Can We 'Become Like God'?
[Written by Joe for an undergraduate philosophy essay]
To assess what we would be like if we were to ‘become like God’, we must first explore the characteristics of God in order to give a context to the goal of becoming like him. If we examine the characteristics of the traditional theistic God as a perfect being who created the world and has divine properties that set God apart from all other beings[1], then it is seemingly absurd for the human race to become anything like the unequalled supreme being. Identifying features including omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence[2], and then comparing these traits to humanity at present, it is evidently clear that humanity is everything God is not. Humans are mortal, evil, weak, and imperfect. By observing humanity, it becomes abundantly clear that it would be impossible for humanity to be anything like the kind of God that created us. However, the central mission of the international intellectual movement Transhumanism is seemingly just that; to make us like God. The deliberate effort by mankind to transcend itself; the term ‘Transhumanism’ is seen today in a cluster of futuristic scenarios in which science and technology will transform humanity, remedying all of its faults, and usher in a new age in the evolution of humans- the post-human age.[3] Through the theories presented by Transhumanist thinkers such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Julian Huxley, and Ray Kurzweil, we can attempt to explore what kind of God we would be if we were to become like God. I will also explore new-age theological attempts to address this issue and the moral implications that would arise from the act of ‘playing God’. My main apprehension with the transhumanist vison concerns personal identity; how ethical is this re-shaping of humanity, and how far down the road of transformation should we go?
Transhumanism developed as a philosophy that became a cultural movement, and promotes the continued evolution of human life beyond its current human form as a result of science and technology, guided by life-promoting principles and values. Stemming from Julian Huxley’s view that ‘humanity has suddenly become managing director of the biggest business of all, the business of evolution’[4], it is a teleological goal to reach the fullest realisation of human possibilities, i.e. we will become posthuman. The posthuman would no longer suffer from disease, aging, or even death.[5] The most common conception of this posthuman epoch involves the singularity; in which we would transfer or ‘resurrect’ our minds into supercomputers, allowing us to have infinite knowledge and to live forever.[6] Pierre Teilhard De Chardin’s seminal theory of the ‘Omega Point’ is his evolutionary approach to Christian eschatology, in which the biblical resurrection would take place. He describes four attributes of which; ‘Autonomy, actuality, irreversibility, and thus finally transcendence’.[7] To fully explore this conceptualization of the posthuman, we must address what it means to be human with comparisons to what it means to be God, or God-like.
Per the transhumanist conception of the posthuman, humanity will become so there is no distinction between the biological and the mechanical, or between the physical or virtual realities.[8] This abolition of the distinction between biological and mechanical seems to mirror the disembodied existence of God. Clearly humanity at present is manifested biologically, and technological advancement up until this point has served our bodies; easing pain, curing illnesses etc., so this step towards Godliness is a radical one, not just for technology, but for humanity. Bio-conservatives argue against the use of technology to modify human nature to this extent, stating that human enhancement to this extent will undermine our human dignity.[9] Through this argument for the protection of personhood, we can start to see an opposition forming against the idea of becoming like God via the transhumanist method, where the nature of humanity is not to be tampered with.
Clearly, we must think of ourselves, as Descartes puts it, as ‘thinking things’; because our bodies will no longer be necessary. However, this ‘cognitive immortality’ also raises the complications of mind/body dualism, and questions on what constitutes the ‘self’. The problem of personal identity needs to be examined in this context of ‘becoming like God’; can a disembodied upload of our mind ever ‘live’? The general transhumanist conceptions of the self-reflect John Locke’s assertion that memory is the key of personal identity: ‘what person stands for; which I think, is a thinking intelligent being, that has reason and reflection’.[10] Essentially; you are your memories and ability to reflect on yourself, or your overall psychological configuration. This view of the human identity permits radical change to the body and brain, as long as a sense of continuity (memory) is maintained. Here, what defines you are your cognitive processes. In keeping with materialist notions of the self, there is no immaterial aspect of the mind; this identity theory suggests that all mental properties are identical to the physical properties of the brain, so can be calculable.
