Implications of technology on catholicism

[zro_x]

what implications would certain technologies that are now considered science fiction have on catholicism? among these:

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?
2. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?
3. could time travel allow us to earase past sins?
4. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?
5. would it be moral to take “immortality pills”?

any other questions, as well as any guesses as to the answers to these questions, would be greatly appreciated.

 

[bzkoss236]

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?

My understanding, clones, yes because they are human, robots, no because it is a “false” intelligence.

1. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?

Only if it removed your free will

1. could time travel allow us to earase past sins?

Doubtful, because if you could travel back in time, it would either
A) Be in a parallel universe and it wouldn’t erase your past sins, but prevent the “you” in that universe from sinning.
or
B) Not be able to happen because it would be a paradox. Something can’t happen differently than it has already happened.

1. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?

Depends on whether they are friendly, but likely governments will milk them for their technology and use them for military purposes for years before making it publicly known. In terms of if we started cohabitating with aliens on Earth and in regards to faith, hard to say since we won’t know if they have the same type of souls that humans do.

1. would it be moral to take “immortality pills”?

Hard to say. Personally, I would say no, but it may be morally gray because either way, whether you die during your time on Earth, or you endure the end of the world and Jesus’ return, you’ll inevitably be judged.

 

[Robert_Sock]

what implications would certain technologies that are now considered science fiction have on catholicism? among these:

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?
2. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?
3. could time travel allow us to earase past sins?
4. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?
5. would it be moral to take “immortality pills”?

any other questions, as well as any guesses as to the answers to these questions, would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve given up on technology and look forward to leaving this miserable and corrupt world.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

what implications would certain technologies that are now considered science fiction have on catholicism? among these:

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?

Yes to clones, no to robots

1. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?

No.

1. could time travel allow us to earase past sins?

No.

1. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?

That’s an incredibly complex question. We really can’t answer until actually confronted with the situation.

1. would it be moral to take “immortality pills”?

I’m not 100% sure, but I doubt it.

any other questions, as well as any guesses as to the answers to these questions, would be greatly appreciated.

I’ve done my best to help with answers.

 

[R_C]

what implications would certain technologies that are now considered science fiction have on catholicism? among these:

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?
2. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?
3. could time travel allow us to earase past sins?
4. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?
5. would it be moral to take “immortality pills”?

any other questions, as well as any guesses as to the answers to these questions, would be greatly appreciated.

1. Intelligent robots…this one we’ll never see beyond science fiction There’s a great reason why Alan Perlis once said: “an hour spent in the field of artificial intelligence is enough to make you believe in God”
2. By depriving us of free will, perhaps. But then we’d no longer be free creatures.
3. There will never, ever be such thing as time travel. And since God is outside of time and space, the Sacrament of Reconciliation already wipes away sins eternally. All that remains is a scar (for our own sake, that we may not fall again) and some temporal punishment (since there is a perfect divine justice that must be fulfilled, though it is sweetened by the greatest of God’s attributes, namely His mercy).
4. What question is that A bit broad, isn’t it? If there was such thing as intelligent life outside of earth, then they’d be children of God, like us, and as such we’d treat them (unless, of course, they try to wipe us out :knight1: Just joking).
5. We are immortal already The longer we hold on to the flesh, the longer we risk ending up in the overheated basement That’s why St. Paul said:

"To me, living is Christ and dying is gain” (Phil 1.21) “We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5.8).

Then again, I’d submit myself to the teaching that the Church would express if that time ever came

These questions do make us think out of the box, don’t they!

 

[hieroglyph]

Clones do have souls. Unfortunately, science can’t even get past giving them a right to life and bodily integrity to even begin to talk about the soul. Every scientist experiementing in the field wants to make clones, then kill them in the lab and usually harvest organs as well.

Further human-animal hybrids also have souls. It is a sin against nature for scientists in the UK to create them in the first place, but it is a second sin of murder when they kill the life they have made.

An immortality pill would keep you in your fallen body/state. The curse upon us poor children of Eve is death. We should not circumvent that which is the path to take us to be “present with the Lord.”

 

[Robertanthony]

what implications would certain technologies that are now considered science fiction have on catholicism? among these:

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?
2. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?
3. could time travel allow us to earase past sins?
4. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?
5. would it be moral to take “immortality pills”?

any other questions, as well as any guesses as to the answers to these questions, would be greatly appreciated.

