Hart's Anti-Theology of the Body
Yesterday I saw an interesting article at The New Atlantis - The Anti-Theology of the Body by David B. Hart. The journal had asked two writers - —Eastern Orthodox theologian David B. Hart and Lutheran theologian Robert W. Jenson—to consider the significance of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body for bioethics and beyond.
Jenson's article can be read Here. I'm posting some out-takes from Hart's article below. Read the whole article at the link above if you have time, as my cannibalism of it doesn't truly do it justice.
*************************
To ask what the legacy of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body might be for future debates in bioethics is implicitly to ask what relevance it has for current debates in bioethics. And this creates something of a problem, because there is a real sense in which it has none at all ... John Paul’s theology ... is a complete rejection—or, one might almost say, ignorance—of any dualism between flesh and spirit.
It is something of a modern habit of thought (strange to say) to conceive of the soul—whether we believe in the soul or not—as a kind of magical essence or ethereal intelligence indwelling a body like a ghost in a machine. That is to say, we tend to imagine the relation between the soul and the body as an utter discontinuity somehow subsumed within a miraculous unity: a view capable of yielding such absurdities as the Cartesian postulate that the soul resides in the pituitary gland or the utterly superstitious speculation advanced by some religious ethicists that the soul may “enter” the fetus some time in the second trimester. But the “living soul” of whom scripture speaks, as John Paul makes clear in his treatment of the creation account in Genesis, is a single corporeal and spiritual whole, a person whom the breath of God has awakened from nothingness. The soul is life itself, of the flesh and of the mind; it is what Thomas Aquinas called the “form of the body”: a vital power that animates, pervades, and shapes each of us from the moment of conception ....
The far antipodes of John Paul’s vision of the human, I suppose, are to be found at the lunatic fringe of bioethics, in that fanatically “neo-Darwinist” movement that has crystallized around the name of "transhumanism" .... Its principal tenet is that it is now incumbent upon humanity to take control of its own evolution ....
... Most of the new eugenists, admittedly, see their solicitude for the greater wellbeing of the species .... Far more intellectually honest are those—like the late, almost comically vile Joseph Fletcher of Harvard—who openly acknowledge that any earnest attempt to improve the human stock must necessarily involve some measures of legal coercion. Fletcher, of course, was infamously unabashed in castigating modern medicine for “polluting” our gene pool with inferior specimens and in rhapsodizing upon the benefits the race would reap from instituting a regime of genetic invigilation that would allow society to eliminate “idiots” and “cripples” and other genetic defectives before they could burden us with their worthless lives .... and he agreed with Linus Pauling that it might be wise to consider segregating genetic inferiors into a recognizable caste, marked out by indelible brands impressed upon their brows. And, striking a few minor transhumanist chords of his own, he even advocated—in a deranged and hideous passage from his book The Ethics of Genetic Control—the creation of “chimeras or parahumans...to do dangerous or demeaning jobs” of the sort that are now “shoved off on moronic or retarded individuals” ....
Transhumanism, as a moral philosophy, is so risibly fabulous in its prognostications, and so unrelated to anything that genomic research yet promises, that it can scarcely be regarded as anything more than a pathetic dream; but the metaphysical principles it presumes regarding the nature of the human are anything but eccentric .... If ever the day comes when we are willing to consider a program, however modest, of improving the species through genetic planning and manipulation, it will be exclusively those who hold such principles and embrace such presuppositions who will determine what the future of humanity will be. And men who are impatient of frailty and contemptuous of weakness are, at the end of the day, inevitably evil.
Why dwell on these things, though? After all, most of the more prominent debates in bioethics at the moment do not actually concern systematic eugenics or, certainly, “post-humanity,” but center upon issues of medical research and such matters as the disposition of embryos who will never mature into children. It is true that we have already begun to transgress the demarcations between species—often in pursuit of a medical or technological benefit ....
The difference between John Paul’s theological anthropology and the pitilessly consistent materialism of the transhumanists and their kith—and this is extremely important to grasp—is a difference not simply between two radically antagonistic visions of what it is to be a human being, but between two radically antagonistic visions of what it is to be a god. There is, as it happens, nothing inherently wicked in the desire to become a god .... Theologically speaking, the proper destiny of human beings is to be “glorified”—or “divinized”.... This is the venerable doctrine of “theosis” or “deification,” ....
