wpg@mendel.acc.virginia.edu (William Gardner) (06/26/89)
I would like to pose a new question to this group. Two recent book have speculated on the possibilities of achieving immortality through technological means. They are _Engines_of_creation_, by E. Drexler (1986, Doubleday) and _Mind_children_, by H. Moravec (1988, Harvard U. Press). Both are trying to anticipate consequences of continuing exponential increases in miniaturization and computational power. Drexler speculates that intelligent machines at the scale of a cell combined with an understanding of the human genome and neurology will allow us to conquer disease and aging. Moravec anticipates the development of symbiotic relationships between human minds and computers, leading eventually to a `downloading' of minds from brains to computers. If nothing else, this makes enteraining reading. I have _no_ idea whether any of this is remotely plausible, and I'm sure this isn't the group to debate the technical merits of either thesis. What I would like to ask all of you is: Supposing some kind of technological immortality were possible, what relationship, if any, would it have to Christian salvation? There is a sense in which this question is hideously frivolous -- the world is full of dying. But I think that the question will be posed anyway, after a few more orders of magnitudes increase in computing power, and then we will have to have answers. [][][][][][][][][][][] William Gardner [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] [] /_ o / / Department of Psychology wpg@virginia.edu [] [] /__) / / / University of Virginia 804-924-0669 [] [][][][][][][][][] Charlottesville, VA 22903 FAX: 804-924-7185 [][]
prem@geomag.fsu.edu (Prem Subramanyan) (06/28/89)
Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that God would allow creation to last so long as to give humans the chance to attain to such a place as being physically immortal "From the dust you came, to the dust you shall return", such is the curse placed on us by sin, and I seriously doubt anything we can do could break the curse. In order to achieve physical immortality in addition would require living in a very shielded environment, as injuries could always occur that would be fatal. The primary offering of Christianity, furthermore, is NOT immortality...I realize that I'm stepping on some people's theology here, but I honestly see a lot more in Scripture dealing with a relationship to God and freedom from enslavement to sin. The longer a person would live without Jesus , the more perverse he would become, making salvation necessary for him as well. Deeper sin would also lead to deeper despair, most likely causing many of our hypothetical "immortals" to yearn for death, probably committing suicide. Our "immortals" would need freedom from sin, and a personal relationship with God in order to lead healthy lives, so I really see no reason, if our "immortal" world existed, for salvation to become unimportant....in fact, it would probably be even more necessary (if it were possible) for life to even continue normally. Again, this is purely hypothetical, based on an unlikely premise, i.e. that God would allow us to "break the curse" of sin, which is death. In Jesus, --- Prem Subrahmanyam
howard@tp2.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard F. Steel) (06/28/89)
In article <Jun.26.01.44.36.1989.4292@geneva.rutgers.edu> wpg@mendel.acc.virginia .edu (William Gardner) writes: >I would like to pose a new question to this group. >Supposing some kind of technological immortality were possible, what >relationship, if any, would it have to Christian salvation? HE will come to judge the Living and the Dead; doesn't seem like it would make any difference. -- Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM :-( I Think, Therefore I AM, aka: Howard "The Duck" Steel :-) I think
ciriello@lafcol.uucp (Patrick Ciriello II) (06/28/89)
In article <Jun.26.01.44.36.1989.4292@geneva.rutgers.edu>, wpg@mendel.acc.virginia.edu (William Gardner) writes: > I would like to pose a new question to this group. Two recent book have > speculated on the possibilities of achieving immortality through > technological means. Interesting concept. However, there is one aspect of the human physical being that the human whole being is missing ... the soul. You can probably replace, at sometime or another, everything in the human body with synthetics and other materials (basically becoming a robot with a brain). But what does that do? You have basically eliminated the only blessing that arose out of the Garden of Eden fiasco .. God didn't let us eat from the Tree of Everlasting Life, otherwise we would be forever separated from Him. This is the benefit that death brings .. those who are saved will no longer be separated from God. Of course, from a theological standpoint, I don't think we can have immortal bodies ... 'for it is appointed for a man to die once, and then the judgement' ... so we are all going to die, eventually, no matter what we come up with technologically. However, I did leave out the question ... how do you replace a brain? If that is where the soul resided, and the soul is spirit, how are you going to get it into the artificial brain? I think a lot of people are going to end up dying (for nothing?) if this particular goal is sought after. Anyway, there was quite a discussion on this topic in the StarTrek Echo of (i think) FidoNet ... perhaps someone on that net ( or this one ) has the archive of that discussion. Pat Ciriello II Supervisor of Networking and Tech. Services Lafayette College UUCP: ciriello!lafcol BITNET: ciriello@lafayett
tomg@ann.mn.org (Thomas S. Greenwalt) (07/01/89)
For though of you interested, 'sci.nanotech' contains discussions on the
possiblities of nanotechnology from Drexler's 'Engines_of_Creation'. It
appears to be a highly possible technology that could see practicle applications
in 30-50 years.