1. welcoming at first. If they react like some aliens do in some movies( in a menacing way), total anihilation.
2. I can’t see why it would be immoral. It’s wrong to cut one’s life short but expanding it is not morally reprehensible. But i’m pretty sure human life is capped at 120 so good luck with that. I’d rather have immortality God’s way if I’m found worthy by God.

 

[Don_Jackson]

I’ve given up on technology and look forward to leaving this miserable and corrupt world.

How did you make your post…smoke signals?

 

[zro_x]

1. We are immortal already The longer we hold on to the flesh, the longer we risk ending up in the overheated basement That’s why St. Paul said:

"To me, living is Christ and dying is gain” (Phil 1.21) “We would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” (2 Cor 5.8).

An immortality pill would keep you in your fallen body/state. The curse upon us poor children of Eve is death. We should not circumvent that which is the path to take us to be “present with the Lord.”

It seems that the current stance of the church is to advance human biological life as much as possible. Taking human life is only alowable under very rare circumstances, couples should accept any babies god gives them, euthenasia is always evil, abortion is always evil, people should do what they can to protect their physical selves, etc. Shouldn’t the pro-life aspect of the church indicate that we must take such a pill?

I can’t see why it would be immoral. It’s wrong to cut one’s life short but expanding it is not morally reprehensible. But i’m pretty sure human life is capped at 120 so good luck with that. I’d rather have immortality God’s way if I’m found worthy by God.

at least one person surpassed this cap in recent history.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people

 

[zro_x]

my thanks to everyone for their interesting perspectives!

 

[Robertanthony]

1. welcoming at first. If they react like some aliens do in some movies( in a menacing way), total anihilation.
2. I can’t see why it would be immoral. It’s wrong to cut one’s life short but expanding it is not morally reprehensible. But i’m pretty sure human life is capped at 120 or thereabout so good luck with that. I’d rather have immortality God’s way if I’m found worthy by God.

Fixed.

 

[Robert_Sock]

How did you make your post…smoke signals?

I’m not suicidal or anything, but I’m looking forward to leaving this hell hole and making my way to Heaven. I’ll leave this world for those who find happiness living here.

 

[Robertanthony]

I’m not suicidal or anything, but I’m looking forward to leaving this hell hole and making my way to Heaven. I’ll leave this world for those who find happiness living here.

Robert, how can you live in Los Angeles and call the earth a hell hole (besides the earth, despite its imperfections is still God’s creation)? Take your focus on beauty, my friend. It’s all around you. Whether it be trees, the air we breathe, the ocean, the abundance found in nature, the warmth of the sun, I even marvel at fruits and vegetables, the fact that God has blessed the soil so much. In your sig, there is this quote that says “to hate one’s life”. That doesn’t mean to actively dislike it, to have disdain and contempt, it means to value the things of God more than creation/creatures. Cultivate a spirit of gratitude, Robert, it has done wonders in my life. Thank God for running water, to have drinking water available, not everyone on earth is as lucky. Make it a habit to thank God with heartfelt gratitude for at least one thing a day. Don’t go through life wishing you weren’t here, that’s certainly not God’ s plan for you. Pray God to change your perspective on life, in time he will. God bless.

 

[kingpomba]

1. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?

I find this one most interesting for many reasons.

It relates to (in my view) one of the largest problems in philosophy of religion, the problem of evil and a defense against it, the free will defense. Basically, the free will defense states evil exists as a result of people exercising their free will. Whilst murders and rapes sometimes occuring as a result of free will are bad and evil, it would be an even worse thing to abandon free will (In the sense that a - b = > 0 or a “net good” is gained).

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?
   Only if it removed your free will

I find your response very interesting as well. My main academic area of interest is psycopharmacology (big word to swallow indeed), i’m very interested in why people do what they do and feel along with the biological basis for that.

This may seem irrelevant but run with it. Domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris) are pretty much genetically wolves (Canis lupus). Wolves and dogs, in behaviour, are certainly not alike though. According to one theory, in the process of domesticating dogs, we changed the balance of certain chemicals in their brain and modified their brain structure and behaviours. They’re pretty much the same animal, yet, they have a much more placid temperament.

