Karl Rahner and our abilities to alter ourselves
In “The Experiment with Man,”[1] Karl Rahner (1904-1984), one of the most important Catholic theologians of the 20th century, explores the question of “man’s self-manipulation.” Considering his essay was written in the mid-sixties, I think his reflections are brilliant, surprising and could inform today’s debate on enhancement. Rahner explains how Christians should face new possibilities of changing human nature. In this first blog I will simply summarize his essay. In a next blog, I will attempt to give a critique. I will suggest that Rahner’s view could help Christians to engage in a friendly discussion with transhumanists. However, Rahner seems too pessimistic in the abilities of theology to be proactive in this discussion and too optimistic in humankind’s morality.
In this essay, Rahner starts with some preliminary remarks to explain why theology is interested in the question of humankind’s self-manipulation. He writes, “It can legitimately be assumed that it is relevant because this self-manipulation is concerned with, or at least affects, man in hit totality, and theology has to do with man’s ultimate, total understanding of himself as a whole human being” (205). Unfortunately, the position of the theologians is grievous, as Rahner explains, because they can answer those questions only after other disciplines (biology, neurology, genetics, pharmacology, psychology, technology . . .) have established what can be done, in the field of self-manipulation.
He then analyzes how humankind’s self-manipulation has already begun. Rahner rightly observes that humans have already transformed themselves in different ways. He cites wine, coffee, shaving, and education as a few examples. However, he acknowledges that the “self-manipulation of man is still in its infancy . . . Most of it is still a dream or a nightmare of the future and in reality no-one can say for certain whether it is even predictable, let alone whether it is desirable or morally justifiable. In any case, however, the situation is radically different from what it was” (207). He outlines six ways that humans have already started to modify themselves and their environment:
- “The workshop of the hominisation of man’s environment”
- “The workshop of biology, biochemistry and genetics”
- “The workshop of medicine, pharmacology, and, above all, psycho-pharmacology”
- “The workshop of psychology”
- “The workshop of sociology”
- “The workshop of politics”
Rahner continues, “So far this factory for the new man does not exist. But it is as though buildings are being constructed simultaneously all over a great site, and one has the impression that these separate constructions will eventually grow into a single complex – into a hominised world. This is the one immense factory where ‘operable’ man dwells in order to invent himself” (209).
For Rhaner, this self-manipulation raises questions that must be asked by the theologians. He writes, “the direct question as to what is permissible or even morally obligatory with respect to these possibilities and methods of self-manipulation in its various dimensions, and what is not permitted and why. At this point, of course, a thousand questions raise their heads: from the moral evaluation of a kidney transplant, the contraceptive pill, to the state control of fertility, the attempts to manipulate technically man’s hereditary material, and the other problems of social sexual morality which arise from these possibilities. So here we shall pass over the practical moral casuistry of man’s self-manipulation, even if in what follows we cannot avoid referring to the hermeneutical framework for the treatment of such problems.” (210).
After having outlined the context in which self-manipulation is already happening, Rahner raises eight theological points.
First, Christians should not be terrified. He writes, “The first thing which the theologian must say to himself, to Christians and to the Church is that one is not to take fright at this self-manipulation of man. Of course possibilities of self-manipulation are becoming apparent today which are immoral and unworthy of man, and which may indicate a ‘Fall’ on the part of society. And we shall refer to the Christian’s and the Church’s duty to have the courage to oppose with utter resoluteness those kinds of self-manipulation which are the most recent forms of barbarity, slavery, the totalitarian annihilation of personality and the formation of a monochrome society” (210). He continues, “The Christian has no reason to enter this future as a hell on Earth nor as an earthly Kingdom of God. Jubilation or lamentation would both run counter to the Christian’s cool-headedness. For the Christian, both he himself and his world always remain (as long as history last) a world of creation, of sin, of the promise of judgment and blessing, in a unity which he himself can never dissolve” (211).
Second, self-manipulation represents the task, the nature and the freedom of humankind as understood by Christianity. For Rahner, Christianity teaches that humans are the beings that can transform themselves. He writes,“According to a Christian understanding, man, as the being who is free in relation to God, is in a most radical way empowered to do what he wills with himself, freely able to align himself towards his own ultimate goal” (212).But he warns us rightly, that in their self-tranformation, humans are responsible about their ‘final state.’ In other words, from a Christian perspective, humans are responsible to what they will become. He writes, “He [man] is able so to determine and dispose of himself that two absolutely different final destinations become possible: man in absolute salvation and man in the absolute loss of salvation” (212).
