The (False) Gospels According to Transhumanism
June 12, 2025
Host: Hon. Sam Rohrer
Guest: Patricia Engler
Note: This transcript is taken from a Stand in the Gap Today program aired on 6/12/25. To listen to the podcast, click HERE.
Disclaimer: While reasonable efforts have been made to provide an accurate transcription, the following is a representation of a mechanical transcription and as such, may not be a word for word transcript. Please listen to the audio version for any questions concerning the following dialogue.
Sam Rohrer:
Hello and welcome to this Thursday edition of Stand In the Gap Today, and it’s also our monthly focus on biblical worldview creation and apologetics. We’ll put all these things together. Today’s returning guest is Patricia Engler. She’s an author and a Christian apologetic speaker for answers in Genesis, and I’m glad that she’s with me today again, now listener, if you were with me yesterday on this program, you know that I and special guest, Dr. James Spencer of the Useful to God Ministry and the President also of the DL Moody Center, we dealt with the broader issue of what’s called transhumanism or the transhumanist movement, which has already infiltrated in driving the pragmatic choices of the vast majority of politicians, economists, sciences, healthcare providers, military strategists, frankly, the totality of communications and religion as well. Now, due to the critical nature of understanding this emerging, and I’m going to say dominating influence of this philosophy that’s manifesting itself literally in the merging of human technology with the human body, I’ve decided to follow up yesterday’s program with a more apologetic focus today.
My hope and prayer is that together these two programs will all better able to, I’m going to say more fully understand the philosophy undergirding the driving force behind this mentality that not only accepts, but I’m going to submit increasingly is salivating the people involved in salivating to mandate the acceptance by all people of some form of technology within their physical bodies, whether by voluntary choice or by government edict. The title I’ve chosen to frame today’s apologetics focus is this, the False Gospels According to Transhumanism. With that I welcome to the program right now, Patricia Angler from Answers and Genesis. Patricia, thanks for being back with me.
Patricia Engler:
Thank you. Great to be back.
Sam Rohrer:
Patricia. Let me share a little bit more here because you’ve written an article, I’ll get into that in a moment, but this is probably the first time that I focused on the same general theme two days in a row. However, I’m hoping that by focusing on the underlying aspect about which you’ve written an article, which you’ve entitled the Three False Gospels of Transhumanism that we can in this program today, focus on the apologetic aspect of understanding the philosophical problems at the root of transhumanism and therefore to help people understand how they should respond, what I’m going to say to the many broad and representations or applications where human technology is being designed to merge man with machine. Now, to get us started, let me just summarize just briefly the definition and description from yesterday’s program and doing this for ladies and gentlemen, for your sake, if you didn’t catch yesterday or if you did, to link it together because in a practical visible sense, the goal of transhumanism is to merge human technology in some fashion literally within the human body for the purpose of what to enhance the human condition.
We’ll talk more about this. This could be an enhancing drug, it could be a chip in the hand or a neural link inserted into the brain as Elon Musk and others are doing. It could include inserted nanotechnology into the cells which permit satellites and Wi-Fi or cell phone microwave frequencies to communicate directly to the human brain influencing individual thoughts and behaviors. And that is happening right now. Now as to a definition, here is my summation from yesterday. Transhumanism is a religion, a belief system. It’s an extension of humanism, which is defined by law as a religion. It’s therefore by definition it stands in sharp contrast to the Christian religion in defiance of the authority of God, truth and a biblical worldview. Now, a little bit of everything in there, but that’s the heart I think of where we are. Patricia, with those comments being made, add to or comment on the definition that I gave if you would like, but then I’d like for you to take and slate some further examples of the evidence of the inroads that transhumanism has made and is making not just in American culture but globally. In other words, prove that the impacts of transhumanism are not theory, but already reality and why we today all astute people with their eyes open, need to understand what it is and what’s behind it.
Patricia Engler:
Yeah, absolutely. So as to definitions, I’d like to summarize transhumanism as trying to use technology to transform human beings into something other than God designed us. So transhumanism puts humans in God’s place as to creator based on the evolutionary idea that humans evolve to be their own creators by defining truths for themselves and by taking evolution into their own hands. So then as for the global scope and impact, I have a bunch of documentation on this elsewhere, but multiple governments are exploring the idea that technology can radically define humans. So there’s a few examples. There’s a 2019 report for the Canadian government called Bi-Digital convergence that said that biology and digital systems could change the way we work, live and even evolve as a species and may transform the way we understand ourselves and cause us to redefine what we consider human or natural. And you can find similar statements in a report for the UK called Human Augmentation, the dawn of a new paradigm.
