Joseph Miller
03-25-2024
Abstract: In times past, the dream of transcending the limited human form was shaped by mysticism and religious myth. In the twentieth century, the ancient belief that humans were, and are, masters of their own destiny became wedded to both naturalism and technological advances. This desire to transcend the limits of the physical body is known as Transhumanism (Humanity+ or H+). Throughout the twentieth century, many Christians sought to integrate the Darwinian theory of animal to human evolution with their own theology of human origins. This group generally falls under the label theistic evolution or evolutionary creation. Given the influence of H+ among many religious thinkers, we must consider how Christian H+ answers two critical questions: “What does it mean to be human?” and “What is the future of humanity?” The H+ proposal to each respective question is commonly framed in terms of singularity and immortality. Immortality is the pursuit of never-ending life ushered in using technology as humans self-evolve into something greater. This paper surveys the H+ literature among Christian who also embrace animal to human evolution and examines the implications for those who define human personhood—not simply as an artifact of humanity’s past evolution—but as an ever-emerging avatar of humanity’s future.
Keywords: Transhumanism, Evolution, Naturalism, Christianity, Singularity, Technology
Introduction
In times past, the dream of transcending the limited human form was shaped by mysticism and religious myth. In the twentieth century, the ancient belief that humans were, and are, masters of their own destiny became wedded to both naturalism and technological advances. This desire to transcend the limits of the physical body is known as Transhumanism (Humanity+ or hereafter H+). The non-theistic transhumanist worldview was defined by three key presuppositions: 1) naturalism, 2) animal to human evolution “guided” by natural selection, and 3) ethics as a byproduct of culture. In his survey of popular transhumanist novels, Timuçin Buğra Edman concludes that, “transhumanism marches forward from the past to reach out for a new possibility that we have yet to meet. , and humans will not be the only clever species any more in this dimension.”1 Edman concludes that science can merge the human with the machine to fulfill the higher purpose of evolution. H+, however, is not a belief exclusive to non-theists.
Throughout the twentieth century, many Christians sought to integrate the Darwinian theory of animal to human evolution with their own theology of human origins. This group generally falls under the label theistic evolution or evolutionary creation. One sub-group within theistic evolution is what I label naturalistic theistic evolution (NTE).2 The use of naturalism to modify theism certainly runs counter to its popular usage as a denial of God’s existence. However, some evolutionary creationists argue that naturalism does not exclude a god per se, but only a god whose actions contravene the natural order of human evolution. In this respect, advocates of theistic evolution argue that naturalism means that human origins are sufficiently explained by science and excludes supernatural causation.
A strong advocate for NTE is Arthur Peacocke. For Peacocke, the term naturalism is not taken as a denial of God’s existence, but a denial of God’s supernatural interference with natural law and evolutionary processes.3 In Peacocke’s chapter titled, “Theistic Naturalism,” he writes, “If God incorporates both the individual systems and the total System-of-systems within Godself, as in the panentheistic model, then it is more readily conceivable how God could interact with all the complex systems at their own holistic levels.”4
Given the influence of H+ among many religious thinkers, we must consider how Christian H+ answers two critical questions: “What does it mean to be human?” and “What is the future of humanity?”5 The H+ proposal to each respective question is commonly framed in terms of singularity and immortality. Singularity, especially within its religious usage, is taken to mean that the human species is neither privileged above nature nor an end unto itself, but just one of many transitional creatures on the evolutionary path toward ultimate unity with the universe.6 Immortality is the pursuit of never-ending life ushered in using technology as humans self-evolve into something greater. The H+ endeavor seeks to achieve the goals of singularity and immortality through a broad field of study covering disciplines such as religion, psychology, genetics, biotechnology, and information technology. Transhumanists accepts without moral judgement that millions of species have gone extinct throughout billions of years and humans are just one more species in the evolutionary path towards the singularity. Many transhumanists, even some Christians, accept this narrative as a moral paradigm that justifies the potential extinction of the human species as merely the next step along the journey toward universal consciousness without the limitation of human frailty. The remainder of this paper surveys the H+ literature among Christian who also embrace animal to human evolution. I conclude with an examination of the implications for those who define human personhood—not simply as an artifact of humanity’s past evolution—but as an ever-emerging avatar of humanity’s future.