Third, humans’ new abilities to transform themselves reflect the fact that they are truly free. He writes, “No longer does man create himself merely as a moral and theoretical being under God, but as an earthly, corporeal and historical being” (213). In other words, humans have become what they were meant to be. Rahner comments, “To a larger, more comprehensive, radical and tangible extent man has become what, according to the Christian understanding, he is: the free being who has been handed over to himself” (214).
Fourth, these new abilities to manipulate human nature raises question to what this ‘nature’ is. For Rahner, “Theology is faced a new with the question of man’s essence. For according to Christian theology man in his freedom can act contrary to his nature in an absurd and self-contradictory way” (214).
Fifth, Rahner warns the reader that some manipulations are irreversible. Rahner draws attention on the importance of the dogma of ‘Original Sin’ in Christian anthropology. He writes, “the ‘Fall’ was actually the first act of self-manipulation by mankind, even if its context was essentially the dimension of religious, transcendental self-determination before God, and even if we leave open the question as to how far it had categorically tangible consequences, delivering man up not only to his own nature alone, which could conceivably be guiltless. But in this case, self-manipulation sui generis there is one thing which is an indubitable element of the dogma: the act had irreversible consequences, it inaugurated a process and mankind cannot get back beyond the beginning of that process. All future human history is ineradicably determined by this situation of guilt so long as history itself lasts. Although redemption embraces this fact of human history and ultimately sets its mark upon it, it does not abolish it” (218). Rahner continues, “This implies the principle that even at the stage of self-manipulation mankind continues on its one-way, irreversible historical course” (218). Rahner warns humanity that self-manipulation cannot always be reversed as it is the case in the doctrine of the Original Sin. He writes, “self-manipulation must not be thought of according to the model of a limited laboratory experiment where, for the most part, isolated processes can be performed and reversed at will” (219). Thus, one would need to consider seriously what kind of changes he or she wants to make.
Sixth, Rahner explains that humans need to think of planning the future of humanity. However, he reminds Christians that God goes before them in history. Furthermore, no matter what plan of self-manipulation will take place, humans will face death. He states, “According to Christianity’s experience of absolute future in Jesus Christ, the arrival of this future occurs essentially in the act of death. It occurs in this way and in no other; life is not thereby devaluated, because in order to be able to die one must genuinely have lived life. But one only reaches the absolute future by way of death’s zero hour, not because the former is death’s gift, not because it could be calculated to be impossible in any other way, but because, beyond all deduction, absolute love was pleased to triumph in its greatest defeat” (220).
Seventh, Rahner encourages Christians to be involved in shaping the future. He warns the reader that humans should not attempt to build an individualistic society, as “this new phase brings with it new changes and dangers to the genuine, unique personality and dignity of the individual. It must not annihilate this individuality, but actually provides it with a greater area of genuine freedom” (221). However, Rahner states, Christians should build a society based on love: “mankind’s active self-manipulation today and tomorrow can and must be the concrete, active expression of the love of one’s fellows, making possible the ‘openness’ to God’s absolute future, even if it cannot itself bring about this absolute future, Christianity is and must be the religion which sends man into the world to act” (221).
Eighth, death will always be there in the future as a door to the afterlife. For Rahner, death is an obligatory door that humans have to take in order to meet God. He writes, “Christianity warns self-manipulating man that, in his movement towards the God who is in front of him, he is obliged to pass through death’s zero hour” (221).
Finally, Rahner complains about the lack of Christian involvement and contribution to this discussion. He states, “One ought to complain that . . . Christians contribute so little courage and creative imagination to an ideology of the future for this self-manipulation, but are generally content to provide conservative admonitions and obstructions . . . one ought to soberly consider and courageously to consider, according to supra-individual morality, what sacrifices could be expected of humanity today on behalf of humanity tomorrow, without being too quick to speak of immoral cruelty, of the violation and exploitation of the dignity of man today for the benefit of man tomorrow. Indeed one could ask whether the Church as such and ecclessialy trained Christians have not been set the task (to be accepted in all humility) of playing a particular part in this future course of mankind; namely, a role which implies that their God (the God of history), who is always bigger than His Church, has entrusted a large part of history not to Christians but to others, who, in a more anonymous way, are all the same executors of that history which is guided by God alone, ultimately opening out into His own eternal life. These and other theological questions could be discussed in the face of mankind’ self-manipulation, which has already begun. They would doubtless all come together in the simple experience of that man really does make history (and thus himself) and that in this very activity he is not his own, but belongs to the mystery of love” (224).
[1] Karl Rahner, “The Experiment With Man, Theological Observations on Man’s Self-Manipulation,” in Theological Investigations, Volume IX, Writing of 1965-67 I, Translated by Graham Harrison (New York: The Seabury Press, nd), 205-224.
© 2009, Botox 4 the brain. All rights reserved. On republishing this post you must provide link to original post.