There’s also a report for the US government called Cyborg Soldier 2050, looking at military applications of human enhancement. I’ve seen headlines recording that China’s pursuing that as well. And then besides these governments, the World Economic Forum until recently had an entire council on human enhancements with members including Ira s pastor, who’s an outspoken self-defined transhumanist. And then there’s a lot of private money pouring into transhumanism through entrepreneurs like Brian Johnson who invested a hundred million to launch a brain computer interface company called Kernel. And he said, my objective is to radically improve humans in every imaginable and unimaginable way. And then you can also look at the leadership page on the website for one of the biggest transhumanist organizations, which is humanity plus or h plus with a plus referring to something beyond the current human state. And it has advisors including people like Nell Watson who’s the executive consultant on philosophical matters for Apple. She doesn’t seem to call herself a transhumanist elsewhere and has expressed some concerns about the misuse of Transhuman technologies, but obviously a major figure involved in the movement. And then another example on the leadership page is Dr. Ben Gerel, a prominent computer scientist who led the team that built the Sophia Robot, the poster robot for the United Nations. And I’ve seen headlines on how Sophia is advising the United Nations on artificial intelligence and sustainable development. So you have this robot designed by a transhumanist advising the United Nations on these issues.
So those are just a few examples of how this is a serious movement with major backing.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, well you did an awful lot in a short time, but the point what you’re saying is that you cited examples from global United Nations to national military involvement, United States, China enhanced soldiers, and China, as you mentioned, China’s been working on this for a long time and actually have robot dogs and robot soldiers already. So government, finance, communications, business, all of that. Ladies and gentlemen, the concept of transhumanism to enhance the human condition, the human action thinking performance, all of that, it’s all around us and that’s the point. And when we come back, we’re going to move now to the underpinnings why we say the false gospels according to transhumanism and begin to build this out. We’ll share three of them in the course of this program. Well, welcome back. We’re at our second segment here. We’re just beginning the program. If you’re just joining us, thanks for being on board with us.
The theme today is this, it’s similar to yesterday, so I want to say upfront, this is a connected program to what it did yesterday on the matter of transhumanism. Our focus today is the false gospels. According to transhumanism, I say this and we’re dealing with this issue simply because it is all around us. We are being impacted by it, and it is a philosophy as we’ve talked and defined that is driving politics, the governments of this world, scientists of all type businesses, economic investors, it is all through. You can’t get away from it, and that’s why we’re dealing with it, but it is not understood and in most cases people can’t define it. So that’s what we try to do between the program yesterday, which I encourage you to go back and listen to in addition to today. Now my guest today is Patricia Engler.
She is an author and an apologetic speaker for answers and genesis, and you can find a lot of what she writes on does a very, very good job in my opinion, and I read a lot of things, but you can find her work@answersandgenesis.org. Now that being the case, pursuing the apologetic side takes us to the heart of truth and the gospel, and that is the theme of her recent article three Gospels according to transhumanism, and I just entitled this one today, the False Gospels According to Transhumanism. Now in that case article, Patricia that you wrote, as I said, it was three false gospels according to transhumanism in your subtitle was Can technology save us? And that begins to get to the heart of our issue. Your first paragraph started with these words. I am slowly turning myself into a machine. A young man named Steven Royal told a news reporter in 2019, and I’ll insert, we actually mentioned to him in the program yesterday, you go on in your article to say this, the news story identified Royal as one of an increasing group of people who are implanting computer chips into their bodies to pursue a trance humanist vision according to a statement still what you’re saying by leading transhumanists, you quote them, you say Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development, but rather a comparatively early phase.
Then you go on in the article, you do go then and you cite three primary influencers and shapers of the transhumanist worldview or religion. I’m calling it pulling from them your identification of the three false gospels. If you would start right out, share with us the name of the first person you identify his goal within the religion of transhumanism and the core belief that makes his thinking qualifiable, as you would say, a false gospel.
