Skip to main content

Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology

NanoEthics volume 5, pages 251–267 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

Nanotechnology—the control of matter at the level of atoms and molecules—has evoked a large body of literature on moral and ethical issues. Almost all of this is expressed in secular voices. Religious commentaries about nanotechnology have been much more rare. And yet survey research indicates that religious belief will be one of the most powerful influences in shaping public views about nanotechnology. This paper argues that it is worth knowing what religious voices have said about nanotechnology, so that we might anticipate additional religious reactions in the future. After that, this paper presents seven cases of religious reactions to nanotechnology from a variety of faiths. This information gives us some insights about how religious individuals and institutions think about this technology, and also insights about how a new technology evokes a variety of hopes and fears.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

References

  1. Allhoff F, Lin P, Moor J, Weckert J (2007) NanoEthics. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  2. Andersen S, Ebbesen M (2006) Nanoethics: general principles and christian discourse. J Lutheran Ethics, February 2006, 6(2). www2.elca.org/jle/archive/06-02.asp

  3. Attfield R (2003) Environmental ethics. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bainbridge WS (2005) The transhuman heresy. J Evol Technol 14(2):91–100

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bainbridge WS (2006) Cyberimmortality. Futurist 2006:25–29

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bainbridge WS (2007) Converging technologies and human destiny. J Med Philos 32:197–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bassett D (2010) Kyrzweil, Ray. In: Guston D (ed) Encyclopedia of nanoscience & society, vol 1. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 386–388

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bhattachary D et al (2008) Nanotechnology for health care. BMRP, London

    Google Scholar 

  9. Brossard D, Scheufele D, Kim E, Lewenstein BV (2009) Religiosity as a perceptual filter: examining processes of opinion formation about nanotechnology. Publ Understand Sci 18(5):546–558

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bruce D (2006) Making the world better. New Scientist 186(2503):21

    Google Scholar 

  11. COMECE (Commission of the [Catholic] Bishops’ Conferences of the European Community) (2008) Ethical questions raised by nanomedicine. In: Science and ethics. COMECE, Bruxelles, pp 23–28

  12. Daly BM (2004) Transhumanism. America, 25 October 2004, 18–20

  13. Davies SR, Kearnes MB, Machaghten PM (2009) All things weird and scary’: nanotechnology, theology and cultural resources. Cult Relig 10(2):201–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. DeWitt C (1994) Earthwise: a biblical response to our ecological crisis. CRC, Grand Rapids

    Google Scholar 

  15. EKD (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland) (2007) Verhaltenskodex zum verantwortungsvollen Umgang mit der Nanotechnologie (Toward a Code of Conduct for Responsible Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies Research), 27 September 2007. www.ekd.de/bevollmaechtigter/themen/070927_nanotechnologie.html

  16. Furber M (2008) Ethical dimensions of nanotechnology. Tabah Foundation, Abu Dhabi UAE, Analytical Brief No. 6, November 2008. www.tabahfoundation.org

  17. Gaskell G, Einsiedel E, Hallman W, Priest SH, Jackson J, Olsthoorn J (2005) Social values and the governance of science. Science 310:1908–1909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Herzfeld N (2006) The alchemy of nanotechnology. J Lutheran Ethics, February 2006, 6(2). www2.elca.org/jle/archive/06-02.asp

  19. Herzfeld N (2009) Technology and religion: remaining human in a co-created world. Templeton, West Conshokocken

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hexham I (1980) Learning to live with robots. Christ Cent 97(19):574–578

    Google Scholar 

  21. Hook CC (2004) The techno sapiens are coming. Christ Today, January 2004, 36–40

  22. Hopkins P (2002) Protecting God from science and technology. Zygon 37(2):317–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jenkins W (2008) Ecologies of grace. Oxford Univ. Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kahan D, Braman D, Slovic P, Gastil J, Cohen G (2009) Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nat Nanotechnol 4:87–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kurzweil R (2005) The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. Viking, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Milford R (2011) A new model for public engagement: the dialogue on nanotechnology and religion. In: Hayes S, Miller C, Bennett I, Roberts J (eds) Yearbook of nanotechnology in society, vol. 3. Springer, Dordrecht, pp

  27. Milford R, Wetmore J (2010) Journal of Lutheran Ethics. In: Guston D (ed) Encyclopedia of nanoscience & society, vol. 1. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 376–377

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pearson T (2006) The ethics of nanotechnology: a Lutheran reflection. J Lutheran Ethics, February 2006, 6(2). www2.elca.org/jle/archive/06-02.asp

  29. Roco M, Bainbridge W (2001) Societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  30. Roco M, Bainbridge W (2007) Nanotechnology: societal implications II: individual perspectives. Springer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. Rosenfeld A (1966) Religion and the robot. Tradition 8(3):15–23

    Google Scholar 

  32. Scheufele D, Corley E, Shih T-J, Dalrymple K, Ho S (2009) Religious beliefs and public attitudes toward nanotechnology in Europe and the United States. Nat Nanotechnol 4(2):91–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Scholem G (1966) The golem of Prague and the golem of Rehovath. Commentary 41(1):62–65

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sherwin BL (2004) Golems among us: how a Jewish legend can help us navigate the biotech century. Ivan R. Dee, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sherwin BL (2007) Golems in the biotech century. Zygon 42(1):133–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Smith G (2005) The christian religion and biotechnology. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  37. SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) (1982) Resolution on scientific creationism. http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp?ID=967

  38. Stross C (2003) Halo. In: Dozois G (ed) The year’s best science fiction. St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp 184–211

    Google Scholar 

  39. Taylor P (2004) Going all the way? Cybernetics and nanotechnology. Nucleus (Christian Medical Fellowship), April 2004, pp 12–19

  40. Thompson P (2007) Food biotechnology in ethical perspective, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  41. Toth-Fejel TT (2005) Humanity and nanotechnology. Natl Cathol Bioeth Q 4(2):335–364

    Google Scholar 

  42. Toumey C (2010) The singularity. In: Guston D (ed) Encyclopedia of nanoscience & society, vol. 2. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 716–717

    Google Scholar 

  43. Walker R (2011) Things to do in cyberspace when you’re dead. N.Y. Times Magazine, 8 January 2011, pp 30–37, 44, 46

  44. Waters B (2005) Christian perspectives. In: Mitchum C (ed) Encyclopedia of science, technology & ethics. Thompson Gale, Farmington Hills, pp 327–340

    Google Scholar 

  45. Wetmore J (2010) Religion. In: Guston D (ed) Encyclopedia of nanoscience & society, vol. 1. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 665–667

    Google Scholar 

  46. White L (1967) The historical roots of our ecological crisis. Science 155:1203–1207

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The work in this paper was made possible by a grant from the US National Science Foundation (Number 0951614) and by a fellowship in the 2010 Research Colloquium of CrossCurrents (the Association for Religion and Intellectual Life). The views in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of NSF or CrossCurrents. I am also happy to acknowledge the contributions of Colin Townsend, the graduate research assistant on the Religion & Nanotechnology Project. In addition, I thank the two anonymous reviewers for this journal for their helpful suggestions that enabled me to improve this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. USC NanoCenter, University of South Carolina, 1212 Greene Street, Columbia, SC, 29208, USA

    Chris Toumey

Authors
  1. Chris Toumey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chris Toumey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Toumey, C. Seven Religious Reactions to Nanotechnology. Nanoethics 5, 251–267 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0130-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11569-011-0130-2

Keywords

  • Religion
  • Transhumanism
  • Golem
  • Enhancement
  • Standard technological ethics
  • Embodiment
  • Cyberimmortality