... For the late pope, divine humanity is not something that in a simple sense lies beyond the human; it does not reside in some future, post-human race to which the good of the present must be offered up; it is instead a glory hidden in the depths of every person, even the least of us—even “defectives” and “morons” and “genetic inferiors,” ....
The materialist ... is someone who seeks to reach the divine by ceasing to be human, by surpassing the human, by destroying the human ...
... John Paul’s theology of the body will never, as I have said, be “relevant” to the understanding of the human that lies “beyond” Christian faith. Between these two orders of vision there can be no fruitful commerce, no modification of perspectives, no debate, indeed no “conversation.” ...
***********************
Without even taking into account the theological implications, my personal feeling is that the creation of genetically engineered organisms, especially chimeras, is most probably a bad idea - not only in the case of human beings, but (call me quirky) for animals and plants as well. I don't doubt the positive possibilities of some of it, but I think most of the research is driven less by compassion for those who are "crippled and diseased" and more by the desire for profit.
Jenson's article can be read Here. I'm posting some out-takes from Hart's article below. Read the whole article at the link above if you have time, as my cannibalism of it doesn't truly do it justice.
*************************
To ask what the legacy of John Paul II’s Theology of the Body might be for future debates in bioethics is implicitly to ask what relevance it has for current debates in bioethics. And this creates something of a problem, because there is a real sense in which it has none at all ... John Paul’s theology ... is a complete rejection—or, one might almost say, ignorance—of any dualism between flesh and spirit.
It is something of a modern habit of thought (strange to say) to conceive of the soul—whether we believe in the soul or not—as a kind of magical essence or ethereal intelligence indwelling a body like a ghost in a machine. That is to say, we tend to imagine the relation between the soul and the body as an utter discontinuity somehow subsumed within a miraculous unity: a view capable of yielding such absurdities as the Cartesian postulate that the soul resides in the pituitary gland or the utterly superstitious speculation advanced by some religious ethicists that the soul may “enter” the fetus some time in the second trimester. But the “living soul” of whom scripture speaks, as John Paul makes clear in his treatment of the creation account in Genesis, is a single corporeal and spiritual whole, a person whom the breath of God has awakened from nothingness. The soul is life itself, of the flesh and of the mind; it is what Thomas Aquinas called the “form of the body”: a vital power that animates, pervades, and shapes each of us from the moment of conception ....
The far antipodes of John Paul’s vision of the human, I suppose, are to be found at the lunatic fringe of bioethics, in that fanatically “neo-Darwinist” movement that has crystallized around the name of "transhumanism" .... Its principal tenet is that it is now incumbent upon humanity to take control of its own evolution ....
... Most of the new eugenists, admittedly, see their solicitude for the greater wellbeing of the species .... Far more intellectually honest are those—like the late, almost comically vile Joseph Fletcher of Harvard—who openly acknowledge that any earnest attempt to improve the human stock must necessarily involve some measures of legal coercion. Fletcher, of course, was infamously unabashed in castigating modern medicine for “polluting” our gene pool with inferior specimens and in rhapsodizing upon the benefits the race would reap from instituting a regime of genetic invigilation that would allow society to eliminate “idiots” and “cripples” and other genetic defectives before they could burden us with their worthless lives .... and he agreed with Linus Pauling that it might be wise to consider segregating genetic inferiors into a recognizable caste, marked out by indelible brands impressed upon their brows. And, striking a few minor transhumanist chords of his own, he even advocated—in a deranged and hideous passage from his book The Ethics of Genetic Control—the creation of “chimeras or parahumans...to do dangerous or demeaning jobs” of the sort that are now “shoved off on moronic or retarded individuals” ....
Transhumanism, as a moral philosophy, is so risibly fabulous in its prognostications, and so unrelated to anything that genomic research yet promises, that it can scarcely be regarded as anything more than a pathetic dream; but the metaphysical principles it presumes regarding the nature of the human are anything but eccentric .... If ever the day comes when we are willing to consider a program, however modest, of improving the species through genetic planning and manipulation, it will be exclusively those who hold such principles and embrace such presuppositions who will determine what the future of humanity will be. And men who are impatient of frailty and contemptuous of weakness are, at the end of the day, inevitably evil.
Why dwell on these things, though? After all, most of the more prominent debates in bioethics at the moment do not actually concern systematic eugenics or, certainly, “post-humanity,” but center upon issues of medical research and such matters as the disposition of embryos who will never mature into children. It is true that we have already begun to transgress the demarcations between species—often in pursuit of a medical or technological benefit ....