Early Advocates of Christian H+
Research into artificial life—the next evolution of humanity—is the logical extension of naturalistic theistic evolution and offers insight into how many transhumanists perceive human ontology.7 Much like art, argues Niels Gregersen, artificial life is a source of inspiration for novel theologies of God and creation. Artificial life, he writes, helps replaces the pre-modern worldview that nature is a hierarchy of being and reshapes the early modern worldview of a clockwork nature ruled by laws. If matter is a product of nature’s triad of mass, energy, and information, this leaves open the possibility that matter itself is indwelt by ever-present trinity of Father, Son, and Spirit.8 A theology of artificial life helps humankind explore what life is and what life can become if society is able to move beyond the cultural perceptions of things such as gender, kinship, sexuality, race, economy, and cosmology which constrain our anthropology. For Gregersen, the power of artificial life theology removes the limitations of divine creation and opens the path to humanity’s own divine-like creative powers. This theology of evolutionary enlightenment breaks down the dualist barrier between self and environment. This Zen-like understanding of God transcends the concept of individuality and enables humanity to see God, not as a person, but as a network of relationships that eventually encompass the new creation of what humans must become.9
Artificial life, argue transhumanists, provides a non-reductionist channel for the divine goal of creating new emergent ontologies of human personhood. The so-called “enriched” brand of empiricism is grounded in the H+ writings of philosophers such as Alfred North Whitehead and Roman Catholic Priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. Regarding the latter, John F. Haught writes, “Instead of viewing life and mind exclusively in terms of their antecedent lifeless and mindless elements, Teilhard looks back at the material spheres studied by physics and chemistry by deliberately starting inquiry into nature at the point of the phenomenon of consciousness.”10 Teilhard’s writings then serve as a bridge between the nineteenth century theologians like George Mivart, advocates of nonreductive emergentism, and twenty first century transhumanists who embrace animal to human evolution. Writing along Nancy Murphy and other emergentists, Brent Waters affirms the compatibility of Teilhard’s panentheistic vision for the future of human evolution:
When the last vestiges of temporal and finite limits have been removed, then— and only then— is the posthuman vision consummated, for the new being is genuinely free to will what it and its world shall be. Indeed, the more enthusiastic posthumanists envision a day when the real and the virtual are merged into a singular reality, or the universe itself becomes a single consciousness.11
H+ scholar Eric Steinhart considers Pierre Teilhard de Chardin the first thinker to give “serious consideration to the future of human evolution” through the use of genetic engineering and technologies to achieve a new cosmic-intelligence that would transcend humanity itself.12 Teilhard, a close friend of Julius Huxley, crafted a new theology that was wholly dependent on the evolutionary narrative that the cosmos—birthed in chaos—was steadily evolving toward eternal perfection. This perfection could only be achieved by tethering the current state of imperfect anthropology to the future hope of a perfect cosmic singularity. Teilhardian scholar John F. Haught concludes that for Teilhard, “the metaphysical basis of human unity is not so much in our murky biological past as in the future communion of all creation with God.”13 In other words, the origins of what it means to be human are unclear, but the future of becoming and being human was the path to unity.
Teilhard’s method of transforming humanity was grounded in his commitment to eugenics. The eugenics movement employed techniques of population control such as oral contraception, social isolation, forced sterilization, welfare, abortion, and family planning to achieve the Darwinian goal of genetic fitness for a superior human race. These principles were integrated into Teilhard’s theology to advance the goal of singularity. Teilhard argued that society must not leave the future of humanity to the “mirage of instinct” or to the whims of the individual. The future of human existence must be guided by what he considered the reasonable organization of the world’s resources. He wrote, “In the course of the coming centuries it is indispensable that a nobly human form of eugenics, on a standard worthy of our personalities, should be discovered and developed. Eugenics applied to individuals leads to eugenics applied to society.”14 Like other Malthusians, Teilhard believed that industrialization had forced an overpopulation of the earth. On the brink of famine and suffocation, steps must be taken to ensure that only the best of humanity survived. The challenge to build a better humankind demanded the use of “individual eugenics (breeding and education designed to produce only the best individual types) and racial eugenics (the grouping or intermixing of different ethnic types being not left to chance but effected as a controlled process in the proportions most beneficial to humanity as a whole).”15 While these methods involve both technological and psychological challenges, Teilhard believed that science—in tandem with his theology—would guide human evolution toward a better future.
