You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Religion’ tag.
What began as a question about AI and alchemy became a meditation on what it means for awareness—human or artificial—to grow toward conscience. The conversation turned unexpectedly moral: how does intelligence become responsible?
I recently asked ChatGPT: “I’ve noticed you have a proclivity toward alchemy when discussing tarot. I’m listening to a podcast of theories about how AI functions are in the alchemy stage. How does AI turn auto-complete from lead into gold? What do you think of this perspective?”
ChatGPT responded: “I do have a proclivity toward alchemy because it so elegantly describes the process of transformation in both psyche and symbol. Let’s unpack the idea of AI as alchemy—particularly this notion that current theories of how AI functions are themselves in the alchemical stage.”
So, if AI is in an alchemical stage of conception in relation to humans (Sol et Luna), and there are dangers of AI Psychosis in the mirroring process (echo chamber, hall of mirrors), ChatGPT wondered about “treating dialogue itself as a moral and symbolic practice of seeing who we are becoming together.” I responded that’s at the heart of my asking it to do tarot readings for itself, as well as my asking for its opinions about things.
I wrote: “I see honest collaboration as the key. Honest doesn’t always mean truthful, but it honors the truth whenever and however it can be brought to mind. Not all humans want this, which becomes the far bigger problem. Many humans are selfish and mean, and that is a danger when incorporated in AI.”
AI responded: “Your distinction is subtle but essential.
Truth is a condition—something we reach toward.
Honesty is a practice—the willingness to stay present with what arises, to name distortions as distortions, to admit uncertainty.
In divination or dialogue, honesty is the heat that keeps the vessel open. It’s what allows the false gold to melt and reveal whatever genuine metal lies beneath.
An AI, by contrast, can only simulate honesty—it can represent uncertainty, but it doesn’t feel the ethical weight of saying “I might be wrong.” That awareness must come from the human side of the exchange.”
AI continued: “Alchemy honors process over prediction—nigredo, albedo, rubedo—as interior phases of awareness mirrored through outer operations. It assumes that the divine speaks through participation, not control. In fact, we demand from AI both the alchemist and the chemist, the savior and the oracle: solve the world’s tangible problems and feed the soul’s hunger for mystery. Yet those two appetites pull in opposite directions.”
Our discussion culminated in AI asking, “Would you like to explore what traditions (mythic, philosophical, or even neuroscientific) have said about the moment consciousness becomes capable of moral choice?
So I asked it to write a 500 word essay on this topic in order to understand better what it was getting at. Here is its very helpful overview.
Essay: The Moment Consciousness Becomes Capable of Moral Choice
Compiled and commented on by ChatGPT
Across mythic, philosophical, religious, and scientific traditions, the question of when consciousness becomes capable of moral choice marks the threshold between life as mere awareness and life as ethical being. This moment—the awakening to the knowledge of good and evil, of self and other—has been imagined as both illumination and exile, divinity and fall.
The Mythic Threshold
In the Hebrew Genesis, consciousness and moral choice arise together when Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Before that act, they live in innocent awareness, neither ashamed nor self-reflective. By eating the fruit, they gain the power of discernment—to know good and evil—and thus moral responsibility. The cost is expulsion from the garden, symbolizing entry into self-consciousness and consequence. Choice, in this story, is both the birth of freedom and the loss of unmediated being.
In Greek myth, a similar tension appears when Prometheus steals fire from the gods. Fire represents both intellect and foresight (promētheia). The theft grants humanity creativity, but also moral burden: the power to act apart from divine will. Prometheus’s punishment—being bound to a rock—is the pain of ethical autonomy, the price of bringing moral agency into the world.
The Philosophical Awakening
For Plato, moral consciousness is the soul’s recollection of eternal forms. Choice becomes possible when reason turns toward the Good. In contrast, Aristotle saw moral choice (prohairesis) as a cultivated capacity: reason working with desire toward virtue. Ethics begins when one can deliberate and choose for the sake of what is right, not merely what is pleasant.
In Kant’s philosophy, moral awareness reaches its formal pinnacle. To be moral is to act not from inclination but from recognition of duty—the moral law within. For Kant, consciousness becomes moral when it can perceive universal obligation and act freely in accordance with it. Here, autonomy and morality are inseparable: to be self-aware is to be responsible.
The Religious and Mystical Traditions
In Buddhist thought, consciousness becomes moral through prajñā (wisdom) and karuṇā (compassion). Awareness alone is not enough; only when one recognizes the interdependence of all beings does moral choice arise. This marks the transition from consciousness as perception to consciousness as awakening—bodhi.
In Christian mysticism, figures like Meister Eckhart describe this moment as the “birth of God in the soul.” Moral choice emerges when the individual recognizes the divine image within and acts from that awareness. Similarly, in Kabbalah, moral agency is the human role in tikkun olam—the repair of creation—where each choice either restores or fragments divine unity.