Lets look at this in terms of humans. Some humans, just by their nature, are naturally good, calm people. Someone like Mary or the apostles perhaps. They are good just by temperament. Many here would not at all dream about cheating on their partners. There are plenty out there (in-fact i know a few) who see absolutely no problem with this and can act at their utmost calm and collected whilst they’re doing it too.

If some people are naturally predisposed to being good by their temperament, it’s seems this is possible this certainly could be the case for everyone (this is an attack on the free will defense, God could make everyone of a good temperament, they would never do evil but they would still have free will but i’m not speaking to that exactly here).

How would you feel if we discovered all the neurotransmitters and brain structures that made someone predisposed to bad acts (granted this would probably be impossible) and we genetically engineered these away to make them have a temperament of goodness OR say, in a much more realistic way, we discovered what made some people extremely violent and abusive and we could engineer that away (as an embryo, no brainwashing here), just so they are like someone who isn’t?

Would they still have free will?

If someone is born with such a temperament, we just say its a character trait, we would agree they have **both **have free will **AND **are good people. If we genetically engineered it into a embryo, i dont see much difference.

 

[sophion]

1. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?

you can tell them Jesus died for them as well and that they should be baptized as catholics.

BELIEVE IT OR ELSE!

 

[zro_x]

you can tell them Jesus died for them as well and that they should be baptized as catholics.

BELIEVE IT OR ELSE!

unfortunately, it is very possible that many catholics would react this way.

 

[zro_x]

@kingpomba

very fascinating views. here’s mine. (purely speculative, not sure what the catholic church has to say on the subject. However, this sort of thinking can be found in C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity)

Our physical, observable actions have more than one cause. Free will is one, childhood experiences another, still another might be genetics. I think that our free will is entirely unaffected by our background and genetics. Indeed, it has to be. One can clearly see that people with particular backgrounds are more prone to “sin” as far as obsevable actions are concerned. our psychology prompts us to made a particular action, but we can freely choose whether or not to commit that action using our free will. Someone with a natural tendency toward good who commits an evil action will distance himself far further from god than a person disposed to do evil that commits the same evil action.
this means that there is no way to tell how close a person is to god. someone who commits every sin in the book and has a large predisposition to evil and has had a rotten childhood may be more holy then the seeming saint who has a naturally good temperament and was raised well. god knows our background and psychology. when we die, we are free from the burdens they place on us, and only our free will will be left to make the most important decision: heaven or hell? It is still our responsibility to cultivate our spiritual lives as much as possible so that we can make the right decision when the time comes.

As to why we weren’t all created with perfect temperaments, I think God created adam and Eve with exactly the perfect temperament you speak of. However, though their psychology made them prone to the actions god wanted from them, they still had free will. That makes their sin all the worse. They have, so to speak, no excuse. After their sin, poor temperaments were introduced into the genome. and that’s the reason we have them today.

from this point of view, genetic enhancements to our compassion and charity will not affect our free will, though they will affect our outward actions. interestingly, this actually means that we are morally compelled to genetically engineer more charitable and compassionate people, in order to make the world a better place!

That’s what I think anyway.
thoughts?

 

[Robertanthony]

@kingpomba

very fascinating views. here’s mine. (purely speculative, not sure what the catholic church has to say on the subject. However, this sort of thinking can be found in C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity)

Our physical, observable actions have more than one cause. Free will is one, childhood experiences another, still another might be genetics. I think that our free will is entirely unaffected by our background and genetics. Indeed, it has to be. One can clearly see that people with particular backgrounds are more prone to “sin” as far as obsevable actions are concerned. our psychology prompts us to made a particular action, but we can freely choose whether or not to commit that action using our free will. Someone with a natural tendency toward good who commits an evil action will distance himself far further from god than a person disposed to do evil that commits the same evil action.
this means that there is no way to tell how close a person is to god. someone who commits every sin in the book and has a large predisposition to evil and has had a rotten childhood may be more holy then the seeming saint who has a naturally good temperament and was raised well. god knows our background and psychology. when we die, we are free from the burdens they place on us, and only our free will will be left to make the most important decision: heaven or hell? It is still our responsibility to cultivate our spiritual lives as much as possible so that we can make the right decision when the time comes.