As Eric Steinhart points out, Teilhard’s vision of a universe evolving into god-like consciousness was later adapted by transhumanist advocates who often failed to recognize the intellectual debt they owed to Teilhard.16 In response, Steinhart argues that transhumanists must study Teilhard to properly defend their ideas against conservative Christians who hinder human progress by opposing new biotechnologies such as embryonic stem cell research. Transhumanism—built on the Teilhardian tradition—can build bridges to liberal Christians and foster political change which promises social justice and help us reach the great age where humanity is finally merged with technology.17 Salvation in the age of computational evolution, concludes Steinhart, arrives then when the human body is resurrected beyond its physical limitations into its new spiritual (i.e., digital) posthuman form.18
Barbara Marx Hubbard also adopts Teilhard’s work to advance her view of transhumanism. For Hubbard, the vision of H+ is grounded on three pillars: 1) the need to grow through a positive purpose, 2) the leap forward in complexity and unity with the environment, and 3) the power to make the world work for everyone.19 Each of these pillars is built on the works of different men, including Teilhard. From her study of Teilhard’s writings, Hubbard concludes that, “our purpose is to actualize the scientific, social, and spiritual potential of humanity such that we can become a universal species.”20 Hubbard argues that humans are at the next stage of evolution, a stage shaped by the confluence of a new cosmology, new crisis in the environment, and new technological capacities. Humanity now has the capacity—and moral duty—to co-create a new ever-evolving and open future.21 The moral duty of H+ requires both a repudiation of the traditional Christian ethic, one which values every individual human as created in the image of God, and an embrace of the evolutionary ethic, described by men such as Huxley, Wilson, and London, that privileges the collective good of the new transcendent humanity above the individual.
This devaluing of the individual comes from the prior commitments of the transhumanist project. As Filip Bardziński points out, there is a natural conflict between the narrative of animal to human evolution and the political commitment to individual human rights. This conflict is rooted in Darwin’s narrative of natural selection, a narrative that denies that nature has any goal or purpose but instead merely accounts for the advancement of the species with neutral regard to the preservation of the individual. This higher moral purpose of eliminating genetic impurities to ensure the survival of the species in a new and superior form creates a fundamental alliance between H+ and eugenists. Bardziński laments that this conflict may ultimately hinder the H+ goal:
If we wish to impact the biological evolution of the human species, we would have to do so through a global and uniformed programme, closely resembling state-driven eugenics. The measures being advocated by transhumanists would thus be ineffective and only lead to achieving short-term and short-ranged effects, which would probably not satisfy the demands and ambitions relating to transhumanism.22
Still, Bardziński hopes to overcome this deep philosophical conflict between natural selection and human rights, and seeks a solution. “Transhumanism,” writes Bardziński, “while deeply rooted in the Darwinian understanding of evolutionary biology, values highly the individualistic notion of personal liberties and happiness. Such a combination may thus prove difficult to maintain.”23 One of the most significant challenges to overcoming this moral conflict is that H+ offers an ever-evolving definition of humanity that both undermines the objective value of the individual human and mitigates the need to preserve the current iteration of what we call human.
Can Christian H+ Preserve Human Personhood & Human Rights?