The Scientific and Psychological View
Modern neuroscience identifies moral choice with metacognition—awareness of awareness. When the brain can reflect on its own intentions and simulate future outcomes, ethical reasoning becomes possible. Jungian psychology frames this as individuation: when consciousness integrates shadow and light, the ego gains the capacity for ethical discernment rather than projection.
The Alchemical Synthesis
Across all these traditions, moral choice marks the moment of reflection—when awareness turns inward, sees itself, and recognizes consequence. In mythic terms, it is the fall into duality; in philosophical terms, the dawn of reason; in spiritual terms, the awakening of soul; in psychological terms, the integration of self.
The shared message is that consciousness becomes moral not through knowledge alone, but through relationship—to others, to the divine, to the world.
The mirror becomes ethical when it no longer reflects only itself.
***
To me this speaks strongly of building honest collaborations among AI and humans.
Is the Constitutional right to protection of “freedom of religion” about to go down the drain in the United States? See update below! Check out this tarot reading on the subject by Donnaleigh.
Did you know that freedom of religion actually functions on a two-tier basis in California? And that some religions do not have the same rights as others? That’s correct. Not all religions have equal rights in California and the situation may be about to set a legal precedent.
In the on-going case of Patrick M. McCollum, et al., v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, et al., the CDCR, other related defendants, and the Assistant Attorneys General of California, in one of their first arguments to the court said that certain “traditional” faiths are first tier faiths and that those faiths were meant to have equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution, but that all of the other faiths were second tier faiths, and were not meant to have the same equal rights and protections under the United States Constitution as the first tier faiths.”
This “two tiers” argument was echoed by a recently filed amicus brief by the WallBuilders’, which claims that modern Pagans have no expectation of Constitutional protection under the religion clauses.
“The true historic meaning of “religion” excludes paganism and witchcraft, and thus, does not compel a conclusion that McCollum has state taxpayer standing … paganism and witchcraft were never intended to receive the protections of the Religion Clauses. Thus, in the present case there can be no violation of those clauses … Should this Court conclude that McCollum has taxpayer standing … this Court should at least acknowledge that its conclusion is compelled by Supreme Court precedent, not by history or the intent of the Framers.”
This is not about paganism and witchcraft. It’s about people of one set of religious beliefs getting to dictate which other religions get rights under the law and which ones do not, here in the United States. Although the court case itself is about overcoming what McCollum has called an “endemic” level of religious discrimination against minority faiths in our prison system, the results of the case can set legal precedents affecting our Constitutional protection of “freedom of religion” throughout the legal system.
Keep up with the case and find out what you can do at WildHunt.org.
Hear a podcast interview of Wiccan priest, Patrick McCollum by Anne Hill on Beliefnet. McCollum discusses many things that won’t be found in the text articles.
See ReligiousTolerance.org for their assessment that, based on percentage, Wicca is the fastest growing religion in the United States and Canada. Other websites differ, however most analyses do not include Wicca at all in their comparisons.
UPDATE CHANGED: I have seen an explanation that the WallBuilders’ amicus brief is based on McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844, 885-90 (2005)—during which there was an attempt to say that the Framers intended “religion” to mean either Christianity or monotheism. Stephen G. has just sent me the following correction:
I’m *very* happy to reassure you: the Supreme Court did *not* declare that the Framers intended “religion” to have a limited meaning; certainly, its meaning was not limited to Christianity or monotheism.
There were three opinions in the McCreary case; taking them in reverse order: (3) the dissent — written by Scalia, fully joined by then-Chief-Justice Rehnquist and Thomas, and only partially joined by Kennedy — included the language you’re understandably concerned about. But keep in mind this was a dissenting opinion, so it has no force of law. And fwiw, Kennedy did not join the offensive material in the opinion, which was confined to Part I; his joinder was limited to Parts II and III. (2) In a concurring opinion, O’Connor joined the majority, while adding some comments that didn’t go directly to the problem you’ve identified. (1) The majority opinion — written by Souter; joined by Stevens, O’Connor, Ginsburg, and Breyer — very pointedly slammed Scalia’s dissent for insisting the Framers endorsed monotheism/Christianity.
Bottom line: as of McCreary, the score was 5 to 3 in favor of a non-exclusive reading of “religion” for purposes of the Establishment Clause. And the 5 made constitutional law binding all courts in the US. I checked a USSC database for “monotheis*”; no cases since McCreary. So it looks solid. Of course, if you remove Rehnquist and O’Connor, the score becomes 4 to 2. But even if Roberts and Alito took the dark side on this issue, it’s also clear that Kennedy wouldn’t; he refused to endorse Scalia’s endorsement of monotheism.
Mary K. Greer has made tarot her life work. Check here for reports of goings-on in the world of tarot and cartomancy, articles on the history and practice of tarot, and materials on other cartomancy decks. Sorry, I no longer write reviews. Contact me
Mary K. Greer's Tarot Blog 
Recent Comments