Transhumanism and Catholic Social Teaching

Abstract

This paper offers a Christian ethical evaluation of transhumanism. It employs a two-part framework. First, the paper contextualizes transhumanism within the evolutionary cosmology of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin and thereby suggests a theological openness to technologically influenced development as part of an ongoing cosmogenesis towards greater consciousness, or the Omega Point. Second, the paper critically evaluates transhumanist values against five key principles of Catholic Social Teaching (CST): natural law, human dignity, human flourishing, the common good, and care for creation. While the Teilhardian lens does indeed allow us to interpret certain transhumanist goals as potentially conducive to humans, the CST assessment reveals serious ethical concerns that must be addressed. These concerns include threats to inherent dignity through the reductionism of the human person, the potential unchecked exacerbation of current social inequality, and significant conflicts with the care of creation stemming from an unchecked technocratic paradigm as described in Laudato Si’. This paper concludes that while engagement with transhumanism is necessary, a Christian perspective should strive to ensure that technological advancement remains subordinate to the universal dignity of all persons, the common good, and authentic flourishing in communion with God.

1. Introduction

Aided by technology, humanity has undergone significant changes in what it means to be human over the last 2,000,000 years, beginning with the first communities of hunter-gatherers. Agriculture, written language, social sciences, germ theory, sanitation, engineering, and modern information technology are just a few examples of the advancements that have wrought profound changes to baseline human existence by increasing longevity, raising/transforming the quality of life, and, for good or for ill, molding our brains (altering functionality and expected sensory inputs), fundamentally changing what it means to relate to one another as individuals. In doing so, we have altered the default modes of cultural and informational transmission. Short of divine intervention or a cataclysmic natural disaster, baseline human existence will almost certainly continue to change as technology allows us to more finely manipulate matter on smaller scales, harness greater energy sources, and manipulate information into patterns totally alien to nature. Many technologists and evolutionary biologists recognize that the human species is not static but evolving. Just as our species crossed the threshold into modern humanity roughly 300,000 years ago, many believe, aided by technology, we will continue to evolve and become, in a word, posthuman. While there exist varying interpretations of the philosophy, for the purposes of this paper, transhumanism is understood as the belief that not only will this happen, but that humans have a moral imperative to guide our species’ biological and cognitive development using human ingenuity.1 This philosophy is summarized most succinctly by process theologian Ilia Delio in her chapter entitled Transhumanism and Transcendence in the Cambridge Companion to Religion and Artificial Intelligence, in which she writes,

“Transhumanism is a term used to describe the enhancement of human life through—in the presence of—technology. Transhumanists believe that humans must wrest their biological destiny from evolution’s blind process of random variation and adaptation and move to the next stage as a species, favouring [sic] the use of science and technology to overcome biological limitations. The aim of transhumanism is to promote the evolution of the human race beyond its present limitations through the use of science and technology”.

(Singler and Watts 2024, p. 131)

Unfortunately, the very mention of transhumanism often elicits an abundance of caution, if not outright rejection, particularly within Christian circles. This is because, for many, the term transhumanism has become freighted with suspicion and a vast number of unaccounted assumptions, and is often even perceived as an inherent threat to fundamental tenets of faith and theological anthropology. It has become a scary boogeyman word that leads to an almost reflexive dismissal. Yet, transhumanism can also present a compelling vision that deserves to be understood even if not endorsed. As will be explored in Section 3, transhumanists foresee a future where a sufficiently technologically advanced humanity might overcome deeply entrenched limitations. The limitations include, but are not limited to, disease, aging, and even cognitive constraints. This is understood by transhumanists as the key moral imperative. Juxtaposed with these aspirations are particularly troubling ethical and theological questions, which will form a critical counterpoint and will be a central focus of Section 4. Christian ethics in the vein of Catholic Social Teaching (CST) rightly raise concerns about the implications for human dignity, the potential of exacerbated existing inequalities, the drive to redefine what it means to be human, and humanity’s stewardship and care of creation. This paper aims to navigate this controversial landscape by presenting both the transformative possibilities that transhumanism champions alongside the serious critiques it faces from a Christian ethic.