The transhumanist would argue that there are scientific explanations of the mind, opposing the dualist position that the mind is beyond human understanding, something that leads Dennet to state that ‘accepting dualism is giving up’.[11] I disagree that you can reduce a person’s human existence down to their brain functions however; a human can experience, and feel. The otherworldly nature of the conscious cannot be entirely explained, as Nagel states; ‘Conscious subjects and their mental lives are inescapable components of reality not describable by the physical sciences’.[12] If the conscious was simply reduced to matter in motion, as it would be in a transhumanists approach to humanity, then there are ethical implications for right and wrong, as they are phenomena that only exist inside of our conceptions of them.[13] Through an ‘omega point’, or ‘singularity’, humanity would start to become like the classical characterisation of God discussed; ethereal, vastly intelligent and immortal. This transhumanist position however hinges on the calculability of the conscious, so in turn a dismissal of materialism is a dismissal that humans can become like God in this way.
Yet, the suggestion that we can become like God, through spiritual and technological means, is accepted is in some way accepted through interpretations of Christian eschatology. The Irenaean tradition in Christian theology understands humans maturing in terms of self-development, Mark Walker has argued that it is possible to understand this in terms of becoming like God; ‘If God is an ideal parent his mission must be to allow us to develop to become type identical with Him. That is, to enter with God into a community of Gods’.[14] This interpretation is prominent within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who conceptualise boundless elevation and exaltation of man, through all means, until he becomes God. Lorenzo Snow, fifth president of the church, illustrates this in his sermon on ‘our divine potential’: ‘It should be the height of our ambition to become like our father who has sent us into the world here’.[15] Mormon transhumanists are persuaded that we will become like the God of theism, in a progression without end.[16] This religious concept of the self in relation to God insists that it is possible to become like God, combining this approach with Walker’s we can begin to understand how human spirituality in conjunction with technology can elevate humanity to the status of God. Though objections of personhood seem to dismiss the radical change to humanity, these two ‘trans-spiritual’ viewpoints permit the use of technology to transform humanity in communion with religiosity, as God would want us to reach our full potential. Through this marriage of religion and transhumanist concepts of transcendence, it is possible to see how the spirituality of human nature can work in this framework, just how much will remain however is still questionable.
This leads to Patrick D. Hopkins’ approach to transhumanism, which advocates technologically augmenting, not dissolving, human bodies and minds in way that free us from our current physical and cognitive limitations. He asserts that optimising our newly expanded capacities for knowledge, pleasure, strength, longevity and durability would transform us into idealised versions of ourselves. Theistically, Hopkins compares this transformation to heavenly perfected bodies in a world without suffering, death or fear.[17] This position can be described as ‘Low Transhumanism’, which differs from the ‘High Transhumanism’ we have already seen in terms of the extent at which humanity is transformed. Rather than becoming substrate independent, incorporeal beings that resemble God more than they resemble being human, this form of transhumanism will result in super-humanism, not post-humanism. Post-humanism, he says, implies that the object modified by the ‘post’ is no longer the same kind of thing that it was. Hopkins’ approach avoids problems of personal identity, as hard determinism attempts to free us from the human condition by changing us so radically that we would no longer be human at all, and it would not be the human race becoming God-like. The Posthuman would be radically different, implying a lack of continuous identity, which would mean the end of humanity.
Here the concept of becoming like God through High Transhumanism is an existential dilemma for humanity. For humans to become like God, meaning the most perfect possible being and the source of goodness, we must first cease to be human. Humanity is a problem, so must be radically changed into a specific image of post-humanity fashioned by transhumanists. Francis Fukuyama claims that the first victim of transhumanism will be equality; stating that the underlying idea of the equality of rights is the belief that we all possess a human essence that dwarfs manifest differences in skin colour, beauty, and even intelligence. He queries what rights post-humans will claim, and how they will compare to those left behind. Fukuyama takes issue with the practicality of Transhumanism, addressing the implications for citizens of the world’s poorest countries - ‘for whom biotechnology’s marvels likely will be out of reach’.[18] The practical moral consequences of a transformation of humanity towards divinity are far reaching, Fukuyama continues to suggest that it would be impossible to become as benevolent as God, insisting that ‘our good characteristics are intimately connected to our bad ones’. This view implies that it is our faults that make us distinctly human, and it is the absence of those faults that make God separate from us. I contend that our lack of perfection is as much a strength as it is a weakness, as it makes us want to attain perfection in the first place. Advocates of Transhumanism assume that through the technological advancement of humanity there would follow an advancement in the benevolence of humanity, but by what standard will we be better? How can we know what the ultimate goods of God actually are?