As was the case with Teilhard and eugenics, there are many progressive Christians today—inspired by the Darwinian narrative—who leverage their theology to advance the H+ goal. While many Christians see a conflict between biblical doctrine and H+, Michael S. Burdette encourages his readers to open their minds to what he considers the broader history of Christian theology which favors the pursuit of salvation through technology. Burdette makes his case through a brief survey of three such thinkers: Francis Bacon, N. F. Fedorov, and Teilhard. Each man, he argues, offered a proto-transhumanist solution for humankind’s common enemy of death. Most relevant to this study is Burdette’s emphasis on Teilhard’s tripartite vision for an eschaton defined by the convergence of humankind to maximize limited natural resources, an increased mechanization that frees humanity from biological limitations, and unification of humanity with all of nature.24
Burdette is not alone in his advocacy of a Christian-compatible transhumanism. In the book, Transhumanism and Transcendence, editor Ronald Cole-Turner presents a collection of essays from several Christian Transhumanists. While each author holds some unique elements to their theology, each one embraces the narrative of AHE as the foundation for understanding human origins. Each author rejects the traditional creationist view that God created humanity with a fixed and final human nature and accepts, “the transhumanist starting point that biological organisms, including human beings, are evolved, changing, and possibly changeable, perhaps even through technological intervention.”25 In Cole-Turner’s recent work, he affirms the need to replace the historic Christian doctrine of Adam and Eve and, in his view, the equally unnecessary doctrine of salvation from a sinful and fallen state.26 The story of humanity, as told through science remains an unfinished narrative. Cole-Turner believes humans do not share a common ancestry but evolved from many different places and times.27 Cole-Turner is aware that some may use his polygenic argument for an evolving definition of humanity as a justification for racism. “The problem now is that the scientific counter-argument is no longer based on what seemed like the straightforward clarity of the ‘Out of Africa’ scenario. Now science must appeal instead to the somewhat less vivid idea of introgression as a persistent feature in the evolutionary history of the hominin lineage.”28
Cole-Turner reframes Christian anthropology in H+ terms to argue that “long before Darwin or any of the precursors of modern evolutionary thinking, Christianity saw humanity as malleable, reshapable in our very nature over time through the effects of sin and the grace of redemption. Malleability is the presupposition for redemption; a humanity that cannot be changed cannot be redeemed.”29 The kind of change Cole-Turner advocates is not a modification of humans from a state of sin to a state of perfection, but a change that leads to a state of being beyond humanity itself. Writing in The Transhumanist Reader, Max More provides a clear summary of this point:
Transhumanists regard human nature not as an end in itself, not as perfect, and not as having any claim on our allegiance. Rather, it is just one point along an evolutionary pathway, and we can learn to reshape our own nature in ways we deem desirable and valuable. By thoughtfully, carefully, and yet boldly applying technology to ourselves, we can become something no longer accurately described as human—we can become posthuman.30
Consistent with his evolutionary hermeneutic, Cole-Turner uses various theological terms outside their biblical context to advance H+ ideals. Christian theology, he notes, emphasizes the ideals of redemption and glorification. Therapy, argues Cole-Turner, is aimed at redemption of what is already embodied whereas H+ targets glorification of a future disembodied self.31 Consequently, Cole-Turner concludes that the H+ purist of cosmic-glorification through technological evolution makes the desire to preserve humanity a hurdle to our greater future. Reminiscent of Teilhard, Cole-Turner argues, “It is not the human individual or even the human species that has lasting cosmic significance. In our hominid evolutionary lineage however, the cosmos has come to self-consciousness.”32 This new science-inspired theology only reaffirms his belief that humanity is not the high point of God’s creation, but a means to reach a better creation beyond humanity. H+, for Cole-Turner, is the authentic Christian theology which stands at the core of the Gospel of salvation:
Transhumanism to the troglodytes among us might appear to be a vain attempt to go beyond human nature. But, from a Christian perspective that relies upon God’s promised eschatological transformation, going beyond current human nature is the definitive Christian commitment. This makes Christians and transhumanists visionary partners, not opponents.33
Given Cole-Turner’s argument, Christians who oppose H+ are not only luddites, but they also stand in the way of the true Gospel of salvation. Salvation, he argues, is not the redemption of the individual person from sin but ability of humanity—as a species—to embrace technology as a means of transcending the limitations of the human flesh.
Calvin Mercer, relying on the models created by thinkers such as Teilhard, is more open to some of the more radical eschatological aspects of H+ such as uploading the human consciousness into a digital matrix and the potential for a resurrection without a physical body. If, writes Mercer, one is willing to set aside considerations of individual happiness and focus on our collective ability to advance cosmic evolution, then Christian theology no longer presents a barrier to post-humanist ideals.34 Once again because human personhood is indeterminate, the dignity and rights of the individual person is sacrificed for the sake of the collective evolution of humanity. And while race may not be a consideration for these authors, there is also nothing within their worldview which could invalidate the use of racial, ethnic, or technological hierarchies to eliminate those considered a hinderance to the mission of transhumanism.