To this effect, and despite the new terminology, transhumanism should not be viewed as an entirely novel phenomenon. Humans have been altering the assumed baseline of what it means to be a human since the dawn of technology.2 Current research suggests that the average lifespan of prehistoric humans was relatively short, ranging from 20 to 35 years. This low average was in part due to high infant and childhood mortality rates, with about 25% of infants dying in their first year (Timiras 2007, pp. 11–22). For most of human history, appendicitis was deadly; those who had toothaches were unable to receive adequate relief; and many conditions that today are ameliorated with a routine visit to the doctor’s office were agonizingly debilitating or fatal. This assumed baseline of the human condition has risen unnaturally, yet most people today would not voluntarily return to a hunter-gatherer existence if it meant abandoning modern medicine. If the claim is made that what it means to be most human is to live in perfect reliance on unaltered, naturally occurring remedies and resources, as does the rest of the animal kingdom, then we have long abandoned our humanity. This, however, is not the position held by most people.

And yet, the marvels of modern medicine are an unripe first fruit compared to the achievements to come. Many scientists have begun to seriously consider a concept known as biological escape velocity, in which the average human will be adding more quality years to their life than are lost through yet-to-be-realized medical technology. Some suggest that the average human may one day live indefinitely in a healthy body (Palmer 2022). Is this playing God? That is a personal judgment, but we should pause to consider the differences between what has been achieved since the first seeds of agriculture were planted and those technological achievements yet to come. Our descendants in 500 years will likely be no less envious of us than we are of our ancestors. Once one has been granted a body that does not age or succumb to disease, it is likely that most people would not abandon it freely, regardless of the economic or ecological implications as understood through today’s technological limitations and 21st-century neoliberal economic values.

The longevity of the human person is one thing, but transhumanists have far more radical changes in mind. Brain–computer interfaces, once considered a figment of science fiction, have made enormous strides in the past decade (Shih et al. 2012). The technology promises to one day merge human cognitive function, experience, and expression with computers. This achievement in full maturation will not only grant disabled people the ability to walk, tranquility to epileptics, or hearing and sight to the deaf and blind,3 but may even raise humanity’s ability to think more abstractly by digitally expanding the frontal cortex beyond the confines of the scull, multiplying intelligence far beyond the capabilities of biology alone (Kurzweil 2009; Mayo Clinic 2022). The leap in cognition would be more comparable to the difference between an ant and a human than to a lower primate and a modern human.

If we imagine the human of the future to be a being whose biological body does not deteriorate as a function of time or disease, and whose intellect cannot be meaningfully measured with the standard intelligence quotient of today, who acquires new skills and knowledge independent of personal experience through a digital interface with the brain, whose cognitive subjective experience is communicated to others absent of verbal, written, or somatic language, and who is capable of artistic and cultural expression that cannot possibly be appreciated by the humans of today, is such a being human? Furthermore, is it permissible under a Christian ethic to transform the humans of today into this being? And, if so, what ethical parameters would guide this transhumanist future? To answer these questions, we must first determine what it means to be human in the Christian tradition. What is it in the human person that must be preserved and protected, and what is potentially lost should such a future come to pass?

The urgency of this ethical inquiry is amplified by the contemporary global landscape, a reality this issue terms the “uncommon good”. Now, at the dawn of the second quarter of the 21st century, we are witnessing a significant global erosion of the very structures of solidarity that have historically sought to temper power and promote shared flourishing. For a prime example, the authority of international human rights law is increasingly challenged by resurgent nationalism,4 while, simultaneously, collaborative development goals are undermined by phenomena such as the “vaccine nationalism” seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, which prioritized sovereign interests over global public health.5 Domestically, in nations across the political spectrum, foundational social programs that form a safety net for the vulnerable are subject to austerity measures and ideological attacks, weakening the social fabric. This context of fracturing solidarity makes the analysis of transhumanism particularly salient. If these specific frameworks for ensuring justice and equity are faltering, one must ask how the advent of technologies that could create unprecedented divisions in human capacity will impact this trajectory. This paper, therefore, engages the transhumanist project and should be read against the stark backdrop of the “uncommon good”, thereby examining whether its aspirations are destined to accelerate this fragmentation or if, through a critical ethical lens provided by CST, they can be reoriented toward a renewed and more robust vision of human solidarity and flourishing.

