Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Do Bigger Brains Mean Smaller Gods? Cognitive Science and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism and the Church (or, Why We Can’t Outrun Faith)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Christian Perspectives on Transhumanism and the Church

  • 406 Accesses

Abstract

As with many human desires, transhumanist hope often lapses into transhumanist hype, but that recognition usually seems to come from those who fear the prospects. As a result, denunciations are frequently as vague as they are dismissive. Yet, despite potential benefits in the transhumanist agenda, there are legitimate reasons for questioning some of its particular projections and doing so can help distinguish between the hope and hype. Focusing on inherent limitations to cognitive enhancement, for instance, is instructive because that arena is so intimately connected to personhood and is also the gateway to other envisioned forms of improvement. Identifying those restrictions is also germane to considerations of Christian engagement with the realities of a transhumanist future—a future whose “superior” beings can never escape faith.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Pope , Essay on Man (Epistle I), 7.

  2. 2.

    Teilhard de Chardin , Phenomenon of Man.

  3. 3.

    Cf. Mitchell , “Define Better”; Bieber-Lake , Prophets of the Posthuman.

  4. 4.

    Cf. Hofstadter , Fluid Concepts; Kurzweil , How to Create a Mind; Bak , How Nature Works.

  5. 5.

    Garreau , Radical Evolution.

  6. 6.

    Markoff , “Computer Wins on ‘Jeopardy!’”

  7. 7.

    Krauthammer and Dowell , “Kasparov: Deep Blue Funk.”

  8. 8.

    Eigler and Schweizer , “Positioning Single Atoms with a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope.”

  9. 9.

    Rothemund , “Folding DNA to Create Nanoscale Shapes and Patterns.”

  10. 10.

    Drexler et al., Productive Nanosystems, v.

  11. 11.

    Tyson , Neil deGrasse, “Holy Wars: An Astrophysicist Ponders the God Question,” in Kurtz , Science and Religion, 79.

  12. 12.

    Cf. Drummond , Ascent of Man, 171.

  13. 13.

    Reeves and Donaldson , Little Book for New Scientists.

  14. 14.

    Compare Grassie , “H-: Millennialism at the Singularity: Reflections on Metaphors, Meanings, and the Limits of Exponential Logic.”

  15. 15.

    Moravec , “When Will Computer Hardware Match the Human Brain?” See also Moravec , Robot.

  16. 16.

    This is true both for any particular or general problem-solving strategies and for the problem-solving architecture itself.

  17. 17.

    For example, Kurzweil, How to Create a Mind and The Singularity Is Near.

  18. 18.

    Kurzweil , How to Create a Mind.

  19. 19.

    The list is enormous and the literature extensive. For a summary of some issues that must be addressed, see Donaldson , “Predictive Learning.” Some noteworthy suggestions for tackling some of those problems include Albus , “Outline for a Theory of Intelligence”; Hawkins , On Intelligence; Donaldson , “A Neural Network for Creative Serial Order Cognitive Behavior.”

  20. 20.

    Turing , “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.”

  21. 21.

    Albus , “Outline for a Theory of Intelligence.” Marvin Minsky (Society of Mind) acknowledged years ago that without emotions , machine intelligence would never rival that of humans.

  22. 22.

    Wolfram , A New Kind of Science, 715–717.

  23. 23.

    Penrose , The Emperor’s New Mind.

  24. 24.

    Cf. John Searle’s famous “Chinese Room” thought experiment (“Minds, Brains, and Programs”).

  25. 25.

    That is, could a zombie be intelligent? Cf. Dennett , Sweet Dreams.

  26. 26.

    Cf. Shannon , “Programming a Computer for Playing Chess.”

  27. 27.

    Some individuals think that quantum computing will be our savior in this regard. For example, Calude and Pӑun (Computing with Cells and Atoms, 253) report that Hughes has estimated that a factoring algorithm (used in encryption, perhaps) that would take years on a traditional Von Neumann computer could be done in minutes or hours on a quantum computer. It appears, however, that a quick solution to save cryptology is simply to increase the size of the keys used for encryption.

  28. 28.

    Kurzweil , The Singularity Is Near.

  29. 29.

    McGilchrist , The Master and His Emissary, 9.

  30. 30.

    Gilovich, How We Know What Isn’t So and “The Hot Hand in Basketball”; Tversky and Kahneman , “Judgment Under Uncertainty” and “The Framing of Decision and the Psychology of Choice.”

  31. 31.

