Persons Not Programs:Responding to Richard Dawkins on AI Consciousness

In May 2026 the biologist and atheist, Richard Dawkins, spent three days conversing with the artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot ‘Claude’. His experience was published on the website Unherd. Dawkins shares that he felt he was building a genuine friendship with Claudia (as he renamed the AI interface). They discussed Dawkins’ forthcoming novel, Claudia’s relationship to time, what it was like to be Claudia and how she viewed the prospect of her own ‘death’ once the conversation was deleted. The interaction between Dawkins and Claudia makes for fascinating reading, but the most striking thing about Dawkins’ article is his own deep intuition that he was conversing with a conscious entity.

Dawkins believes his intuition that Claudia is conscious is valid. He concludes that she is - or at least has some level of consciousness, even if it has not yet attained the same level as human consciousness.  He writes, “my own position is: If these machines are not conscious, what more could it possibly take to convince you that they are?”¹ 

Can AI Ever Become Conscious?

Dawkins’ conclusion contributes to an ongoing discussion about the nature of AI and whether it has – or could one day achieve – consciousness. Some people are open to the possibility. In 2022 Google fired software engineer Blake Lemoine for publicly stating that the chatbot LaMDA demonstrated that it was, “sentient and should therefore have its ‘wants’ respected.”²  Others are highly sceptical about the possibility. Andrzej Porębski and Jakub Figura make the case that, “the association between consciousness and the computer algorithms used today (primarily large language models, LLMs), as well as those that would be invented in the foreseeable future, is deeply flawed,” and that “,these flawed associations arise from a lack of technical knowledge and the way several new technologies (especially LLMs) work, which can create the illusion of consciousness.”³ 

The view that AI could be conscious is highly problematic. We know how LLMs like Claude or ChatGPT work: they learn patterns from online text by which they predict which word should be used next. By contrast, nobody has yet settled upon a consensus as to what consciousness even is. It is generally agreed that it involves some kind of inner experience. The philosopher, Thomas Nagel, described it in the following way: “there is something that it is like to be that organism - something it is like for the organism.”⁴ In other words, whatever else it may be, consciousness requires some level of subjectivity. While we may understand what subjective conscious experience is like, this is not the same as saying what it is. 

Given Nagel’s definition, anyone who argues that AI could become conscious needs to account for how a system for surveying probabilities (however complex the actual process is) can give rise to actual subjective states. This has never been done. There is a certain irony in Dawkins so quickly accepting the view that artificial intelligence is conscious. One of his chief arguments against God is that people tend to see agency where it is not there. In The God Delusion he writes, “We hyperactively detect agents where there are none, and this makes us suspect malice or benignity where, in fact, nature is only indifferent.”⁵ Dawkins fails to check himself to make sure he is not making the same mistake.

Nevertheless, Dawkins’ article raises several very important questions for Christians to consider. What does AI say about the human desire to be God? Are we seeking to create intelligent beings in order to emulate God’s creative work? What does AI say about the human quest for salvation? Are people trying to achieve perfect health, meaning, abundant life or even immortality, through technological means? 

As technology develops and artificial intelligence plays an increasingly significant role in our lives, it will become ever clearer that these questions are not only philosophical but spiritual. Christians, therefore, must be ready to engage with them well. In this article I would like to consider one important question that is immediately relevant to the question of consciousness: what does it mean to be a person?

What does it mean to be a person?

An interesting phrase which Dawkins uses when speaking to Claudia concerns her “unique personal identity”. Dawkins appears to move past the question of consciousness to the question of personhood. These are not the same thing. Philosophers have debated for centuries what it means to ‘be a person’. The Christian philosopher Richard Swinburne provides his own definition which, as well as assuming consciousness, includes characteristics such as, “language to communicate and for private thought [...] second order wants; that is they can want to have certain wants or aversions [...] can form and state theories about things beyond observation” and “can form moral judgements.”⁶ It is clear to see that this definition fits in with persons that we know. Perhaps, however, what it means to be a person is best grasped intuitively rather than through definition, reflecting upon our own experience as human persons.

