Apocalypses
It seems that everything is an apocalypse these days. Judging from the popularity of shows like The Walking Dead or Last Man on Earth and dystopian movies like The Hunger Games, 10 Cloverfield Lane, and most recently, Ghost in the Shell, we humans are even more obsessed with the end of our times than we are with the beginning, and more creative at imagining it. Our ideas about the future often take on religious overtones (and, indeed, many religious have much to say about the end), informed by current scientific realities and projections of those realities, making the end of time, apocalyptic or not, a point of discussion and tension in science and religion.
"The sickening! It's happening!"
Religions often speak of the distant future as the epoch in which the deity will begin to do a new work among humans. For the Abrahamic faiths in particular, this means the coming (either for the first time or the return) of God’s anointed who will defeat the forces of darkness. Many of us have heard the story: it’s the one with the Antichrist, the four horsemen, the rapture, and so on.
But there is more to apocalypticism than just the Left Behind series. Though it’s taken on a larger meaning in modern times, our word “apocalypse” comes from the Greek word meaning to “uncover” or “reveal,” hence the name of the Biblical book “Revelation.” When scholars speak about apocalypse, they’re referring to the “literary genre wherein a prophet receives divine revelation through a vision of a transcendent reality distinct from the everyday world.” (1) The Judeo/Christian apocalypse itself is a genre of literature (including the books of Daniel, Isaiah, Hebrews, and Revelation) that was born in reaction to the Hellenization of the ancient world after the campaign of Alexander the Great in the 30’s BCE and was influenced by the combat myths and literature of its time. Apocalypses like these can be apocalyptic without being strictly Christian. They just have to involve elements like the following: a vision seen by a prophet, explained with pervasive symbolism; a future in crisis; divine beings and heavenly sphere; a judgment that impacts all of nature; and often, hope for salvation. Thus the Christian apocalypse describes the return of Jesus, the Messiah, judgment of both humans and spiritual beings, and the creation of a new heaven and a new earth. But in other apocalypses, like the End of Homo sapiens or the End of Nature, these elements are different. With the existence of religious and secular apocalypses alike, it is easy to suppose a conflict (or at the very least, a competition) between the religious and non-religious visions.
The End of Homo sapiens
Artificial intelligence apocalypticism is real, and as dramatic as prophecies of our robot overlords may seem, they’ve earned the serious attention of scientists and theologians alike. “Transhumanism” is the term used to describe the movement that envisions the future of humanity as transformed by technology and is defined by philosopher Nick Bostrom in “The Transhumanist FAQ: 1.5” as follows:
(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.
(2) The study of the ramifications, promises and potential dangers of the use of science, technology, creativity, and other means to overcome fundamental human limitations. (2)
Included within the transhumanist movement are technological fields like artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, and robotics, all seeking to improve the human condition in the ways Bostrom describes. In some instances, this involves incorporating technologies into the human body, creating “transitional humans” or “transhumans” for short. In other cases, it involves building artificially intelligent systems that mimic and improve upon human capabilities or augmenting human beings to a point where they may no longer be considered humans. These are called “posthumans.” In this way, the development of transhumanist technologies is not restricted by humans’ biological limitations, but is free to improve upon human capabilities in a myriad of ways.
It may not come as a surprise that the creation of transhumans is sometimes perceived as being in conflict with Christianity. To people like artificial intelligence professor Hugo de Garis, who calls himself “a voice crying out in the wilderness” and confesses that his vision of the future keeps him awake at night, transhumanism is a chance to create a new religion centered around synthetic posthumans, the artilect gods, who in his mind will be truly worthy of worship. He rejects Christianity, saying, “I cannot take traditional religions seriously, since they are incompatible with what I have learned about the world.” (3) Similarly, Marvin Minsky, one of the founders of artificial intelligence at MIT, is quoted as having said, “people should give their money to AI research rather than their churches, as only AI would truly give them eternal life.” (4) In response, certain Christian fundamentalists like Hal Lindsey agree that Christianity and transhumanism could never collaborate. Lindsey insists, “Without benefit of science, space suits, or interplanetary rockets, there will be those who will be transported into a glorious place more beautiful, more awesome, than we can possibly comprehend.” (5) There is a great concern that by pursuing immortality and ever-increasing capabilities and intelligence, humankind is attempting to become their own saviors, a feat of hubris that will end in our own demise.
