Ever since "Human Forever" came out in 2021, people have asked me when the real-life Butlerian Jihad was coming. Some assumed I supported a real-life Butlerian Jihad. A few even coined the phrase Poulosian Jihad ...

Well, no. Now that we are deep into the still-unfinished movie adaptations of Frank Herbert’s immensely influential "Dune" novels, and jihad-like options like calling in the airstrikes on the data centers have become influential in their own right through the effective altruist crowd, I feel the need to let the good times pause and underscore my strong opposition to any Butlerian or Butlerian-inspired Jihad.

For those unawares, the basic outline of the Butlerian Jihad (Herbert borrowed heavily from Arabic and Muslim signifiers in world-building his desert planet Iraq, I mean Arrakis) is this:

As mankind spread throughout the known universe, technology advanced and eventually machines were made that would make decisions for people. This propelled the creators of these machines into a new technocratic class, effectively controlling the worlds of the common people.

Mankind eventually rebelled against these machines and their creators in a nigh-religious war that sought to retake the thinking soul of mankind from the gods of machine logic. After two generations of violence ... their gods and rituals were looked upon in a different, perhaps even jaded, light. Both were largely seen to be guilty of using fear as a means of control. Hesitantly, the leaders of religions began meeting to exchange views, and a new, central religious precept was defined, that man may never be replaced by a machine.

Blah blah blah, long story short, probably the most important detail in the Butlerian Jihad lore is this: “Planet Earth was completely irradiated and turned into a burnt husk and the machines on the planet were no more.” Yes, humanity had to nuke its own home to beat its own machines.

But even beyond that, there are important reasons to look away from the Butlerian Jihad as any kind of metaphorical or inspirational model for dealing with even very out-of-control AI.

The failure cycle of Western religious wars would seem to have led us to exactly the point at which technology of superhuman potency has emerged in the minds of many as the last tool in the box to finally free us from that accursed cycle.

One of them would surely have to do with the problems of jihad itself. “Holy war” as Muslims have practiced it does, by now, have a very bad reputation. From a theological standpoint, it is easy to see why this might be so in the case of a militant, conquering religion that entails the worship of one single, undifferentiated, unitary, monotheistic deity. Such a God is, to be sure, lord and master of the universe and all creation. But such a God is not in a position that enables us humans to enter into a familial relationship (re)joining the human and the divine. Such a God does not seek above all the reciprocation of His boundless and unimaginably great love for us, His creations. Worship of such a deity must not hinge on the spiritual experience and pursuit of repentance and forgiveness, but rather solely on submission and obedience, which at least invites the imposition of submission and obedience on others as itself a holy or sacred practice.

But wait, there’s more. The West itself has a long if uneven tradition of holy war, or “crusaderism,” a tradition that leaves its own reputation in tatters. In fact, the failure cycle of Western religious wars would seem to have led us to exactly the point at which technology of superhuman potency has emerged in the minds of many as the last tool in the box to finally free us from that accursed cycle. So it is particularly disturbing to see technology accelerate at a speed so intense that more and more people are suggesting the only tool left in the box to stop mass human slavery or death by the machines is holy or sacred war.

I really think we have seen this movie before, so to speak. Look at the track record of all-out conflict led by a rebel alliance in a fight seen as so existential that the ends sacralize any means necessary. For the past 500 years or so, the West has struggled in the grip of this pattern, which had led to the routine slaughter of millions upon millions of souls — and the invention of ever-more-powerful weapons technologies to execute on the perceived necessity of slaughtering so many “enemy souls.”

Every major leap forward in communications technology has occasioned another round of sacralized slaughter, which today has led at least a few leading technologists (like Meta’s chief AI scientist) to justify the slaughter, or at least wave it away, on the basis of the ostensibly locked-in gains made to knowledge and enlightenment: “The Catholic clergy worried very much about the 'safety problems' of the printing press. They were right: it reduced their grip on European society. It caused a bunch of religious rifts and conflicts. But society made progress because of it.” This is a terrible argument for a broadly permissive approach to AI innovation! And obviously, it contributes to people feeling suspicious of trusting technologists to authoritatively guide us on the topic of their own inventions.

RELATED: Arizona’s AI policing tool threatens civil liberties

Photo by Bloomberg / Contributor via Getty Images

But this is happening in the first place — and people are so susceptible to caving in to its inhuman logic — because of the deep failure of faith that has sunk into the bones of the West. The belief that Christ and His church are inadequate to the threat of total Borg slavery leads now, as it has in similar past crises, to two rival alternatives: militant return to a “pre-Christian” state or conquest unto a post-Christian one. The saints speak eloquently to the importance of trusting God enough to let Him focus on dealing with evil and evildoers — so that we can focus, as we must, on purifying our hearts to the needed degree to reunite fully and reciprocally with God. Or if you would rather get it straight from the Lord Himself:

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 22:37-40).

Few dare accept this! It is so much more reassuring, in a false and perverse way, to bet our fortunes on the pagan hero’s journey where, with enough courage, violence, and sacred license, we can slaughter evil and save the world. And how’s that working out for us? Many reply: well, not great, but surely better than if we let ourselves get wiped out by bad guys like a bunch of pathetic, dumb sheep.

To this one might reply by busting out Ivan Ilyin’s "On Resistance to Evil by Force." This classic text, written by an anti-communist Russian exiled from the Soviet Union, does not take a juridical approach to questions of “just war” but rather emphasizes the arduous and painful effort of internal spiritual probity and discernment incumbent upon every person who is confronted with the necessity of defending the innocent from organized attack.

But as we all know, well-written and well-argued books are not really the way to move masses of people toward a deeper and richer understanding of the gospel (or much else). And so we have to work in simpler, larger themes and questions. Such as:

Can a fictionalized jihad waged by a rebel alliance in a mythical universe where Christ did not, does not, and will not exist possibly indicate a spiritually authoritative response to technological acceleration that we can trust?

Can limiting our spiritual identity with regard to technology to a militarized oppositional one possibly free us from the pattern of spiritually “consecrated” total war against the total other that has defined the trajectory of the West toward this new peak of crisis?

Just as an immeasurably loving God asks of us that we reciprocate His love freely and willingly — because automatons created without free will cannot possibly be said to love or to be created out of boundless love — so, too, must any “resistance” to technological acceleration in violent or oppressive directions manifest through freely and willingly pressing the "off" button rather than pressing the nuclear "on" button out of a sense of hideous necessity.

Of course, pressing the "off" button isn’t quite “resistance” at all, properly understood. Rather than being against the machine, we ought to content ourselves with the higher authority of being for our given humanity, God’s capstone and completion of creation. Take that spirit, and we might just find ourselves capable — and worthy — of having nice things after all.