Patricia Engler:
Yeah, sure thing. So that first person is Professor Nick Bostrom, whose name came up on the program yesterday and he used to teach at Oxford and co-founded that Humanity Plus website. And he teaches what I call classic transhumanism, which I’d say as a false gospel because it provides alternative unbiblical answers to the same four questions that the true gospel does. And those questions are what is humanity’s essential nature, core problem, redemptive hope and ideal destiny. So God’s word answers that that are natures that were created being made in God’s image. Our problem is human sin rebelling against God, which brought death and suffering into the good world. God made our redemptive hope is salvation through Jesus Christ alone. And our ideal destiny for those who believe in Jesus is salvation life with him, with forever in the new heaven and earth that he makes. So that’s the creation, fall, redemption, restoration, big picture of the gospel which answers those four questions, but Bostrom answers those questions very differently based on very different beliefs with a goal of ultimately living forever apart from God.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, now that is basically describing a utopian view and you build that out that obviously is a false gospel. That’s a false view of life, and I like what you said there by saying that in effect the transhumanist philosophy, the religion by definition of what it is, deals with the same issues that the word of God deals with, that God deals with, but it’s counterfeit, it’s not true, therefore, clearly meets the definition of a false gospel. Now in your article, you build out, you identify some, I want to say associated, associated false beliefs of Nick Bostrom’s, utopian view of life. Could you take and identify some of those and talk about it?
Patricia Engler:
Yeah, absolutely. So how he answers those four questions on humanity’s nature, problem, hope and destiny. These gospel questions all regarding human nature. He has a famous statement that says, transhuman view human nature as a work in progress, a half-baked beginning that we can learn to remold in desirable ways. Current humanity need not be the end point of evolution. So this is the belief that humans are self creators. Our bodies and brains don’t reflect any sort of intentional, purposeful designs of an all wise, all good creator who made us the way we are for good reasons. Instead, the idea is that our brains and bodies are just like raw material, this sort of Play-Doh that we can reshape however we want based on our internal values about what we think is good. So Boston sees humans as evolved self creators by nature. And then as for humans problem, he recognizes, and this is interesting, he recognizes that death and suffering are real problems, even though secularism doesn’t provide an ultimate foundation for calling these things bad.
But in his evolutionary perspective, he assumes that death and suffering have always been part of life. They weren’t results of human sin, they’re just natural. So that’s how he can say that some natural things are bad, including death and disease and so on. And these things like death and disease as inherent biological limitations that we can overcome through technology so that he thinks is humanity’s redemptive hope we can use technology to overcome what he calls these biological limitations, escape, death and suffering as he discussed yesterday. One possibility is the idea of mind uploads, this idea that we could transfer our memory or mind onto a computer and become AI basically. And this idea is based on these false naturalistic evolutionary assumptions about humans that say we’re just material in motion. We’re biological machines. We just boil down to physics and chemistry. We don’t really have eternal souls.
So the minds we do have are just these information patterns and we should be able to transfer those patterns from a biological brain onto a computer chip, and then we can live indefinitely, happily ever after in virtual reality. Maybe we can rent robot bodies if we want to until the universe is heat death, and this is supposed to be this post-human utopia ideal destiny in cyberspace. And that basically sums up his answers to what we would consider to be the creation fall redemption restoration framework, but in terms of this false transhumanist gospel. So that’s a real quick summary.
Sam Rohrer:
You’ve mentioned a number. I think that people as co-creators, the fact that death and suffering are natural biological products but can be overcome by technology. The fact that we are post-human and all of the thing can actually live in virtual made up, all of those things. That’s very interesting. Now here’s a question I have because in the next segment we’re going to talk about these two other individuals and you identify their element of the false gospel because obviously anybody listening with ears to hear who knows Jesus Christ as their savior, would look at those things that you just said that I just repeated and say, oh yeah, that’s what the devil’s been offering since the beginning, false hope, all that kind of thing. But here’s my question for you, whereas this represents one individual Nick Bostrom’s view, and then the other two that you’re going to share next will represent theirs. Someone could say, well, you know what? That’s just their idea, and that does not really reflect how I am viewing quiver. That person may be the pursuit of development of technology for the betterment of the human condition. Here’s my question between this philosophy of Nick Bostrom and the other two that we’re going to talk about. Is it possible to believe in that infusing technology, human effort into the human body can in any way not be classified as transhumanism and involve at least one or more of these elements of false gospel where you’re laying out?