But this need not be the case. In contrast to these perspectives, work has been done to demonstrate the compatibility of Christianity and transhumanism. Religious scholar Robert Geraci draws parallels between Judeo/Christian apocalypticism and apocalyptic artificial intelligence. Three major themes distinguish early Judeo/Christian apocalypticism: “alienation within the world, desire for the establishment of a heavenly new world, and the transformation of human beings so that they may live in that world in purified bodies.” Geraci examines the work of leading transhumanist authors and traces these three apocalyptic themes throughout, revealing a developed apocalyptic artificial intelligence in which “[o]ur virtual selves will accomplish exactly what Isaiah prophesied millennia ago.” (6) Could it be that we are participating in God’s will for the future? Perhaps, as computer scientist and theologian Anne Foerst believes, the creation of robots is not an act of replacing God, but is an act of worship and doing God’s bidding as a way to know God more closely by practicing creation. (7) By embracing our already-existing status as cyborgs, we may find better care for our fellow humans and seek God to the best of our increasing abilities. (8)
The conflict between Christian and atheist transhumanists is therefore not so much about Christianity and technology, but about how to know what is best for humanity. Artificial intelligence is just a thing, a product of programming. It is the story that humans tell about it that determines what artificial intelligence and cybernetic technologies mean for humanity and the universe. Now, by no means are all the concerns about transhumanism answered and no one can be certain of the best way forward. But as theologian Ronald Cole-Turner affirms, "The point is not that we need to lean on God because we are weak but that we need to engage in a relationship with God all the more because we are strong and growing stronger." (9)
The End of Nature
There's no doubt that we’ve seen our potential for destruction manifest as history progresses. We are a species pretty prone to destruction. We could create our demise in a number of ways, from a nuclear war to a global pandemic to the pervasive flooding from the rising oceans, a deep winter caused by the shutting down of the Gulf Stream, and a rise in catastrophic storms brought on by changing global weather patterns. That’s right— it’s the climate change apocalypse.
The consensus around climate change by those who study it deeply is well-known and so we won’t delve into the facts of the matter here, other than to note that scholars have begun to speak of the Anthropocene, that is, the geologic epoch that is characterized by humanity’s impact on the planet. From changing the landscape by how we grow and gather food to changing the air we breathe and the atmosphere that protects us by the fuel that we use, it is clear that humans are capable of making a global impact.
It is in this realm, where human action and comprehension still hold sway in global events (rather than domination of cosmic forces in the apocalypses discussed above), that the discussion between science and religion kicks off, centered exactly around the role of humans in bringing about a catastrophic end for our planet. We seem to be comfortable blaming disease and war on humanity’s capability for destruction (otherwise known as sinful nature), but when it comes to the climate of the planet, we’re not so sure.This understanding of our role in the planet can cause discomfort to both those who see humanity as being entrusted with care of the Earth (Gen 1:26-31, 2:15, Col 1:15-19) and those who anticipate Jesus’ second coming, which entails the creation of a new Earth (Rev 21:1-8). How could exercising our duty and right to dominion result in our end? But for others, our impact on the planet is a daily reminder of the difficulty and importance of our duty to protect the planet and to practice selfless consideration for the least of these, for the sparrows and for the people impacted by the environmentally irresponsible activities of third-world countries. To be Christian is not necessarily to reject climate change or creation care; there’s theological arguments to be made for both perspectives.
And when it comes to responding to climate change, there’s a further issue: to those who embrace a Christian apocalyptic view of the end times, it appears that the power to reshape the Earth is God’s, not humanity’s, and that our hope cannot be in this world when all things are bound to pass away. This may result in fatalism and laissez faire attitudes, or a call to our roles as citizens (cf. Phil 3:20 and Rom 13) here on Earth and to participate in creating positive changes of creation. It might sound obvious, but it is worth reminding ourselves that being Christian does not necessitate rejecting all “secular” concerns.