Of course, technology will augment and improve on humanity, that process began centuries ago with the invention of glasses and modern medicine, so it is not only necessary but natural for humanity to continue to better itself, possibly with the image of God, the source of perfection, as something to model itself on. Opposition to the concept of transforming humanity comes in the form of arguments of ‘playing God’ with human nature, but what is it that makes humanity intrinsically above other animals? After all humanity is the product of an evolutionary process, so who is to tell us that being human or having dignity means sticking with a set of emotional responses that are the accidental by-product of our evolutionary history? Despite this, the fact remains that humanity has consciousness, and it is the unknown nature of the self that I believe provides an insurmountable obstacle for the cohesion of spirituality and technology. To retain any sense of humanity, the kind of God we can be is not the God of theism. Throughout this essay it has become clear that to mirror the attributes of the classical God of theism would mean we will cease being the individuals or even the kind of beings that were motivated to transform in the first place. If humanity can become like God, while still being human, we will become the kind of god with a small ‘g’. Lower transhumanism, as described by Hopkins, is a more ethically viable option for humanity to become like God, that is becoming ‘super-human’ rather than ‘post-human’. In an extreme sense, the transhumanist attempts to shape humanity in their image can be seen as a contemporary form of eugenics. Yet, at its core is the authentic aim to reach humanity’s divine potential, to become like God.
[1] Chad Meister, Introducing Philosophy of Religion, (London: Routledge, 2009) p. 51
[2] Roy Jackson, The god of philosophy: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion. (Durham: Acumen, 2011) Pp. 15,16 in Dawsonera <https://www-dawsonera-com> [accessed 12th November 2017]
[3] Hava Tirosh-Samuelson,‘Engaging Transhumanism: The Meaning of Being Human’, in <http://www.metanexus.net> [accessed 12 November 2017]
[4] Julian Huxley, ‘Transhumanism’, Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Vol 8, Issue 1, pp. 73 - 76
[5] Max More, Natasha Vita-More (ed.), The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, (Wiley & Sons, 2013) pp. 1,4
[6] Meghan O'Gieblyn, ‘God in the Machine: My Strange Journey into Transhumanism’, <www.theguardian.com> [accessed 1st November 2017]
[7] Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, (London: Collins, 1959) p. 271
[8] Ray Kurzweil, ‘Reinventing Humanity: The Future of Machine-Human Intelligence’ in The Futurist; Mar/Apr 2006; 40, 2; ABI/INFORM Global p. 39
[9] Nick Bostrom, ‘In Defence of Posthuman Dignity’, in Bioethics, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 202-214
[10] James Hughes, ‘Transhumanism and Personal Identity’, in The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, ed. by M. More and N. Vita-More (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013) pp. 227-234
[11] Daniel C. Dennett, Consciousness Explained, (Boston: Allen Lane, 1993) pp. 21-42 (p.37)
[12] Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is almost certainly False, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) p41
[13] Dennett p25
[14] Mark Walker, ‘Becoming Gods: A Neo Irenean Theodicy’, (2002) <http://philos.nmsu.edu> [accessed 21st November 2017]
[15] Lorenzo Snow, ‘Sermon on Our Divine Potential’, <history.lds.org> [accessed 22nd November 2017]
[16] Giulio Prisco, ‘Man will become like God, say Mormons and transhumanists in Salt Lake City’ <http://www.kurzweilai.net> [accessed 19th November 2017]
[17] Patrick D. Hopkins, ‘A Salvation Paradox for Transhumanism: Saving You verses Saving You’, in Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement, ed. by Calvin Mercer, Tracy J. Trothen (Praeger, 2014) pp.71-81 < https://books.google.co.uk> [accessed 22nd November 2017]
[18] Francis Fukuyama, ‘Transhumanism’, <foreignpolicy.com> [accessed 28th November 2017]