Patricia Engler:
Yeah, it’s an interesting question. You could say that you’re embedding technology in yourself just for the fun of it. Maybe you don’t actually want to become post-human or this kind of godlike being. I would caution though that even if you don’t think you’re actively involving these sorts of false gospel ideas into your thinking, you’re living as if they’re true in the sense that you’re living as though you’re a self creator and by trying to improve yourself by integrating technology in ways God didn’t design your body to use in ways that go against God’s design and not just try to correct a medical condition or that type of thing. You’re basically saying that you know more than God does, that you have a better idea than are all powerful, all knowing all wise, a loving, all good creator of how your body should be, and that’s going to backfire. Ultimately, it’s going to ultimately cause harm. Just like what you’ve found out in Eden when Satan said, oh, you can improve yourself, you can gain this extra wisdom. You can become like God, you just have to do something outside your own creatureliness, something God commanded you not to do. It’s basically the same thing. Even if you’re not intentionally endorsing these philosophical aspects of transhumanism, you’re kind of living as if they’re true. So I would certainly caution against that and we can unpack that more later on as well.
Sam Rohrer:
Okay, excellent. Patricia. So ladies and gentlemen, you’re joining us. We’re talking about focusing today on the apologetic side, the underpinning of what is referred to as transhumanism, the false gospels according to transhumanism, because underpinning this thing called transhumanism are these philosophies that run directly counter to the word of God. It’s important that we understand and we’ll build this out more as we go further into the program. The next segment identify the two other individuals and their element core false gospel mentality. While our focus today is on the false gospels, according to transhumanism, you’re just joining us. We’re partway through the program. This program actually is connected to the one I did yesterday, which dealt with the theme of transhumanism, the subverting of humanity, and we took a little different approach than today. My special guest today is Patricia Engler, an apologetic speaker and an author for answers and Genesis.
She wrote an article actually some months ago, I think you did, I think it was October. Patricia, if I read the article appropriately or accurately, and it’s on the website@answersandgenesis.org, but you wrote it on this concept, this reality of transhumanism, we call it, it is humanism by definition. Humanism by law is defined as a religion by American law defined by the courts as a religion. So it’s transhumanism in movement process. What is it? It’s really in the infusion of technology of various sorts. We talked about that in our first segment with the human body. So you went to the heart of looking at combining biblical worldview analysis apologetics with this aspect of technology, and that’s why I wanted to talk about it with you today on this piece of the equation to understand the underpinnings, the religious, spiritual, not spiritual is in biblical, but that aspect of the thinking behind what is transhumanism and why it actually presents itself as a false gospel.
So as believers, we need to be thinking very carefully about this. Let’s go back to your article. In your article after identifying the false gospel utopian core belief held by transhumanist influencer Nick Bostrom. We talked about that last segment. You then go on to say this, computational neuroscientist, Anders Sandberg endorses transhumanism on the grounds of human rights and freedoms. Then you go on to say, while Bostrom, who we just talked about, endorses transhumanism as a secular salvation plan, those are your words for improving humanity’s condition. Sandberg learned. You’re going to talk about next supports transhumanism by arguing for a human rate to as called morphological freedom. That’s the big words, I have to define it, but let’s go on here. Who is Anders Sandberg and share the core false gospel components of the trans humanism held by those who seek, as you say, defending it under human rights and freedom, which frankly sounds pretty innocent, doesn’t it?
Patricia Engler:
Well, yeah, sure thing. I mean, part of the problem is that if you start with a secular belief system, you don’t have an ultimate foundation for really defining human value, why it’s important, what are human rights? It kind of becomes an open book. You can make up your own truth about that, which can lead to issues as the French Revolution might demonstrate. But to go back to who Dr. Sandberg is, he’s a colleague of Professor Bostons back at Oxford, and he’s also ongoingly serving as one of the advisors for that Humanity Plus website that we talked about earlier, big transhumanist organization. And he has his own answers to those four gospel questions we talked about earlier. What is humanity’s essential nature, core problem, redemptive hope and ideal destiny? So just like Bostrom, Dr. Sandberg answers that first question, what is humanity’s nature? By saying that we are again evolved self creators, we’re evolved beings, we can continue to shape our own evolution, and specifically he thinks that humans have the right to modify their bodies and brains, however will makes them happy.