As to why we weren’t all created with perfect temperaments, I think God created adam and Eve with exactly the perfect temperament you speak of. However, though their psychology made them prone to the actions god wanted from them, they still had free will. That makes their sin all the worse. They have, so to speak, no excuse. After their sin, poor temperaments were introduced into the genome. and that’s the reason we have them today.

from this point of view, genetic enhancements to our compassion and charity will not affect our free will, though they will affect our outward actions. interestingly, this actually means that we are morally compelled to genetically engineer more charitable and compassionate people, in order to make the world a better place!

That’s what I think anyway.
thoughts?

I’ve thought about these things as well. Would I have done much better than Jeffrey Dahmer if I had his brain chemistry, personality, childhood experiences etc.? Homosexual sex and anthropophagia are simply not things that I’m interested in pursuing. But i have my own sins, my own sinful inclinations that **I **need to fight against that you or others don’t. Because of my cognitive make-up, my ADD or ADHD, because of the instability and lack of confirmation in my childhhood, because of rejection and perceived rejection, because of other issues I had growing up, a healthy self-esteem and self-confidence are probably not reasonable/attainable goals here on earth. Just like we’re all different as far as physical strength goes, I think some are endowed with a free-will that makes it easier to choose good. If someone can kill someone else cold-bloodedly and sleep soundly the next night, if he has that inclination to kill, he’ll have less mechanisms keeping him from doing it. But even if someone,s freewill doesn’t operate in the best of environment, the person can still oppose whatever he feels like doing. Jeffrey Dahmer had to say “yes” for the crimes to be perpetrated. Even if it had been tough to resist his impulsions, “no” remained a possibility. When all is said and done, I believe God will judge us justly and see what we did with the cards we were dealt. But I disagree with you, the decision to go to Heaven or Hell isn’t up to us, it’s God’s prerogative and his only.

 

[zro_x]

Just like we’re all different as far as physical strength goes, I think some are endowed with a free-will that makes it easier to choose good. If someone can kill someone else cold-bloodedly and sleep soundly the next night, if he has that inclination to kill, he’ll have less mechanisms keeping him from doing it. But even if someone,s freewill doesn’t operate in the best of environment, the person can still oppose whatever he feels like doing. Jeffrey Dahmer had to say “yes” for the crimes to be perpetrated. Even if it had been tough to resist his impulsions, “no” remained a possibility. When all is said and done, I believe God will judge us justly and see what we did with the cards we were dealt.

If our actual wills had differences in strength, some of us could get to heaven more easily than others. I don’t believe a just god would allow that. However, if some people had better psycholological makeup and life experiences that enabled them to choose good more easily, the sins they do commit would be judged more harshly.

But I disagree with you, the decision to go to Heaven or Hell isn’t up to us, it’s God’s prerogative and his only.

If god wanted to exclude everyone from heaven, of course he could. But since he is omnibonevolent, he wants us to be as happy as possible. Thus, he invites everyone into heaven. Those who have lived a life of sin are allowed to go to hell in order to attempt to escape god’s presence, which they hate. They are actually happier in hell then they would be in heaven.

 

[edwest2]

what implications would certain technologies that are now considered science fiction have on catholicism? among these:

1. would clones or intelligent robots have souls?
2. could genetic eingeneering make us less prone to sin?
3. could time travel allow us to earase past sins?
4. how would we deal with extra-terrestrial life?
5. would it be moral to take “immortality pills”?

any other questions, as well as any guesses as to the answers to these questions, would be greatly appreciated.

This is all science fiction. It is not based on reality.

1. Clones, meaning human clones, would have souls. There is no reason to do this.
   Intelligent robots cannot exceed their programming. That is, they have no free will. They would be used by and under the strict control of the military.
2. Genetic engineering has nothing to do with sin. It could be used to cure genetically inherited diseases or restore a missing limb without transplant, or make our bodies more resistant to disease or other harmful things.
3. Time travel is impossible.
4. Extraterrestrial life does not have to look like us or think like us at all. There is no way to answer that question.
5. It will become possible to slow the aging process but the long-term consequences would be unknown. People would still be subject to death by accident or illness, and so what if you could live a long time if you got dementia in your 70s?

Peace,
Ed