glenn morton wrote:
>
> At 10:24 PM 2/10/00 -0800, Joel Z Bandstra wrote:
> >Ladies and Gentlemen
> >
> >Glen Morton mentioned defining humans by their behavior. I am hoping to
> >elicit some elaboration on this point either by Glen or by some one else
> >who feels like doing a little elaborating. I mean to ask, What do you mean
> >by behavior? If a machine was made to act like a human (like some sort of
> >AI thing) would it be behaving like a human, or, what is the difference
> >between acting and behaving? It seems to me that the basis for the
> >definition ought to be a spiritual one. Is behavior a spiritual basis?
>
> Yes I am advocating a sort of Turing test for the image of God. If someone
> who doesn't look like me, acts human, prays, speaks, uses tools, and other
> things like this, then he is human regardless of how differenly he looks.
> If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck then for
> goodness sakes it is a DUCK!!!
>
> The problem with trying to define the image totally in a spiritual sense is
> that I can't know if you have the image. What exactly is it I am looking
> for? Without some guideline as to what this 'spritual' image is, I am free
> to ascribe it to whom I please and deny it to whome I please. And if you
> can't clearly define it, you have no basis upon which to deny it to my cat
> who is quite an intelligent kitty or to deny it to the machine. What is it
> that you are denying the machine and kitty?
I think we set ourselves up for lots of inconclusive debate if we insist that
issues of theological anthropology be discussed in terms of "the image of God." While
that is a biblical concept, it isn't the one which receives the greatest attention in
biblical statements about humanity. & the Bible simply doesn't give us a clearcut
statement of what it means. Thus we should not treat it as primary.
The bottom line seems to me to be that humans are intelligent, or at least have
the capacity for intelligence, and thus can
a. understand things,
b. exert control over nature, and
c. communicate intelligently.
In particular, God can communicate with us. We can receive God's Word and thus know
God's will. Because we can "understand the consequences of our actions" we are moral
agents. Negatively, we can close our ears, refuse to hear, refuse to obey, act in
immoral ways &c.
Does this mean that all intelligent beings are able to know God, are moral
agents &c? The Christian tradition has generally held that angels are - or at least
were originally? Does this hold for AI & ET (if they exist), dolphins or chimpanzees
(if they possess some degree of intelligence)? I don't know but I see no compelling
reason to think that the answers must be "No". Too often such discussions are driven by
the notion that only human beings have any ultimate place in God's intention, will be
saved, &c - which flatly contradicts the image of Is.11:6-9, Rom.8:18-25, the "all
things" of Eph. & Col. &c. Intelligence, or the image of God however defined, are not
necessary conditions for salvation.
Having said this, we can then add that intelligence is at least a significant
component of "the image of God." Col.3:1 says the new self "is being renewed _in
knowledge_ according to the image of its creator." The one who is the image of God by
nature is the divine Logos, the Word or Reason of God, & Athanasius, e.g., saw this as
constitutive of the image of God: Humanity was created _logikos_ - rational - because
of a special participation in the Logos.
I realize the dangers of such a view of the image - various types of anti-body
dualism, gnosticism &c. It is important to emphasize that we are intelligent precisely
as bodily creatures. The imago isn't an abstract computer program.
Shalom,
George
George L. Murphy
gmurphy@raex.com
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 11 2000 - 10:09:26 EST