And that’s what he calls morphological freedom. Your morphology is your form. So morphological freedom is to the freedom to change your form however you want. And again, secularism can’t provide the foundation for human values and morals and rights or for saying that happiness good is good, but Sandberg assumes that it is, and he assumes that this morphological freedom is the way to get there. If you want to stick an antenna in your brain and identify as a cyborg like one guy does, who I talked about in my recent talk on transhumanism, you should have the right to do that. If you want to modify yourself to look like an alien, as another guy has tried to do, you should have the right to do that. He thinks this is what makes us happy. But there’s a problem. He thinks that biology and society impose limits on how far we can go to try modifying ourselves because it’s just not biologically practical.
It’s socially acceptable to change ourselves into aliens or whatever other kind of beings we want. So he thinks the solution, the redemptive hope is technology. So we’re seeing a pattern here. Technology is being seen as savior. So he thinks these new technologies give us power to modify ourselves in new ways, and this opens the way for this ideal destiny of self-creating our way to happiness. So that’s basically the gospel according to Sandberg, but again, it’s based on these false assumptions about the kind of beings that we are, and it encourages us to ignore the objective reality of God’s designs, which can only lead to our harm.
Sam Rohrer:
I’m going to follow up here before I go to the third one because in what you’re saying, the emphasis on human rights, I have a right to do to my body what I want. Sounds an awful lot. Like the abortion movement sounds an awful lot like, well, basically anything we’re talking about, you can make yourself into whatever you want because you have the right and the freedom. The thing that stands out to me right now, which I’m going to ask you, have you found anyone within the Transhuman movement, not just Borum and Sandberg, and the next one we’re going to talk about, but others as well, who have any demonstrated fear of God or recognize any human constraint or discipline as imposed by God?
Patricia Engler:
Yeah, that’s a good question. So there is a group of people who identify as Christian transhumanists, which involves starting with evolution and trying to incorporate a lot of unbiblical ideas into it. So there might be a few who do that, but you can’t do that consistently based on a biblical view that God is the creator. We are not. There’s good reasons for how he designed us. And it’s also interesting that you bring up things like abortion because fundamentally other authors have written about that on Nancy Pearce’s book. Glove by Body comes to mind. This is all based on this idea that if God didn’t create us, then the facts of who we are, the facts of embryo being a human being, the facts that we’re humans, the fact that we’re made male and female, it doesn’t actually matter. We impose our own values on those facts so we can look inside ourselves, look at our internal values, what do we want to happen, and then use those to alter the facts of the world, whether that’s trying to change our genders, getting rid of embryos, we don’t want around trying to transform ourselves into some other kind of human being.
It is all based on this idea that there is no God who designs the facts, defines their values and demands a moral response to that. So it’s really all up to us, and this leads to a lot of huge ethical and social problems like abortion, like the fall that we’re seeing with transgenderism. The same thing’s going to happen with transhumanism. When you reject God is created, there’s always practical consequences.
Sam Rohrer:
There you go. And that walks us right into the third one. Let’s do this. Now you say in the article, thirdly, theologian, Ronald Cole Turner, that’s his name, endorses Christian transhumanism on the grounds of theistic evolutionary thinking. You go on to say, while Sandberg, we just talked about and Bostrom that we started with advanced transhumanism from a secular framework, Cole Turner, the theologian endorses technologically transforming humanity based on evolutionary theology. So here it is now, share the core false gospel components of theologian, Ronald Cole Turner and those like him who embrace this contradictory label of Christian transhumanists.
Patricia Engler:
Sure thing. So again, Dr. Cole Turner, Reverend Dr. Cole Turner, he’s an ordained United church minister. He’s an influential theologian and theology professor, and he recognizes that Christianity is incompatible with what he calls secular transhumanism. But because he starts with evolution, he thinks transhumanism is a Christian concept, it’s just been secularized. So his ideas of theistic evolution say that God used evolution to create humans. That would mean, first of all, there’s not a literal first man Adam whose sin explains the need for Jesus. So Dr. Cole Turner actually says that Jesus saves us by completing humanity rather than reversing the fall and that he’s one with all humans and is going to transform and save all humans. This is very unorthodox. This is actual heresy, which is not a word I take lightly. And also since he believes that God used evolution to create humans, that means he has to assume that death and suffering have always been a part of God’s creation.
