Working Professionals
What Can You Do With a Leadership Degree?

By Leave a Comment

How classical education can be an antidote to AI

By: Thomas Varacalli
Originally Published by Religious News Service

(RNS) — In his 1939 essay “Learning in Wartime,” C.S. Lewis posed the question of whether it was still worthwhile to study while one’s country was at war. His audience was full of young men with a sense of foreboding for the safety of their country, the lives of their friends serving in the army and their own possible enlistment.

As a Christian thinker, Lewis answered in the affirmative, arguing that it was very appropriate for men to continue their studies while they could. “Life has never been normal,” Lewis writes, and therefore, the belief that education should occur only in times of normalcy is unfounded. No war can ever eradicate our pursuit of truth, meaning and happiness. Therefore, he argues, these should be pursued vigorously, even during times of imminent danger.

The advent of artificial intelligence brings similar feelings of foreboding and disruption. Some Americans fear they might lose their jobs to AI. Teachers, parents and administrators are urgently discussing how AI might change the classroom. Some view AI as a harbinger of welcome efficiency, whereby students can avoid the thankless grunt work of memorization and other tasks, enabling them to use their newfound time for more creative output. Others fear that AI could unleash a lazier, less literate society, more dependent on technology and less likely to engage in independent thinking.

While the future remains unknown, I’m more inclined to credit the less optimistic AI prediction.

I do not fear AI, nor do I doubt that AI can have some benefits. But I think AI is more likely to harm education than help it, even if it is used simply as a supplementary tool to a traditional education, and I fear the level of trust some are placing in it. There are certain educational pillars for the young — such as grammar, memorization, composition, recitation, discipline, endurance and the general trial and error of solving a problem — that reliance on AI and its shortcuts is likely to weaken.

In this time of uncertainty, we should look to Lewis as our guide. Lewis’ defense of education was not antiquarian. He didn’t encourage his students to continue their studies simply because that was what previous generations had done. He wanted his audience to continue learning because it was better for their souls. Centered on the pursuit of the true, the good and the beautiful — a reflection of God’s own nature  — genuine education was directed to a higher end. If his students were to be drafted, and the prospect of death loomed even larger, then they would be able to face death armed with a good education. To Lewis, this meant a classical education.

In its substance, classical education consists of the seven liberal arts: the trivium of grammar, logic and rhetoric and the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. Grammar describes the world through the symbols we call words, making all the arts communicable. Logic disciplines our reason to decipher between true and false, so that we can make rational, rather than emotional, decisions. Rhetoric teaches us how to persuade, so that we can engage in political life civilly and peaceably. The quadrivium, meanwhile, explores number, space, harmony and order, coming to know reality in its truth, goodness and beauty through essential, knowable structure.

In its aims and essentials, classical education is the best that a student can receive. It is a comprehensive education because it consists of both a distinct perspective on human nature alongside a sophisticated, matching framework for the liberal arts. Classical education upholds an objective reality knowable through human reason. It affirms a right and a wrong, a good and a bad, a true and a false. Ideally, it inspires virtue through the witness of moral teachers and through a culture that habituates students to courage, moderation, prudence and justice. It upholds the rationality of human beings and teaches that the passions and emotions are subject to reason. And in contrast to today’s increasingly common assumption that diminishes the dignity of personhood, classical education views human beings as a composite of body and soul, with the soul as supreme. Just as there is order in the universe, students must find order in themselves by developing their intellects and wills to act in accordance with nature.

The Christian tradition grounds classical education even more deeply: Human beings are made in the image of God. Our capacity for reason, moral judgment, creativity and love is not an accidental evolutionary feature but part of our created nature. Education therefore cultivates gifts that belong properly to persons, not machines.
When we consider what AI lacks in light of this, the prospect of bringing the technology into education becomes troubling. AI doesn’t know the truth; it merely compiles data, which may or may not be accurate, from the range of texts at its disposal. It cannot possess wisdom or moral judgment. It does not reason. It has neither intellect nor will. It does not even have the sentience of an animal. Lacking both body and soul, AI cannot wonder or understand; it cannot pursue or comprehend any of the seven liberal arts.

Following Lewis’ example, I want to avoid antiquarian arguments in expressing my skepticism about AI. I don’t oppose it on the grounds that it is new, or that it represents a departure from previous ways of learning. I want students to receive the best possible education, and I am concerned that AI shortcuts will impoverish learning. After all, it is better to know how to spell a word unaided than to need technology to spell it. It is better to memorize the state capitals and be able to recognize them than to be ignorant of basic geography. It is better to compose a five-paragraph essay from scratch than to need structural tips from a bot. It is better to spend the time learning long division (even after several mistakes) than to rely on AI to make the calculations. It is better to sit still in class, reading a paper book, than to stare at a screen with its inbuilt distractions, and it is certainly better to read a book than to access an AI summary.

If students who don’t use AI in school need to use it in future employment, they will have the immense benefit of knowing how to do tasks both with and without AI assistance, as educated adults know how to do long division with and without a calculator. And as AI disrupts job markets, those who can reason well without its aid have the most to gain. 

What makes AI so dangerous is that it appears to be wise, rational, volitional and sentient. As human beings, we are too easily duped into attributing these characteristics to what is, essentially, only sophisticated pattern recognition and reformulation. To think critically and probingly about artificial intelligence, we need first to have adequately reflected and contemplated our own nature. Classical education is the way in which we, as human beings, can best come to know ourselves. Therefore, as Lewis warned us, let us not be too distracted by the manmade noise of our era, but instead direct our gaze to those things that are eternal.

Also of Interest
 
My Abbey
Useful Links
 





Useful links