The current distinction between humans and gods

[PoetPhilosopher]

I may play a little bit of Devil's Advocate for sake of this opening post... Anyway...

We live in a world where we have, very early on, learned how to create and destroy life.

We can manipulate the genetic code of living organisms, engineer new forms of life, and clone existing ones. People have also ended lives with weapons, spread of diseases, or contributing to environmental factors and disasters.

But what about restoring or reviving life? What does it take to bring back something that was once alive, but is now dead? Is it possible to reverse the process of death, or is it a one-way street? What are the ethical, moral, and spiritual implications of such an endeavor?

Some might argue that restoring or reviving life is a natural extension of creating or destroying it. If we can make or break life, why not fix or renew it? If we can save lives from death, why not resurrect them from death? If we can enhance lives with technology, why not revive them with technology?

Still others might believe that restoring or reviving life is a violation of the natural order of things. If something is meant to die, it should stay dead. If something is gone, it should not be brought back. If something is beyond repair, it should not be fixed. To tamper with the cycle of life and death is to play God, they might say... and to invite unforeseen consequences.

But what if there is a third way of looking at this issue? What if restoring or reviving life is not a matter of science or technology, but of something else? Something more mysterious, more miraculous. What if there is some miraculous means to restore life? How would that play out? What abilities would one need? And if you had those abilities, would it be within your rights and natural right to use them?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm still pondering how to tackle the question myself, with all its complexities. With the last example - if you had those abilities - I'm prone to believe that it still doesn't necessarily make you a god, and that you would still be subject to a lot of the limitations of being human. So, I would say it wouldn't necessarily be a matter of playing God, but a matter of playing nature. But, it just depends.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm thinking about my questions bit-by-bit to see how I would answer them, myself. I think that reviving the dead would be a huge responsibility, and only the most intelligent and emotionally intelligent humans could handle it without abusing it. However, I also think that this power would inevitably lead to their own downfall, as they might accidentally revive a very evil person, who would then pose a threat to them (as well as others).

 

[PureX]

It is very unlikely that "reviving the dead" could occur past a very short time being dead. So for that reason I don't see any special moral implications being involved. Unless perhaps the ability developed to become a way for someone to defy death indefinitely. But even then, would anyone really want that? I suspect not.

What these questions teach me is that it's good NOT TO BE A GOD. Mortality and ignorance are as much a gift as they are a curse. And only God knows why.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

It is very unlikely that "reviving the dead" could occur past a very short time being dead. So for that reason I don't see any special moral implications being involved.

You might be able to, in theory. However, resurrecting the dead, in this case, could cause the particles to potentially recollect, destroying other creations. This is based on my assumption that matter and energy are conserved in the universe - able to be transferred and transformed, and so on.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

What these questions teach me is that it's good NOT TO BE A GOD. Mortality and ignorance are as much a gift as they are a curse. And only God knows why.

I might be prone to agree with you in the long run. However, I may need some more time to think about it, first.

 

[PureX]

I might be prone to agree with you in the long run. However, I may need some more time to think about it, first.

Try to imagine an existence where there are no more questions because you have all the answers, already. Where there are no surprises because you can see the future. And there are no mysteries because you can see the past. There are no challenges because you can do anything. And you can do no wrong because you are the definition of righteousness.

It's impossible for us to imagine because we are not any of these things. But we tend to imagine that God is. And if so, would any of us really want to be in God's shoes? Sure, we all want to be in control of our own lives, and our own destinies, but do we really want to be in control of EVERYTHING?

I sure don't!

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Try to imagine an existence where there are no more questions because you have all the answers, already. Where there are no surprises because you can see the future. And there are no mysteries because you can see the past. There are no challenges because you can do anything. And you can do no wrong because you are the definition of righteousness.

It's impossible for us to imagine because we are not any of these things. But we tend to imagine that God is. And if so, would any of us really want to be in God's shoes? Sure, we all want to be in control of our own lives, and our own destinies, but do we really want to be in control of EVERYTHING?

I sure don't!

I think we are mostly in agreement.