So his false gospel starts with answering the question of the problem. He says, the problem is that we live in a good but disordered creation that has things like death and suffering in it. It’s basically God’s fault. But then humans evolve as being who are intelligent enough to take evolution into our own hands and direct it toward what God wants it to be. So in Cole Turner’s false gospel, humans are basically the solution to the mess God started, which is the opposite of reality. And again, technology plays a redemptive role. So he recognizes that redemption can’t happen without God, but he still thinks humans have a big part to play in their own redemption by using technologies like gene editing to co-create reality with God until we reach this ideal destiny that he thinks will involve merging with God and the cosmos and everything becomes one with God, which is again, heresy. It’s very linked with some new age ideas based on well concepts like PRT De Dein. He was a forerunner of the New Age movement, had kind of a similar idea that our goal is to use evolution to merge with this kind of godlike consciousness. So it all goes back to the same lies, the same roots. It’s just another variation of the false gospel rejecting God’s word and putting our own words as the authority.
Sam Rohrer:
Patricia, great job of consolidating that. Ladies and gentlemen, think about this. Mentioned it yesterday, but think about this. What is it that brings a person to the point like this theologian here that we’re talking about, this Cole Turner individual, for instance, it says, I know there is a God, but then takes and explains the we creation explains away other things that the gospel in the scripture clearly says is one way and comes up with another human thought about how we can take and put side by side Christian transhumanism. It’s impossible biblically, but if you don’t have a biblical worldview, well, you can figure up everything. And literally, we know that 96% of all Americans, 96% according to George Barnett, do not have a biblical worldview. Therefore, they can make these wild jumps. We come back, we’re going to give biblical response now to all of this.
Okay, Patricia, let’s go into our final segment now and try to bring some resolve. We’ve raised questions, we’ve identified, we’ve provided evidence about this movement, this mentality, this religion called trans humanism. I’m not going to go back and repeat all that’s been stated. Ladies and gentlemen, if you’ve just perhaps just joined us, you need to go back and listen to this program in its entirety. And if you link it to yesterday’s program, I believe you’ll have a very, very good grasp and understanding of this matter, of understanding what transhumanism is from where it came, how it is manifesting itself, and now we’re going to talk about how we should respond. So Christian, before I ask you an identification, I’m going to say of the key biblical response principles because that’s what we’re looking for, principle, how to respond here, this false religion of transhumanism. I think it’s essential that clear connections are made to distinguish this religion from others as I think this thing through, because it’s different than the false religions that we would normally construe the cults as an example, or Islam or communism or the other isms which are more easily identified because I think about transhumanism transhumanism as a religion, by definition, it is by the words of those who comment on it.
It is a religion. It’s a religion that has no temples or buildings of worship. It doesn’t have religious leaders per se, who dress in identifiable robes or wear some kind of medallion around their neck, or we see them falling on the ground like the Muslims do three times a day to worship or especially refer to themselves as religious adherence. Those who are pursuing transhumanism are not calling themselves religious nuts or religious adherence. So this is different. So because of the nature of transhumanism and its drive to enhance the human condition, as we’ve talked about through the means of integrated human technology, to me, it’s going to be increasingly difficult to really identify when it comes because we already know that governments around the world are moving quickly to use elements of transhumanism in order to put into place things called digital money or surveillance and check in and check out.
All of that is transhumanism because it’s going to require something in the body so people can potentially become unwilling, be a recipient of the technology such as the chip in the hand or in the brain, and not be thinking that this is a false gospel, a form of worship quite literally. It’s almost like a modern manifestation of the Tower of Babel. But that’s why I asked you the question I did in the last segment about it. So here’s my first question to it. What qualifies in your opinion as a participation in this emerging new global religion of transhumanism? And is it by natural extension if a person accepts in some fashion something put into their body, something that changes it from God’s design, how does one view that as being separate from actually in their mind thinking, I am now embarking on a worship of a new religion? You answered that to a little bit, answer a little bit further, and then I want you to go into identifying the implements of the principles of biblical truth to identify what’s happening and avoid it.
