On March 5th I was invited to discuss transhumanism with Dr. Brent Waters of Garrett Theological Seminary and the students and faculty of the East Texas Baptist University. I’d like to thank the very kind hospitality of ETBU. These are an edited version of the short prepared remarks from that morning (view video here) in which Dr. Waters and I were asked to address whether it was important to have a body to be human.
I’m an atheist, secular humanist, Buddhist, Unitarian. So I don’t get many invitations to speak at 10am chapel at Baptist universities (although I’d like to give a shout out to any of my peeps in the house) and I suspect I’m not going to connect very well talking from that point of view.
But I do know a lot of Christians who have the same view of humanness, medicine and the body that I do, and I’d like to try to speak to some of the shared perspective that I have with Christians who are OK with human enhancement. I’ve been tremendously benefited in that investigation by both Dr. Waters’ recent book From Human to Posthuman, which raises Christological objections to enhancement, and by the work of Reverend Ted Peters of Lutheran Pacific Theological Seminary and the theologian Ronald Cole-Turner, who are both defenders of human genetic enhancement.
So what is humanness? Whether we were created as is six thousand years ago, or evolved from intelligently designed creatures, or evolved by chance, we are distinguished among creatures by our capacities for reflection and intelligence. If we were designed, then we were given Reason for a reason. Alone among creatures we have the capacity to rationally reflect upon the state of the world, and of our bodies, to distinguish good from bad, and to manage or steward the natural world that we inherit with compassion and wisdom, fixing what we can.
As part of that stewardship we have invented agriculture, forestry and industry to provide abundance. In medicine we have cured diseases, cut out tumors, developed vaccines, made healing miracles which – at least for Baptists, if not Christian Scientists – are not contrary to God’s will, but through which and in conjunction with God can work healing and miracles. In other words, humans have the capacity to effect healing and improvements on our bodies, and to steward nature, in ways that are not only consistent with the divine plan but may be part of the divine intent.
What does that mean for the Christological significance of enhancement medicine? In my Buddhist tradition we speak of finding the middle way between mortification of the flesh and indulgence. Overconcern with health, beauty, longevity or intelligence can be a spiritual distraction. But that does not mean one should mortify the flesh, or refuse to use medicine to cultivate health, longevity or your talents. In fact, the call of compassion, of doing Christ’s work on earth, obliges us to be as healthy and able as we can, and provide medicine for others. If that is the case, then the question is not whether one uses enhancement medicine but how and why one uses enhancement medicine.
For longevity, if one’s goal is to live longer because life is a precious gift, and one wants to serve God on earth as long as possible, that would be a positive motivation. In fact it would be as much a denial of the gift of life to reject an extra hundred years of life as to reject an extra five from chemotherapy, surgery or insulin. Rejecting longevity medicine would be a form of suicide.
Dr. Waters argues that the doctrine of bodily resurrection speaks to a Christian respect for embodiment. But if the Christian uses longevity medicine to stick around until the Rapture, does that really mean that they will be judged any different from everybody else who is alive at that time? When we are Judged won’t we be held to account for our actions and our hearts, not because we have insulin pumps or pacemakers?
Vaccinations can enable sexual promiscuity, but they can also enable missions in dangerous parts of the world. Would a cure for dyslexia be unChristian if it enabled study of scripture? Imagine the mother with depression, or the pastor with attention deficit disorder. Is it contrary to Christian purpose for them to take Prozac in order to get out of bed and take care of their family, or to take Ritalin to enable their pastoral service?
I have nothing against homosexuality, but if someone with homosexual feelings wants be straight then would it be a sin for them to genetically or chemically change themselves? I’ll note in passing that the Baptist writer Al Mohler published an editorial last week arguing that it is a Christian parent’s obligation to “fix” their child homosexual brain when it is possible to do so. He argues that gay genes are a mark of the Fall. While I disagree that gay genes – if they exist - would be anything that need fixing, if we can find and address sin and evil in the genome why wouldn’t our genes for aging also be a candidate for healing? Wasn’t the loss of Adam’s longevity the first mark of the Fall on the genome?
Addictions are an enormous problem, and a big obstacle to a virtuous life. When we have genetic or chemical tweaks to addictive behavior wouldn’t that be a good thing? Salvation may come from grace and not good works, but I don’t understand why using medicine to be as healthy, happy and mentally able as one is capable of, enabling our good work, study and prayer, should interfere with receiving grace.
I think that so far Dr. Waters and I agree, since he says forcefully in From Human to Posthuman that Christians should not reject enhancements because they are transformative, since humanity has a responsibility to exercise active dominion over nature and to practice medicine. He even suggests there may be a limited Christian way to use enhancement technologies. But, he also argues that Christians need to exercise their dominion limited by the God-given natures of things, and the need to preserve humanity in Imago Dei, the image of God.
Forgive my outsider ignorance, or perhaps my Gnostic willfulness, but I don’t understand why technologies that offer longer lives, expanded minds, and greater abilities take us farther from Imago Dei rather than closer to it. Philippians 3:21 says He “will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory.” Couldn’t these technologies be part of the working out of prophecy?
Some Christians have argued that God would not recognize us at the Judgment if we modify the body. What kind of limited God is that? “I’m sorry, but you are going to have to wait over here in Limbo because the J. Hughes I made wasn’t wearing glasses, a pacemaker and a peg leg.” Perhaps we should have some faith that the Divine has at least the forensic powers of CSI Miami.
Although Dr. Waters isn’t ready to go this far I think, at least Rev. Peters and I still agree, that there is nothing unChristian about the use of human enhancement medicine to lengthen life, and alleviate suffering. Where Rev. Peters draws the line is with the idea of uploading, of translating our bodies and brains into software and living in computers. This is something that I believe will be possible in your lives, although perhaps not in mine. Rev. Peters argues that there is something about the Christian idea of ensoulment which is tied up with having a breathing, bleeding body. He doesn’t think the soul could be translated into software, and perhaps many Christians will come to agree with him.
For myself, what is important about human existence, our “soul,” is our memories, our self-awareness, our personality, and I think all that will slowly migrate into software running on something other than neurons. We will face many debates and challenges as that happens. I don’t expect it to be an easy transition.
But for Baptists, who were born struggling for the right of individual conscience and the separation of church and state, I hope you will be on the side of allowing those of us who want to take that step to find out what is possible.
So what is important about the body to being human? Without this miracle of a body and its brain we would not be creatures capable of finding out what comes next for humanity, what kind of life we can make for one another in the coming century, whether we can all live longer, healthier, happier lives, and perhaps become something that is the highest possible expression of the gift of being human. That may in fact be part of the purpose for which we may have been created.
James Hughes Ph.D., the IEET Executive Director, is a bioethicist and sociologist at
Trinity College in Hartford Connecticut USA. He is author of
Citizen Cyborg and is working on a second book tentatively titled
Cyborg Buddha. He produces a syndicated weekly radio program,
Changesurfer Radio.
IEET Blog