However, if I wanted to press discussion and debate, I'd offer the suggestion that human beings take on a partial 'god' role already (creation, destruction, etc, etc, etc). If anything, what we've talked about just shows that there may be limits where too much of a 'god' role may be a bad thing as-is. However, I'd also say we live in an evolving world with evolving technology. So what I'm saying here now, could be different than what I think in a few more years.

 

[King Phenomenon]

I’m certain this will never be able to happen imo

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I’m certain this will never be able to happen imo

Sometimes, a part of philosophy is exploring the abstract and theoretical.

 

[PureX]

The only thing we humans actually create is ourselves. Everything else is just moving the bits of creation around and changing the relationships.

But every choice we make in life defines us a little bit more.

 

[King Phenomenon]

Sometimes, a part of philosophy is exploring the abstract and theoretical.

Absolutely But I think this topic is just as unlikely as a flying pig imo.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Absolutely But I think this topic is just as unlikely as a flying pig imo.

I'd agree with you, to be fair. However, I'd also say that some of the ideas expressed here and the hypotheticals could potentially make for a good work of fiction, I think. Since short stories and novels are also an avenue to explore the hypothetical further.

 

[fantome profane]

Still others might believe that restoring or reviving life is a violation of the natural order of things. If something is meant to die, it should stay dead. If something is gone, it should not be brought back. If something is beyond repair, it should not be fixed. To tamper with the cycle of life and death is to play God, they might say... and to invite unforeseen consequences.

I think Mary Shelly would have an opinion on this.

I think the point of her novel was not that it is wrong to play God, but that it is wrong to do so without considering the consequences of your actions, and it is wrong to do so without taking responsibility for your creation.

But what if there is a third way of looking at this issue? What if restoring or reviving life is not a matter of science or technology, but of something else? Something more mysterious, more miraculous.

And Arthur C. Clarke would tell you any sufficiently advanced technology would appear "mysterious and miraculous".

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Still others might believe that restoring or reviving life is a violation of the natural order of things.

Yes, that would be hubris. In my view, Gods and mortals are categorically different. The notion that death is some sort of disease to be cured seems like a byproduct of Christian thinking, much like how transhumanism is basically a tech version of Christianity. I accept death as part of the natural cycles of life. I don't view the cosmos as being broken.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you believe that humans are worthy of worship?

IMHO, that's really the only relevant question to ask when engaging in the process of deification. Something is a god because a human decides it is worthy of worship in their life. If you make the call that humans are gods, than it is so. Considering how embedded ancestor worship has been throughout human history, this wouldn't be a novel thing to do either.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Yes, that would be hubris. In my view, Gods and mortals are categorically different. The notion that death is some sort of disease to be cured seems like a byproduct of Christian thinking, much like how transhumanism is basically a tech version of Christianity. I accept death as part of the natural cycles of life. I don't view the cosmos as being broken.

I'd say death isn't so much a disease as a biological limit. But if you're suggesting that I think it's an obstacle to overcome.... I agree that that's my position.

As for the cosmos being 'broken', I'd say I neither believe that it's broken nor perfect, but that it's kind of hard for me to put into words how I view it. What comes to me is just describing it as: "...in a state".

It's possible I'm taking a more Abrahamic view, but I may not explore the subject that much in this thread at this current time. However, you wouldn't be the first person to say that about me.

 

[Quintessence]

To add, I don't mean to say the reasons why something is deemed worthy of worship is unimportant. It very much is, especially when building up one's religious practice. There's a marked difference between the regard that emerges from humble recognition of dependency on things greater than oneself and the regard that emerges from ego trips thinking about one's own power.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Do you believe that humans are worthy of worship?

IMHO, that's really the only relevant question to ask when engaging in the process of deification. Something is a god because a human decides it is worthy of worship in their life. If you make the call that humans are gods, than it is so. Considering how embedded ancestor worship has been throughout human history, this wouldn't be a novel thing to do either.

It'd be hard for me to answer what level of inequality you'd have to reach with other humans to be worshipped by other humans.

 

[LuisDantas]

Personally, I think that we as a species have failed for a very long time at justifying our casual breeding and killing with a corresponding level of ethical responsibility.

Until and unless that mismatch is ever addressed and hopefully solved, there isn't much point in attempting to decide how to deal with life and death.