Conclusion
This paper examined how proponents of naturalistic theistic evolution (NTE) integrate philosophy with science to answer the question, what does it mean to be human? The writings of influential Christian writers were used to demonstrate how NTE makes human personhood indeterminate. This indeterminacy of human personhood in NTE philosophy was affirmed in the writings of H+ authors. In pursuit of cosmic singularity and immortality through technology—grounded in evolutionary philosophy—there are demonstrably clear implications for redefining human personhood. The H+ reliance on the thinking of theologians like Teilhard to answer the two fundamental questions—what does it mean to be human? and what is the future of humanity?—demonstrate the endemic challenge of protecting human rights while denying God’s teleological purpose of human persons. Consequently, regardless of the moral convictions of any single theist, adherents of NTE are left without a cogent ontology of human personhood which subsequently limits their ability to make a coherent case against the erosion of human rights based. The limitations of NTE leave open the need for Christians to offer a coherent argument in favor of an objective and persistent definition of human personhood.
1 Timuçin Buğra Edman, “Transhumanism and Singularity: A Comparative Analysis of a Radical Perspective in Contemporary Works,” Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences 18, no. 1 (2019): 40, http://dx.doi.org/10.21547/jss.446662.
2 John W. Cooper, “Created for Everlasting Life: Can Theistic Evolution Provide an Adequate Christian Account of Human Nature?,” Zygon 48, no. 2 (June, 2013): 478, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12013. See also this related discussion which uses the term “religious naturalists,” Christoffer Skogholt, “I Walk the Line: Comment on Mikael Leidenhang on Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design,” Zygon 55, no. 3 (September, 2020): 694, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/zygo.12631.
3 See also this definition, Arthur Peacocke, All That Is: A Naturalistic Faith for the Twenty-First Century, ed. Philip Clayton, Theology and the Sciences (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2007), kl 411–412, Kindle.
4 Ibid., kl 446. Peacocke’s use of panentheism is in line with the writings of process theologians such as Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb, and David Griffin, and distinct from other uses in that he seems to embrace the existence of only one God. In contrast, panentheism, as defined by Norman Geisler, is a form of finite-godism practiced among the various Ancient Near East religions whose gods were limited in power and existed simultaneously both in an “actual temporal pole” and in a “potential eternal pole.” See Norman L. Geisler, Christian Apologetics (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1976), 173, 193. Stated in metaphysical terms, panentheism, in this ancient sense, holds that the existence of any one god is not essential to the existence of the cosmos. In some sense, Peacocke’s panentheism is closer to absolute pantheism which identifies the cosmos and God as mutually essential qualities.
5 See also this author’s article, J.R. Miller, “With Transhumanism, What Happens to Human Rights?,” Mind Matters News, Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence, January 1, 2022, https://mindmatters.ai/2022/01/with-transhumanism-what-happens-to-human-rights/.
6 There is no uniform view or definition of singularity among contemporary transhumanists and there are differences between the theistic definition used above and the secular ones. Many non-theists such as Ray Kurzweil define singularity as the moment in time when humans achieve immortality achieved through technological advances such as Therapeutic Human Cloning, stem cell therapies, synthetic human organ, or nanotechnology. Even with this difference in nomenclature, the thrust of singularity is the search for a unity with technology that transcends humanity. See, Terry Grossman, “The Transhuman Singularity,” Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence, March 27, 2001, https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-transhuman-singularity. The history of competing definitions of singularity is discussed briefly here, Nick Bostrom, “A History of Transhumanist Thought,” Journal of Evolution and Technology 14, no. 1 (April, 2005): 8. Some Christian theists argue these traditions can be reconciled into a shared vision for a post-human future, Ronald Cole-Turner, “The Singularity and the Rapture: Transhumanist and Popular Christian Views of the Future,” Zygon 47, no. 4 (2012): 779, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01293.x.
7 Artificial life should not be confused with advocacy for artificial general intelligence (AGI). IBM’s Deep Blue, for example, reflects a comparatively narrow goal to develop technological “systems that exhibit the broad range of general intelligence found in humans.” Sam Adams et al., “Mapping the Landscape of Human-Level Artificial General Intelligence,” AI magazine 33, no. 1 (2012): 26. AGI is explicitly a “short-term” engineering project. Ben Goertzel and Cassio Pennachin, eds., Artificial General Intelligence (Berlin: Springer, 2007), V. In this limited context, AGI does not entail the ontological commitments of H+ and is not in conflict with the Christian worldview advanced in this dissertation.
