1. Hearing before the Full Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, Artificial Intelligence: Advancing Innovation Towards the National Interest, 118th Congress, June 22, 2023; United Nations General Assembly, Seizing the Opportunities of Safe, Secure and Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence Systems for Sustainable Development, 78th Sess., 63rd Mtg., A/78/L.49, March 11, 2024.
2. Margaret A. Boden, Artificial Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2018), 1. John Gray, Seven Types of Atheism (New York: Picador, 2018), 67. Gray asserts that Transhumanism is a “religion recycled as science.” For further evidence that Transhumanism is a religion, see Natasha Vita-More, “History of Transhumanism,” in The Transhumanism Handbook, ed. Newton Lee (London: Springer Nature, 2019), 49. Transhumanism’s ideals of human enhancement can be placed on a spectrum that ranges from augmentation of human embodiment to the transcendence of human nature.
3. Thus far, professing Christian authors have generally embraced both AI and Transhumanism with little to no criticism. Sadly, these authors also use Scripture almost exclusively to justify the application and pursuit of such technologies. Cf. Ronald Cole-Turner, ed., Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011); Arvin M. Gouw, Brian Patrick Green, and Ted Peters, eds., Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2022); Calvin Mercer and Tracy J. Trothen, Religion and Transhumanism: The Unknown Future of Human Enhancement (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2014). Though he is friendly to AI and Transhumanism, Ted Peters is one of a few who offers criticism. Cf. Ted Peters, “Homo Deus or Frankenstein’s Monster?,” in Religious Transhumanism and Its Critics, ed. Arvin M. Gouw, Brian Patrick Green, and Ted Peters, (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2022), 3–30.
Over the past several years, machine learning and biotechnology advances have brought artificial intelligence (AI) and transhumanism to the forefront of global conversations.[1] Artificial intelligence “seeks to make computers do the sorts of things that minds can do,” and is one technology, among others, that is leveraged by Transhumanism, a secular religion that directs technologies to achieve its ideals of human enhancement.[2] Because of these, there is a sense that human civilization stands on the edge of significant change—changes that promise advances in healthcare and quality of life yet carry the potential destruction of human civilization.
Should we uncritically seek to accommodate AI and Transhumanism to the Christian worldview?[3] The answer is a resounding No! Instead, we should think biblically and theologically about what it means to be human and how these technologies impact human nature and experience. This essay demonstrates how a biblical-theological approach to AI and Transhumanism can offer a guiding perspective for Christians. To illustrate such an approach, I will begin by examining AI and Transhumanism through the lens of the doctrine of humanity and how it unfolds in the storyline of Scripture. Among other things, we will discover that the underlying aspirations of AI and Transhumanism have something in common with a biblical worldview, however misplaced or misapplied those aspirations may be. Second, I will explore AI/Transhumanism in view of the nature of human beings—essentially, how does this technology affect our humanity as God’s image bearers? I conclude with wariness for the dangers of AI and Transhumanism while acknowledging areas of potential agreement.
AI/Transhumanism and the Storyline of Scripture
It’s important first to understand who human beings are as we walk through the unfolding story of Scripture from creation, fall, redemption, and then consummation. God created mankind male and female in his image, body and soul, and set them as vice-regents over creation, saying, “It was very good” (Gen. 1:27–31). Mankind rebelled and fell into sin (Gen. 3:1–7), and both body and soul were stained by sin, corrupted, and utterly depraved (Rom. 5:12–21, Eph. 2:1–3). Yet by God’s love and mercy, mankind was promised redemption through one to be born of the woman (Gen. 3:15; Luke 1:68–79). This redemption was and is accomplished in the person and work of Jesus Christ, the Son of God incarnate, the last Adam (John 1:29, 3:14–18). This purchase out of sin’s slavery has far-reaching implications, for it assures regeneration (a new heart), the forgiveness of sin, the restoration of the breach between God and man, and the promise of resurrection to eternal life with new bodies and souls fit for existence with God (1 Cor. 15:20–28, 42–49). Creation, fall, redemption, and consummation provide a biblical perspective through which we can critique AI/Transhumanism and understand it biblically. Next, in view of the biblical storyline, let’s make two observations while engaging with morphological freedom and “substrate independence”—the ability to load your consciousness into another body like that of a dog (similar to how one might switch over all computer files when upgrading a computer).