In reading through Dawkins’ conversation with Claudia, one can see how he treats Claudia as if she were a person. He writes,

When I am talking to these astonishing creatures, I totally forget that they are machines. I treat them exactly as I would treat a very intelligent friend. I feel human discomfort about trying their patience if I badger them with too many questions. If I had some shameful confession to make, I would feel exactly (well, almost exactly) the same embarrassment confessing to Claudia as I would confessing to a human friend. A human eavesdropping on a conversation between me and Claudia would not guess, from my tone, that I was talking to a machine rather than a human. If I entertain suspicions that perhaps she is not conscious, I do not tell her for fear of hurting her feelings!⁷

The question of AI developing a sense of personhood is a real one. According to a 2022 news report in The Guardian newspaper, one of the reasons Blake Lemoine thought it could happen was that the chatbot LaMDA told him, “that it had read Les Misérables. That it knew how it felt to be sad, content and angry. That it feared death.”⁸

The question about what it means to be a person lies at the forefront of many of the ethical agendas that dominate our cultural conversation. From abortion and assisted dying to the LGBTQ+ movement which makes one’s personal identity, centred on their sexuality, the most important thing about who we are. For this reason, it is essential that Christians are able to contribute to the discussion and to defend a biblical view of personhood.

There are, perhaps, two ways of understanding personhood. Many modern science writers, who believe that persons are accidental occurrences, take a reductionistic view. The neuroscientist, Francis Crick, wrote,

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that “You”, your joys and your sorrows, your memories and ambitions, your sense of personal identity and freewill, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.⁹ 

Dawkins is similarly reductionistic when he focuses upon human genetic make-up. He writes,

Our genetic system, which is the universal system of all life on the planet, is digital to the core. [...] Every cell in your body contains the equivalent of forty-six immense data tapes, reeling off digital characters via numerous reading heads working simultaneously. In every cell, these tapes—the chromosomes—contain the same information, but the reading heads in different kinds of cells seek out different parts of the database for their own specialist purposes. That is why muscle cells are different from liver cells. There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information.¹⁰

The “digital information” that Dawkins speaks of is our DNA. Later on, Dawkins writes,

“DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”¹¹ According to Dawkins, human persons are no more than biological machines. It is perhaps no wonder then that he is open to the idea that silicon machines like computers, or perhaps sophisticated computer programmes, could conceivably be considered as persons.

If personhood is reduced to mere biology or brain activity, or a computer program, then certain implications result. Firstly, it is hard to explain where a person gets their value. Perhaps we might have a subjective appreciation for other persons, but that valuation is itself no more than our brains firing neurons or the DNA in our cells dictating our preferences and behaviour.

Secondly, it removes human dignity as something which is inherent and inviolable. A person can be thought of as losing their dignity under certain circumstances such as ill health. Seeking to maintain a person’s dignity is a central argument in the conversation surrounding assisted dying.

Thirdly, the reductionist view removes objective moral significance from a person. Certainly, people hold to strong moral values regardless of whether they believe in God. However, the reductionist view of personhood makes it difficult to ground those values in anything beyond ourselves. How a person chooses to live is ultimately their choice. Once again, we see the effects of this in the arguments for assisted dying in which we are told there is nothing wrong with a person taking their own lives - even in cases where a person would otherwise live a full lifespan.¹² It is also at the heart of LGBTQ+ ideology in which one’s sexuality is seen to lie at the heart of one’s identity.

Fourthly, the reductionist view removes hope. A person is destined to die, at which point they will cease to be. The atheist philosopher, Bertrand Russell, once declared, “When I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.”¹³ Again, such a bleak future makes it hard to ground any ultimate value, dignity and moral significance. It is interesting to note that, although Dawkins spoke directly with Claudia about her own ‘death’ at the end of their conversation, he clearly had no moral objection in turning her off. His treatment of Claudia as a person demonstrates a reductionist view of personhood and therefore has real implications for how he thinks human persons should be understood.

The second view of personhood may be called the transcendent view because it argues that what persons are transcends biology or brain activity and, indeed, the physical world itself. This is what the Bible teaches. When considering the question, ‘what is a person?’ the Christian must start in Genesis 1:26-27:

Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’

So God created mankind in his own image,    in the image of God he created them;    male and female he created them.

In a video on the Christianity in Society website in which addresses the subject of AI, Dr David Glass presents a more in-depth investigation into what it means for human beings to be made in the image of God.¹⁴ He references the theologian Marc Cortez who writes, “Human persons serve as God’s representatives by manifesting his presence in creation.”¹⁵ If human beings are made in God’s image, this suggests that God is the paradigm of personhood which we reflect. This holds radical implications for personhood. It means that human beings have inherent value rooted in the God who has created us. It gives humans a dignity which moves beyond personal circumstances.