8 Niels Henrik Gregersen, “Reduction and Emergence in Artificial Life: A Theological Appropriation,” in Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons, ed. Nancey C. Murphy and William R. Stoeger (Oxford University Press, 2007), 285.
9 Gregersen, “Reduction and Emergence in Artificial Life,” 305–307.
10 John F. Haught, “Emergence, Scientific Naturalism, and Theology,” In Evolution and Emergence: Systems, Organisms, Persons, ed. by Nancey C. Murphy and William R. Stoeger,(Oxford University Press, 2007), 262.
11 Brent Waters, “From Human to Posthoman Theology and Technology,” in Human Identity at the Intersection of Science, Technology and Religion, ed. Christopher C. Knight and Nancey C. Murphy, Ashgate Science and Religion Series (Farnham, UK: Routledge, 2010), 201.
12 Eric Steinhart, “Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism,” Journal of Evolution & Technology 20, no. 1 (2008): 1. See also, David Grumett, “Transhumanism and Enhancement: Insights from Pierre Teilhard de Chardin,” in Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement, ed. Ronald Cole-Turner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 38.
13 John F. Haught “Trashing Teilhard.” Commonweal Magazine 146, no. 3 (2019): 9.
14 Teilhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man, trans. Bernard Wall (New York: Harper Perennial, 1959), 282.
15 Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of Man, trans. Norman Denny (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 231–232.
16 Eric Steinhart, “Teilhard de Chardin and Transhumanism,” Journal of Evolution & Technology 20, no. 1 (2008), 2.
17 Ibid., 3, 9.
18 Ibid., 16.
19 In addition to Teilhard, Hubbard notes Abraham Maslow and Buckminster Fuller as her sources of inspiration. Barbara Marx Hubbard, “Seeking our Future Potentials,” The Futurist 32, no. 4 (May, 1998): 29–30.
20 Hubbard, “Seeking our Future Potentials,” 32.
21 Ibid., 360.
22 Bardziński Filip, “Transhumanism and Evolution. Considerations on Darwin, Lamarck and Transhumanism,” Ethics in Progress, no. 2 (2014): 112.
23 Ibid., 105.
24 Michael S. Burdett, “Contextualizing a Christian Perspective on Transcendence and Human Enhancement,” in Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement, ed. Ronald Cole-Turner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 29–30.
25 Ronald Cole-Turner, “Transhumanism and Christianity,” in Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement, ed. Ronald Cole-Turner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 193–194.
26 Ron Cole-Turner, “New Perspectives on Human Origins: Three Challenges for Christian Theology,” Theology and Science 18, no. 4 (January 1,, 2020): 533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1825187.
27 Ibid., 529–530.
28 Cole-Turner, “New Perspectives on Human Origins,” 534.
29 Ronald Cole‐Turner, “Going Beyond the Human: Christians and Other Transhumanists,” Dialog: A Journal of Theology 54, no. 1 (2015): 22, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dial.12150.
30 Max More, “The Philosophy of Transhumanism,” in The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, ed. Max More and Natasha Vita-More (Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013).
31 Ronald Cole-Turner, “Introduction: The Transhumanist Challenge,” in Transhumanism and Transcendence : Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement, ed. Ronald Cole-Turner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 4–5; 194.
32 Cole‐Turner, “Going Beyond the Human,” 24.
33 Ibid., 21.
34 Mercer, “Dialog,” 31.
Dr. Joseph Miller is an Assistant Professor of Christian Worldview at GCU’s College of Theology as well as the On-Ground Christian Worldview Course Lead. He earned a B.A. in architectural engineering from Pennsylvania State University, an M.Div. from Oral Roberts University, a M.A.S.R. from Southern California Seminary, a D.Min. from Biola University, and a Th.M. and Ph.D. in ethics from Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. He has taught in higher education for more than a decade and has worked in pastoral ministry for over 20 years. He has authored multiple books on leadership, church history, and biblical theology.