    Kurzweil , How to Create a Mind, 176.

  32. 32.

    Donaldson , Dimensions of Faith, 228.

  33. 33.

    Cf. Taleb , Black Swan.

  34. 34.

    Gödel , “Über Formal Unentscheidbare.”

  35. 35.

    Cf. Berry , Life Is a Miracle, 149.

  36. 36.

    Cf. McGrath , Science and Religion, 51–58; Rosenberg , Philosophy of Science, e.g., 39–59.

  37. 37.

    Van Huyssteen , Shaping of Rationality, 157.

  38. 38.

    See McGilchrist (The Master and His Emissary) regarding concerns about an agenda driven strictly by one logical perspective (left brain) to the exclusion of a larger logical, empathic framework (right brain).

  39. 39.

    And, as an Open Theist might argue, possibly even there as well.

  40. 40.

    Donaldson , Dimensions of Faith, 79–112.

  41. 41.

    Approximation techniques can dramatically speed the discovery of solutions for intractable problems but without being able to guarantee optimality. Such losses of certainty are integrally involved with the concept of faith.

  42. 42.

    Whether that randomness is ontological (real) or epistemological (perceived due to limited capabilities) makes little difference when it comes to human or transhuman faith.

  43. 43.

    Kauffman , At Home in the Universe, 16–17, 23.

  44. 44.

    Donaldson , Dimensions of Faith, 47.

  45. 45.

    Ibid., 17, 29–31, 33, 47, 65.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., 114, 223–36.

  47. 47.

    Matt 5:48.

  48. 48.

    In possible contrast to Teilhard’s vision (The Phenomenon of Man).

  49. 49.

    McGilchrist , The Master and His Emissary, 29.

  50. 50.

    Cf. Peters , “Progress and Provolution: Will Transhumanism Leave Sin Behind?” in Cole-Turner , Transhumanism and Transcendence.

  51. 51.

    An attempt to reclaim the perfections of Adam is sometimes cited as one of the driving factors behind the development of modern science (Harrison , The Bible, Protestantism, and Rise of Natural Science), yet one of the primary conclusions regarding the Fall is that perfect sight does not equal perfect insight.

  52. 52.

    Cf. the explorer/mechanic metaphor in Donaldson , Dimensions of Faith, 139–167.

  53. 53.

    Lewis , The Abolition of Man.

  54. 54.

    Although biblical positions on free will may seem ambiguous, this is one possible avenue of resolution.

  55. 55.

    Cf. Wegner , The Illusion of Conscious Will; Wilson , Consilience.

  56. 56.

    Lewis , The Abolition of Man.

  57. 57.

    John 8:32.

  58. 58.

    Cf. Grenz , The Social God and the Relational Self; Herzfeld , In Our Image; Van Huyssteen , Alone in the World?; Shults , Reforming Theological Anthropology ; Jensen, Systematic Theology.

  59. 59.

    This is because claims for the imago Dei follow immediately after the portrayal of God’s own creative acts.

  60. 60.

    This positive approach is likely what Teilhard (The Phenomenon of Man) had in mind in his vision.

  61. 61.

    Cf. Donaldson , Dimensions of Faith, 220, 244–245, where exploration and discovery (both of which can be associated with creativity) are portrayed as integral to freedom.

  62. 62.

    Cf. the concern of C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man.

  63. 63.

    Romans 12:2.

Bibliography

  • Albus, James S. 1991. Outline for a Theory of Intelligence. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 21 (3): 473–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bak, Per. 1999. How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry, Wendell. 2001. Life Is a Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition. Berkeley: Counterpoint.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bieber-Lake, Christina. 2013. Prophets of the Posthuman: American Fiction, Biotechnology, and the Ethics of Personhood. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calude, Cristian S., and Gheorghe Pӑun. 2001. Computing with Cells and Atoms: An Introduction to Quantum, Membrane, and DNA Computing. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole-Turner, Ronald, ed. 2011. Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, Daniel C. 2005. Sweet Dreams: Philosophical Obstacles to a Science of Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, Steve. 1999. Predictive Learning and Cognitive Momentum: A Foundation for Intelligent, Autonomous Systems. Proceedings of the 37th Southeast Regional Conference of the ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2008. A Neural Network for Creative Serial Order Cognitive Behavior. Minds and Machines 18 (1): 53–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2015. Dimensions of Faith: Understanding Faith Through the Lens of Science and Religion. Eugene: Cascade.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drexler, Eric, John Randall, Stephanie Corchnoy, Alex Kawczak, and Michael L. Steve, eds. 2007. Productive Nanosystems: A Technology Roadmap. Palo Alto: Foresight Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eigler, D.M., and E.K. Schweizer. 1990. Positioning Single Atoms with a Scanning Tunnelling Microscope. Nature 344: 524–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garreau, Joel. 2006. Radical Evolution. New York: Broadway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, Thomas. 1991. How We Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilovich, Thomas, Robert Vallone, and Amos Tversky. 1985. The Hot Hand in Basketball: On the Misperception of Random Sequences. Cognitive Psychology 17: 295–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gödel, Kurt. 1931. Über Formal Unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und Verwandter Systeme, I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38: 173–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grassie, William. 2011. H-: Millennialism at the Singularity: Reflections on Metaphors, Meanings, and the Limits of Exponential Logic. Metanexus, August 9. http://www.metanexus.net/essay/h-millennialism-singularity-reflections-metaphors-meanings-and-limits-exponential-logic