Patricia Engler:
Yeah, sure. Thanks. It is important to think about those boundaries ahead of time. Are we actually participating in this false religion in different ways? So we can think of participation as happening either on that philosophical level, so buying into those four gospel questions in line with transhumanism rather than the gospel, especially by seeing humans as self creators. We can modify ourselves however we want. Technology is some kind of savior. So that’d be a form of philosophical participation. But again, to unpack what we mentioned earlier is that you can still practically participate just by acting as though we’re our self creators and that technology is savior, even if it’s just by passively buying into the system that teaches that and buying into those technologies that are meant to alter our brains and bodies and ways that God didn’t design us to. And it’s important to draw a boundary here between technologies that enforce how God designed us and actually support our ability to live the way God designed us as opposed to ones that go beyond.
So by that I mean things like therapies versus enhancements. So a lot of these technologies, whether that’s gene editing or so on, they’re called dually use technologies, meaning they can apply to medical therapies as well as to enhancements. And from an evolutionary perspective, there’s not a good way to distinguish between those. First of all, because there’s no basis for defining what normal human traits are. They can just keep evolving. And second, because even things like disease are considered natural and therefore normal. But biblically, we can recognize healthier normal states in terms of how God designed us apart from the effects of the fall and say that therapies therefore are good because they restore and preserve these normal traits. God designed for flourishing. So therapies even implanted in the body, things like pacemakers, bionic arms, potentially prosthetics and so on, can mitigate the effects of the fall like Jesus did by healing people.
But when Jesus healed people, he didn’t enhance them in a sense of healing the blind by giving them x-ray vision or that type of thing. He restored normal sight. So enhancements mirror the cause of the fall, things like discontent and covetousness by trying to go outside God’s designs for us, even though God already optimized those designs for our flourishing. So that’s how we can recognize his enhancements as morally doubtful and practically harmful. But it’s important to add that we can still use technological tools in ways that extend our abilities in temporary ways that don’t overstep God’s designs and commands. So things like smartphones and airplanes and microscopes, those help us do and perceive things we normally can’t, but they don’t actually modify our bodies. We use them and release them. They’re just tools. We stay finite humans. But I distinguish between those types of tools and modifications, which are devices usually implanted in the body, meant to fundamentally change the kind of being we are, like the guy who put an antenna in his head to identify as a cyborg or like some of these brain computer interfaces that are meant to integrate us with AI so that we become essentially part machine.
So that’s a helpful boundary or two, boundaries, tools versus modifications and mitigating the effect of the fall versus mirroring the cause of the fall. And it’s also worth pointing out that even for good use is a lot of the key players involved in making and regulating these technologies. People like Dr. Ben Zel, world Economic foreign partners, which include a lot of the leading tech organizations we might think about, do want to apply these technologies to pursue a sort of new social order in line with things like new age spirituality and global socialism. Don’t necessarily have time to get into the specifics of that, but you can find more about that in my modern Marxism book and on some of my talks on our answers in Genesis YouTube channel.
Sam Rohrer:
You did a very, very good job on that, ladies and gentlemen, as we conclude that principle of what Patricia changed said, that which modifies who we are now. Think about that. The embedded chips in the brain, the embedded chips in the palm, the insertion of nanoparticles into a vaccine, which is done. That was the whole COVID problem as an example. Those things were inserted because it was, well, it was a therapy. It was not a vaccine in that case. But all of these things, when something comes into our body and changes it from what God does or affects our thinking, which as the embedded chips, those who talk about it say through that, they can actually cause and change a person’s thinking and therefore their behavior. Think of this, if we’re believers, our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the one who should drive how we think and act.
If we submit to anything that can alter who we are in the control of the Holy Spirit, we’ve crossed the line. Now think about that. We don’t have time to build that out further, but all of the things we said very, very important because these challenges are coming our way to all of us every day. Patricia Engler from Answers in Genesis.org, thank you so much for being with me. Thank you for the work that you do, the good job that you do on writing her articles we talked about today and more at answersandgenesis.org. Pick up this program, share it with a friend. I think that they will appreciate you doing this.
Recent Comments