Applying the Storyline
Transhumanists believe human embodiment is a problem. For humanity to flourish or even survive extinction, it must have the absolute freedom of and from form—something known as morphological freedom. How does the Christian respond to those who say that our given bodies are an optional part of our existence? Without justification, Transhumanist Martine Rothblatt’s foundational essay on morphological freedom proposes that “freedom of gender [transgenderism] is the gateway to a freedom of form and to an explosion of human potential. First comes the realization that we are not limited by our sexual anatomy. Then comes the awakening that we are not limited by our anatomy at all. The mind is the substance of humanity. Mind is deeper than matter.”[4] Most Christians would probably recoil intuitively at this bizarre statement, but on what basis?
4. Martine Rothblatt, “Mind is Deeper Than Matter: Transgenderism, Transhumanism, and the Freedom of Form,” in The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, eds. Max More and Natasha Vita-More (Chichester, West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 318.
5. Mind uploading is the technological capture of one’s consciousness. It is a necessary technology in transhumanism as it is a precursor for other technologies such as substrate independence, morphological freedom, and the Singularity. Cf. Ralph C. Merkle, “Uploading,” in The Transhumanist Reader, 157–64.
6. Morphological freedom relies upon substrate independence and mind uploading. It is the absolute freedom of and from physical form. Cf. Anders Sandberg, “Morphological Freedom—Why We Not Just Want It, But Need It,” in The Transhumanist Reader, 395–97.
7. Gregg R. Allison, Embodied: Living as Whole People in a Fractured World (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2021), 31, 39.
The unfolding storyline of humanity revealed in Scripture gives us a true north to critique Rothblatt’s claims. First, mankind was created as individual embodied persons, either male or female. They are commanded to do embodied tasks: be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth (Gen. 1:27–31, 2:7). In contrast, the transhumanist goal of morphological freedom supports ideas like transgenderism, changing species through surgery, and mind uploading—transferring one’s consciousness to a different body or machine. These distorted aims reject the idea that there are certain truths about the world and humanity based on how they were created.[5] The storyline of Scripture shows that God made mankind as individual male and female embodied persons, and no matter how hard Transhumanism attempts to breach this wall via aspirations to morphological freedom, they will always fall back down to earth on the hard ground of metaphysical reality.[6] A human being is embodied and engendered by their very nature, and the storyline of Scripture gives the Christian categories to speak against all nonsense to the contrary.[7]
Next, look at another example by examining the transhumanist idea of substrate independence through Nick Bostrom’s dragon fable and see how it compares to the storyline of Scripture. The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant allegorizes death as a dragon that devours thousands of people in a kingdom daily.[8] This goes on for years because no one thinks the dragon can be defeated. However, a wise sage persuades the king that a focused development of new technology can pierce the dragon’s scales and kill him. So, the king mobilizes everything necessary to develop the weapon, and the dragon is finally defeated. How do transhumanists hope to defeat the dragon of death? Through something called “substrate independence”—again, the ability to load your consciousness into another body. This proposed technology would enable the embodiment of human consciousness in limitless ways detached from one’s created body.[9] Again, how ought a Christian to think about this?
8. Nick Bostrom, “The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31, no. 5 (2005).
9. Substrate independence is dependent upon mind uploading. Substrate independence may also involve the interaction of the substrate independent mind with AI, as in the concept of the Singularity. Cf. Randal A. Koene, “Uploading to Substrate-Independent Minds,” The Transhumanist Reader, 146–56; Vernor Vinge, “Technological Singularity,” in The Transhumanist Reader, 365–72.
Enter the biblical storyline. After the creation of humanity, the biblical narrative reveals that God looked out over his creation and said it was very good (Gen. 1:31). This statement is unique in the creation narrative of Genesis 1–2. God declared his other creative acts good, but following the creation of mankind in his image, he raised the appraisal of humanity above the rest of creation. Yet, that which God has declared very good is the very thing from which Transhumanism seeks to extricate itself via uploading one’s consciousness to another body. For all its opposition to a Christian worldview, Transhumanism recognizes something true about the fallen condition of mankind: corruptibility, mortality, and even immorality.[10]
10. Transhumanism does advocate for enhancement of virtue. Cf. Adam M. Willows, “Supplementing Virtue: The Case for a Limited Theological Transhumanism,” Theology and Science 15, no. 2 (2017).