Furthermore, study of universe adds another dimension to the question of our role in creation and in its end. By studying populations of stars in the universe, we can estimate the lifetime of any given star. This technique tells us that our star, the Sun, has about 5 billion years before beginning its expansion into its red giant phase, where the outer layer of the Sun will potentially engulf the Earth. In any case, our planet will not stay habitable several billion years into the future, forcing any humans, such as they may be, to find their “salvation” among the stars. It may be as close as Mars, which we would need to terraform, or perhaps technology will have advanced so that we can explore more distant systems, locations that would take thousands of years for us to reach with our current technology, in a shorter period of time. It sounds like science fiction, completely out of the realm of religion, but even space travel brings up interesting theological questions: if we were able to "save" ourselves in this way, would that diminish the glory of Christ’s salvation? Must the apocalypse of solar death truly be in conflict with Judeo/Christian apocalypticism?
Lastly, our understanding of the fate of the universe does not stop with the consumption of the Earth; by studying the expansion of the universe (which we discussed in a previous post), astrophysicists have come up with several models of how the universe may end. It may be the previously popular “heat death” of the universe, in which the universe settles into a cold, entropic equilibrium after every single star has gone out or it may be that the universe is cyclical in its expansion and so will need to contract at a certain point, making the counterpoint to the Big Bang a “Big Crunch.” These ideas will be refined and changed as physicists seek the best model for understanding the universe, but given our current understanding of the data, the universe itself may have an expiration date. It is possible to see these predictions as another set of potential apocalypses presented by the physicist prophets, which raises a question: Can it be both this way and John’s way?
The End of this Post
In the end (pun intended), we have to acknowledge that much of our discussion about the future is speculative, with few hard facts to rely upon. In the face of uncertainty then, to where are we supposed to look to know how to best prepare for the future? Neither science nor Christianity give us unified expectations of what is to come. The best scientific extrapolations cannot tell us whether the end will come from global warming, cosmological collapse, or at the hands of our own creations. Some fight vehemently for environmental protection while also supporting technological aims in the name of science without really considering the impacts of these technologies on people and the future, which may be cosmologically doomed anyway. Biblical passages and Christian theology may compel you to take more faithful care of what God has placed in human hands or to sit back and relax because the end is inevitable. Some Christians actively condemn technological ventures as acts of human hubris, but also deny that hubris could be destroying our planet already, all while accepting that the end is indeed nigh!
It's not the details of the future that are most important to get right. It's the realization and graciousness to admit that incoherent attitudes (others' or our own) toward the future, whether we're looking to science or to the Bible, are not motivated by stupidity, but rather by uncertainty. It's not clear what will happen or what we should do or how to figure it out. In the issue of the apocalypse, it's easy to see the different ways that science and religion can clash but also how they may complement one another. Through humility there may be a way to harmonize or at least hold in tension the differing views on the end of humanity, whether we can hope for continuing progress under the power of our reason or whether we wait with expectation for the setting right of all things (or both, while finding that we rely on ever more on God because we grow stronger). It is to this discussion, our responsibility as people living in light of the end, and to changes in our culture that we turn in our next post on postmodernity and ethics.
(1) Geraci, Robert M. “Apocalyptic AI: Religion and the Promise of Artificial Intelligence.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76, no. 1 (March 2008), 140.
(2) Bostrom, Nick. “The Transhumanist FAQ 2.1.” World Transhumanist Association, 2003.
(3) Garis, Hugo de. The Artilect War: Cosmists vs. Terrans: A Bitter Controversy Concerning Whether Humanity Should Build Godlike Massively Intelligent Machines. Palm Springs, CA: ETC Publications, 2005, 104.
(4) Foerst, Anne. God in the Machine: What Robots Teach Us about Humanity and God. New York: Dutton, 2004, 43.
(5) Cole-Turner, Ronald. “The Singularity and the Rapture: Transhumanist and Popular Christian Views of the Future.” Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science 47, no. 4 (December 1, 2012), 781.
(6) Geraci. “Apocalyptic AI", 138, 154.
(7) Foerst. God in the Machine, 37-40
(8) Thweatt-Bates, Jeanine. Cyborg Selves: A Theological Anthropology of the Posthuman. Ashgate Science and Religion Series. Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012, 190.
(9) Ronald Cole-Turner, “Transhumanism and Christianity,” in Transhumanism and Transcendence: Christian Hope in an Age of Technological Enhancement, ed. Ronald Cole-Turner (Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press, 2011), 201.