  • Grenz, Stanley. 2001. The Social God and the Relational Self: A Trinitarian Theology of the Imago Dei. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, Peter. 2001. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Jeff, and Sandra Blakeslee. 2004. On Intelligence. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzfeld, Noreen L. 2002. In Our Image: Artificial Intelligence and the Human Spirit. Minneapolis: Fortress.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstadter, Douglas, ed. 1995. Fluid Concepts and Creative Analogies. New York: Basic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, Robert. 2001. Systematic Theology: The Works of God. Vol. 2. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, Stuart. 1996. At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krauthammer, Charles, and W. Dowell. 1996. Kasparov: Deep Blue Funk. Time, February 26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, Paul. 2003. Science and Religion: Are they Compatible? New York: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzweil, Ray. 2006. The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2013. How to Create a Mind: The Secret of Human Thought Revealed. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C.S. 2001. The Abolition of Man. New York: HarperOne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markoff, John. 2011. Computer Wins on ‘Jeopardy!’: Trivial, It’s Not. The New York Times, February 16. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/science/17jeopardy-watson.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • McGilchrist, Iain. 2012. The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, Alister. 2010. Science and Religion: A New Introduction. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, Marvin. 1985. The Society of Mind. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, Ben. 2004. Define Better. Christianity Today 48 (1): 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravec, Hans. 1998. When Will Computer Hardware Match the Human Brain? Journal of Evolution and Technology 1. http://www.jetpress.org/volume1/moravec.pdf

  • ———. 1999. Robot: Mere Machine to Transcendent Mind. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose, Roger. 1989. The Emperor’s New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds and the Laws of Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, Alexander. 1844. An Essay on Man in Four Epistles. Troy: W. & H. Merriam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, Josh, and Steve Donaldson. 2016. A Little Book for New Scientists: Why and How to Study Science. Downers Grove: IVP Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, Alex. 2012. Philosophy of Science: A Contemporary Introduction. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothemund, Paul. 2006. Folding DNA to Create Nanoscale Shapes and Patterns. Nature 440: 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1980. Minds, Brains, and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3): 417–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon, Claude E. 1950. Programming a Computer for Playing Chess. Philosophical Magazine 41 (314): 256–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shults, F. LeRon. 2003. Reforming Theological Anthropology: After the Philosophical Turn to Relationality. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taleb, Nassim Nicholas. 2007. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. 2008. The Phenomenon of Man. New York: Harper Perennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, Alan. 1950. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind 59: 433–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981. The Framing of Decision and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211 (4481): 453–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huyssteen, J. Wentzel. 1999. The Shaping of Rationality: Toward Interdisciplinarity in Theology and Science. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2006. Alone in the World?: Human Uniqueness in Science and Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, Daniel. 2003. The Illusion of Conscious Will. Cambridge, MA: Bradford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Edward O. 1999. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfram, Stephen. 2002. A New Kind of Science. Champaign: Wolfram Media.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Samford University, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Steve Donaldson

Authors
  1. Steve Donaldson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steve Donaldson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Samford University, Birmingham, AL, USA

    Steve Donaldson

  2. Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Ron Cole-Turner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Donaldson, S. (2018). Do Bigger Brains Mean Smaller Gods? Cognitive Science and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism and the Church (or, Why We Can’t Outrun Faith). In: Donaldson, S., Cole-Turner, R. (eds) Christian Perspectives on Transhumanism and the Church. Palgrave Studies in the Future of Humanity and its Successors. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90323-1_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation