| | David B Hart, "The Anti-Theology of the Body"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, at least not from the perspective of
Christian tradition; and I would even say that if there is one element
of the transhumanist creed that is not wholly contemptible—one isolated
moment of innocence, however fleeting and imperfect—it is the
earnestness with which it gives expression to this perfectly natural
longing. Theologically speaking, the proper destiny of human beings is
to be “glorified”—or “divinized”—in Christ by the power of the Holy
Spirit, to become “partakers of the divine nature” (II Peter 1:4), to
be called “gods” (Psalm 82:6; John 10:34-36). This is the venerable
doctrine of “theosis” or “deification,” the teaching that—to employ a
lapidary formula of great antiquity—“God became man that man might
become god”: that is to say, in assuming human nature in the
incarnation, Christ opened the path to union with the divine nature for
all persons...
The materialist who wishes to
see modern humanity’s Baconian mastery over cosmic nature expanded to
encompass human nature as well—granting us absolute power over the
flesh and what is born from it, banishing all fortuity and uncertainty
from the future of the race—is someone who seeks to reach the divine by
ceasing to be human, by surpassing the human, by destroying the human.
It is a desire both fantastic and depraved: a diseased titanism, the
dream of an infinite passage through monstrosity, a perpetual and
ruthless sacrifice of every present good to the featureless, abysmal,
and insatiable god who is to come. For the Christian to whom John Paul
speaks, however, one can truly aspire to the divine only through the
charitable cultivation of glory in the flesh, the practice of holiness,
the love of God and neighbor; and, in so doing, one seeks not to take
leave of one’s humanity, but to fathom it in its ultimate depth, to be
joined to the Godman who would remake us in himself, and so to become
simul divinus et creatura. This is a pure antithesis. For those who, on
the one hand, believe that life is merely an accidental economy of
matter that should be weighed by a utilitarian calculus of means and
ends and those who, on the other, believe that life is a supernatural
gift oriented towards eternal glory, every moment of existence has a
different significance and holds a different promise. To the one, a
Down syndrome child (for instance) is a genetic scandal, one who should
probably be destroyed in the womb as a kind of oblation offered up to
the social good and, of course, to some immeasurably remote future; to
the other, that same child is potentially (and thus far already) a
being so resplendent in his majesty, so mighty, so beautiful that we
could scarcely hope to look upon him with the sinful eyes of this life
and not be consumed.
Full article: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/9/hart.htm
|
| | Posted 1/17/2007 5:56 PM - 46 views - 1 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- give stars
- votes0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