The difference between John Paul’s theological anthropology and the pitilessly consistent materialism of the transhumanists and their kith—and this is extremely important to grasp—is a difference not simply between two radically antagonistic visions of what it is to be a human being, but between two radically antagonistic visions of what it is to be a god. There is, as it happens, nothing inherently wicked in the desire to become a god .... Theologically speaking, the proper destiny of human beings is to be “glorified”—or “divinized”.... This is the venerable doctrine of “theosis” or “deification,” ....
... For the late pope, divine humanity is not something that in a simple sense lies beyond the human; it does not reside in some future, post-human race to which the good of the present must be offered up; it is instead a glory hidden in the depths of every person, even the least of us—even “defectives” and “morons” and “genetic inferiors,” ....
The materialist ... is someone who seeks to reach the divine by ceasing to be human, by surpassing the human, by destroying the human ...
... John Paul’s theology of the body will never, as I have said, be “relevant” to the understanding of the human that lies “beyond” Christian faith. Between these two orders of vision there can be no fruitful commerce, no modification of perspectives, no debate, indeed no “conversation.” ...
***********************
Without even taking into account the theological implications, my personal feeling is that the creation of genetically engineered organisms, especially chimeras, is most probably a bad idea - not only in the case of human beings, but (call me quirky) for animals and plants as well. I don't doubt the positive possibilities of some of it, but I think most of the research is driven less by compassion for those who are "crippled and diseased" and more by the desire for profit.
posted by crystal | 5:37 PM
4 Comments:
I read Hart's article yesterday after you cited it in the comments section of your last post. I found it eloquent and compelling, but at the same time I am disturbed by how absolute his reasoning is -- as if any work in genetics will automatically lead to the terrifying extremes he portrays so well.
I do think that more thought has to be put into the ethics of what we are doing with genetic engineering and similar technologies. But should we slam the door on them completely?
Hi Liam,
perhaps that's Hart's writing style - most of the articles I've read by him, while eloquent, are pretty one-sided. I don't know if he's being a rhetoritician or if that's really how single-minded he is.
When I think of genetic engineering, I think of lab mice with little arms growing out of their backs or tomotoes with fish DNA. And, as a National Geographic story says ...A new study shows that 20 percent of human genes have been patented in the United States, primarily by private firms and universities. ... it's all about (ok, mostly about) money, it seems to me, not helping otthers ... though, of course, it could do a lot of help.
Everything that can happen, will happen - genetic engineering, cloning, etc. I just hope the right people will be regulating it, rather than big business.
Wow, powerful indictment. Hart leaves no gray area at all between the Theology of the Body and "Transhumanism", does he?
I've never read The Theology of the Body. I probably need to get around to it. I love the fact that it rejects body/soul dualism. That is one area where I'm still struggling with a lifelong Platonic mindset. It's hard to shake.
Liam makes a good point, and there probably should be a dialogue. I confess that genetic engineering of humans terrifies me. Human nature being what it is, I just fear that if something can be done, it will be done. Maybe that's just the systems analyst in me talking. If such-and-such happens in Step A, what is likely to happen in Step B?
You rarely see any kids with Down's Syndrome anymore. All too often they are aborted. I suppose it would be a positive good to defeat it with genetic engineering, but I just fear that it would get extended progressively up the chain. I feel certain that at some point, the bar for desirability would be raised to the level that we'd be weeding out all the dark eyes/dark hair in favor of the blue eyes/blonde hair. Is that too pessimistic a view of human nature?
Yet another reason I'm glad I'm getting older.
Hi Jeff,
tanks for taking the time to reply to the posts. I'm with you on the Platonism ... I think that idea of the soul inhabiting the body and being released from it at death is pervasive in our secular-gnostic society.
remember the woman who was in a persistant vegetative state - Terri? There were discussions at a BBS I belonged to ... many of the people who were not religious thought she should die because her soul was "trapped" in her body and should be released.
That's the fear - people selecting children for desireability. It's already done a bit, I guess. I bet things would go the way of Blade Runner and Gattaca and other science fiction stories ... the rich would be the ones who could afford genetic engineering ... you'd recognise the poor people - they'd be dark haired and eyed, old beofre their time, with genetic diseases, and stuck on planet earth, with bad jobs :-)
Post a Comment
<< Home