--
Thomas S. Greenwalt {amdahl|hpda}!bungia!datapg!ann!tomg
A.N.N. Systems +1 612-866-1344 tomg@ann.MN.ORG tomg@ann!uunet
------------------ Patience is a Vice, Tolerance is a Virtue ------------------hwt@watmath.waterloo.edu (Henry Troupe) (07/01/89)
In article <Jun.26.01.44.36.1989.4292@geneva.rutgers.edu> wpg@mendel.acc.virginia.edu (William Gardner) writes: >I would like to pose a new question to this group... >What I would like to ask all of you is: Supposing some kind of >technological immortality were possible, what relationship, if any, >would it have to Christian salvation? ... > [][][][][][][][][][][] William Gardner [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][] This is an interesting question. One of the things that it took me longest to deal with in Christianity is the very strong emphasis on the afterlife. But, being a Christian means a certain standard of conduct here and now. I don't see, given that the physical universe will not endure forever, that extended life would a) be immortality nor b) be in any way incompatible with Christian faith. The case seems to me to be parallel to antibiotics and venereal disease. There were many people, regrettably including many priests, who felt that antibiotics were 'evil', because the threat of venereal disease was something they used to enforce a standard of action, without teaching a true sense of morality. In short, technical life extension would postpone and dilute the 'God's going to get you when you die' school of theology. But, that has little to do with Christianity. utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not | All that evil requires hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH) | responsible for | is that good men do (613) 765-2337 (Voice) | my opinions | nothing. [In my opinion the most important effect of Biblical views on the afterlife is in the way it changes our perspective on what is important. There's a tendency to think that buildings, governments, and institutions outlive people. The Christian perspective is that these things are all part of this transitory world. It's people that are eternal, and what happens to them is ultimately what matters. I'm reluctant to take positions on technology that doesn't yet exist, since a lot of the impact will be determined by details that it's hard to predict. Simply living longer might in fact tend to move people's perspective more in the direction that I've suggested is the Christian one. But there are bound to be other effects as well. Someone commented that moving into a mechanical body might cause problems, since the soul can't be mechanically reproduced. There has never been a Christian concensus on what the soul is or how it comes into existence. There are certainly views under which mechanically-implemented people would not have souls. However there are both classical and modern views that would allow it. One classical view is that each soul is a special creation of God. In effect, the parents create the body of the child via normal biological processes, and God then graces it with a soul. Perhaps he would do so for mechanical entities as well. It is also possible to view the soul as a function rather than a object. In this case, a mechanical entity could have a soul. Note that Christian doctrine does not necessarily require us to believe in a soul apart from a body. It is very common to think of the soul as a sort of invisible object separate from the body that is part of our being. I think most Christians take it for granted that this is *the* Christian view. This is certainly not the Hebrew concept. In the OT people don't *have* souls, they *are* souls. The concept of the soul as the "ghost in the machine", a separate thing that flits off into heaven freed of the body, is really a Greek one. The Greek concept is certainly the most common in Christianity today. But I don't think it is strictly speaking necessary. As far as I know, Christianity does not require belief in immortality of the soul. It does require a belief in resurrection of the body. If the soul is a process, then it would be resurrected as well. --clh]
ciriello@lafcol.uucp (Patrick Ciriello II) (07/08/89)
[quotation from my comments, saying that it is possible for a Christian to believe that the soul is a process, which ceases when the body dies, and is restarted only by the resurrection of the body. --clh] If the soul is not separate from the body, then how could the thief on the cross be in paradise while his body was in the ground? This is not a flame ... I think your points are quite valid ... but this just sort of came to mind to mind ... if the theif wasn't ressurected, then his spirit must be separate (of course, maybe soul and consiousness are two different things ... ) Maybe you can be (in spirit) absent from the body, present with the Lord, but your consiousness (or, rather, the process of think, acting, 'living' that we call consiousness) is still locked in you now defuct body (or ashes). Argh .... looks like one of those things we could argue about forever! Pat [When you're dealing with eternal life, issues of time tend to become a bit complex. There are several possible answers to your initial question: - that time in heaven isn't the same as time on earth, and things can have a time gap one place but be nearly simultaneous in the other - that the thief actually won't be resurrected until the end time, but since he won't be conscious of the time he is dead, he will experience it as immediate resurrection, and that's what Jesus meant. At any rate, I see no reason that the thief can't be living with his resurrection body in heaven while his original body is still decaying on earth. Jesus' example and Paul's statements tell us that the body that is raised is a different kind than the original one. I see no reason to think that the same atoms are reused. If they were, what happens to atoms that have been part of several people's bodies? By the way, I'm not selling any particular theories on these issues. I'm simply performing my usual duty as moderator of making sure people realize the range of Christian views. --clh]
ciriello@lafcol.uucp (Patrick Ciriello II) (07/15/89)
I think we have to look at the ressurection of Jesus to see whether we get a new body at the ressurection, or a transformed body from the old one. I believe, and I think the bible supposrts this (i have to go do some reading) theat Jesus's body was ressurected from the old one .. and I believe we are to go through the same process right before judgement (like, during the rapture) Pat [You probably want to look at I Cor 15:35ff. Both that and the resurrection stories suggest that the resurrection body is something new. I.e. different in kind. On the other hand, it's reasonable to think that there would be some similarity to the old one, since it's the same person. But the question was whether you could be resurrected while your body is still there in the ground. The fact that it is a "spiritual body" rather than a physical one (which is what Paul says) would seem to say that it is not made out of the same material as the old one. So it seems that there's nothing physically or metaphysically impossible with them coexisting. Whether they do depends upon how you read various other passages, which is a different question. --clh]