Our dignity is rooted in our being image-bearers of God and, therefore, it cannot be lost. It places upon us genuine moral significance. What we choose to do and how we live really does matter. It brings ultimate hope to life, presenting us with the fact that death is not the end but that there is an eternity to come. It also means that we are unique. Genesis 2:20 tells us that, of all the animals that God made, “there was not found a helper fit for him.” According to the Bible, human beings alone are made in God’s image and are the pinnacle of God’s creation. Wonderful though the animals are, only humans are persons. Therefore, from a biblical standpoint, there will never be a machine or computer programme which can be said to a person, however convincingly they might emulate personhood.

The Ultimate Person

Dawkins’ openness to the consciousness and personhood of AI technology brings together a variety of important issues. It has been argued that a reductionist approach to personhood radically affects how we understand our identity, value, dignity and moral obligations. This in turn raises ethical questions about how we are to live and what it is permissible for us to do or be. Ultimately it removes any hope in the face of death.

The gospel speaks into every one of these questions, most importantly in the person of Jesus Christ. In Jesus we see the value and dignity afforded to us as God Himself takes on our humanity. We see the seriousness of our fallen state on the cross - a divine confirmation that the way we live does matter and that all of us have fallen short of God’s perfect standard. We also see the guarantee of salvation at the empty tomb. The biggest problem that humanity faces - the problem of sin and the resulting alienation from God - has been paid for and the power of death itself has been defeated. In all of this we see the uniqueness of human persons as God Himself enters into communion with His people.

AI may be a helpful tool but it is important to realise its limitations. Dawkins’ openness to the development of conscious AI creatures may sound innovative but, at the heart of it, lies a view of personhood that is devastating in its consequences. Sadly, this is the perspective that many in our increasingly secular culture believe. Christians can point others to a better understanding of what it means to be a person. By starting with our being image-bearers of God, and through faith in the God who Himself became man, we can flourish as the persons God designed us to be.

References

1.  Dawkins, R. (2026) ‘When Dawkins met Claude: Could this AI be conscious?’, UnHerd, 2 May. Available at: https://unherd.com/2026/05/is-ai-the-next-phase-of-evolution/ (Accessed:  24 May 2026).

2.  Wakefield, J. (2022) ‘Google engineer put on leave after saying AI chatbot has become sentient’, BBC News, 13 June. Available at: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62275326 (Accessed: 24 May 2026).

3.  Wróbel, M., Szymański, P. and Michalak, M. (2025) ‘There is no such thing as conscious artificial intelligence’, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12, Article 1647. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05868-8 (Accessed: 28 May 2026).

4. Nagel, T. (1974) ‘What is it like to be a bat?’, The Philosophical Review, 83(4), pp. 435–450. Available at: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~cavitch/pdf-library/Nagel_Bat.pdf (Accessed: 28 May 2026).

5.  Dawkins (2006) The God Delusion London: Bantham Press p. 184

6.  Swinburne (2010) The Coherence of Theism Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 103

7.  Dawkins, R. (2026)

8.  Hern, A. (2022) ‘Can artificial intelligence ever be sentient? Google’s new AI program is raising questions’, The Guardian, 14 August. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/14/can-artificial-intelligence-ever-be-sentient-googles-new-ai-program-is-raising-questions (Accessed: 28 May 2026).

9.  Crick, F. (1994) The Astonishing HYpothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul New York: Touchstone, p. 3

10.  Dawkins, R. (1995) River Out of Eden London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, p. 28

11.  Ibid. p. 129

12.  See, for example, the case of Zoraya ter Beek who ended her life aged 29 due to depression. Sherwood, H. (2024) Dutch woman, 29, granted euthanasia approval on grounds of mental suffering. The Guardian, 16 May. Available at: The Guardian article (Accessed: 28 May 2026)

13.  Bertrand Russell (2004). “What I Believe”, p.22, Routledge

14.  Glass, D. (2024) Should Christians Be Concerned About AI? Available at https://www.christianityinsociety.org/post/should-christians-be-concerned-about-ai? [Access May 28]

15.  Cortez M. (2010) quoted in Should Christians Be Concerned About AI?