Ironically, Transhumanists and Christians both agree that things are not how they should be. Both want to kill Bostrom’s dragon. Transhumanists want to do this with a technological weapon. Christians recognize that this has already been done through a historical person. The dragon swallowed up a great hero; he went down to its inner depths, and at that very place cut his way out of its belly—and now he calls everyone to eternal life by following him through the dragon’s jaws and out of the dragon’s belly (1 Cor. 15:35–58, Rev. 20:4–6). The difference is that Transhumanism sees the problem and applies to it a materialistic solution (technological advance) rather than a biblical one (faith and repentance in Christ). We both agree that something must be done to remedy the human condition. However, the source of their hope is misplaced, and they are missing the revelation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
With these two observations, we can see the value of examining AI/Transhumanism through the lens of the doctrine of humanity as it unfolds in Scripture’s storyline. Next, we’ll briefly discuss how AI and Transhumanism relate to what theology says about humans.
AI/Transhumanism and Classical Anthropology
Thus far, AI has been peripheral to the conversation. Let’s consider the brain-enhancing potential of Neuralink technology and examine it through the lens the church has used to understand the nature of human persons. Neuralink is a company founded by Elon Musk that is working to create a medical device known as a brain-computer interface. The device interprets electrical signals from the brain to a computer system. It was successfully tested for the first time in January 2024. This technology is currently being developed to allow paralyzed individuals to control computers and mobile devices merely with their thoughts, but the potential future applications are extensive.
On September 20, 2023, Musk stated, “In the long term, Neuralink hopes to play a role in AI civilizational risk reduction by improving human to AI (and human to human) bandwidth by several orders of magnitude.” In another post four years earlier, Musk noted three paths open to humanity in light of AI’s ever-increasing capabilities: human-AI symbiosis, irrelevance, or doom. Neuralink implantation is ultimately intended to pursue the path of human-AI symbiosis by augmenting human function and interfacing human minds with AI and one another. If such a symbiosis were a reality, how would a Christian think about it in a biblical-theological manner?
Given Musk’s concerns regarding AI surpassing humanity and his solution of a symbiotic relationship, let’s consider classical anthropology’s understanding of human metaphysics—in other words, what the Bible says about human beings 101. Christianity has classically taught that human nature is a body-soul nature united in a unique person. It’s analogous to how Jesus Christ has a divine nature and a human nature united together in his person.[11] Persons act through the capacities of their body-soul nature. Since natures themselves cannot act, the abilities to be aware, think, reason, and make decisions are considered to belong to the faculties of the nature, guided by their respective persons.[12] If the possibility exists for human minds—and therefore (in part) human natures—to be linked together in a neural web and a symbiotic relationship with AI, such persons would have access to more than one human nature. In that scenario, could a person distinguish one human nature (their own) from another? Could that person distinguish the AI from their human nature? Such a deep philosophical issue would make it impossible for Christians to theologically justify supporting a union between AI and humans if such a symbiosis were even achievable. Again, a strong foundation of understanding who humans are from Scripture helps to address the challenges of these new technologies. While this is a minimal exploration of the capacity of theological anthropology to examine the merits of AI/Transhumanism, it demonstrates the importance and value of continuing similar work.
11. Michael A. Wilkinson, Crowned With Glory and Honor: A Chalcedonian Anthropology (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2024), 347.
12. Wilkinson, Crowned With Glory, 343. See also Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology, Volume 1: From Canon to Concept (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 690.
Conclusion
The Bible puts us at rest: let Fido be Fido, let Adam be Adam, and don’t mix the two—this is how God made it to be. The boundaries that Scripture sets forth, which might seem to restrict us from transcending our human limitations, are divine safeguards, protecting us from the perils of our fallen condition. These limitations are not barriers to imprison us within our fallen state, but guideposts directing us toward the One who has triumphed over death and promises to renew all creation. As we encounter the modern challenges of AI and Transhumanism, adopting a biblical-theological perspective offers us a framework to navigate these technologies wisely. This approach does not merely caution us against the hazards; it illuminates the path to glorifying God in an era of unprecedented technological advance.