2. The Human

2.1. The Human as Bearer of the Imago Dei

The Christian doctrine of the Imago Dei (the image of God) has historically centered on humanity’s unique capacity for reason, moral agency, and relationality, with a particular emphasis on rationality as a reflection of the divine nature. Rooted in Genesis 1:26–27 (ESV throughout), when God declares, “Let us make mankind in our image, after our likeness”, this concept positions human rationality as a mirror of God’s intellect and creative capacity. While some interpretations vary, scholastic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) have unanimously shaped this understanding of the Imago Dei as intrinsically tied to the rational mind.

Thomas Aquinas systematized the link between rationality and the Imago Dei, integrating Aristotelian philosophy with Christian revelation. He identified three faculties of the soul—memory, intellect, and will—as reflecting the Trinity, with intellect (intellectus) as the primary locus of the divine image (Hayden 2019). Aquinas argued that humans, as rational beings, participate in God’s eternal law through their reason, enabling moral discernment and the pursuit of truth (Jiménez Marce 2022). In short, the Imago Dei is the rational mind of the human as distinct from the rest of nature. It is, therefore, the very aspect of the human being that is the defining characteristic unique in creation.6

2.2. Response to Contestations of the Imago Dei as Rationality

It is worth noting that the Imago Dei as rationality is contested in contemporary times. Feminists, scholars of disability, and others have pointed out that this understanding routinely allows large groups of people, including the unborn, people with intellectual disability, and those whose reasoning ability is deemed stunted (often along racist lines), to be regarded as less than human.

Illustrative of this contention is Hans S. Reinders’s book, Gift of Friendship: Profound Disability, Theological Anthropology, and Ethics, in which he critiques historic Christian anthropologies that emphasize reasoning and free will as the defining human qualities. Instead, he argues for a perspective rooted in God’s unconditional love and friendship, which includes all humans, even those with profound intellectual disabilities such as Down syndrome and microencephaly that deny portions of the population the traditional arbitrary markers of agency or reasoning. Reinders emphasizes the importance of cultivating friendships with people with profound disabilities, advocating for their inclusion in societal and communal life. This approach invites reflection on how Christians and society at large perceive human dignity and relationality, moving beyond a capacity-based understanding of humanity (Reinders 2008).

In this paper, the traditional understanding of rationality as the seat of the Imago Dei does not permit neurodivergent people to be discounted as less than human. Neither does this understanding count the unborn as pre-human beings. The understanding proposed in this paper relies on the human genome that prefigures a brain with the presence of the modern frontal cortex (the home of reasoning, decision-making, and problem-solving in the human person (El-Baba and Schury 2022) as the defining characteristic that separates humans from the rest of creation, independent of any genetic anomalies that may deviate from the norm. For this reason, I contend that all Homo sapiens, regardless of modern measures or gradations of cognitive ability, are counted as humans and are equally bearers of the Imago Dei. The gradations of humanity, and therefore gradations of the Imago Dei as understood in this paper, come into effect when we speak of ancestral species, which will be discussed in the following section.

2.3. The Human as Biology and Cosmic Trajectory

Anatomically speaking, the human person is only a nominal departure from the rest of the great ape family. The only meaningful anatomical difference, as far as biological structure is concerned, is the surface area and organizational structure of the frontal cortex and, therefore, the capacity of the brain to facilitate higher levels of cognition.7 This quantitative development in the frontal cortex has yielded qualitative differences that have given birth to Mozart, Hawking, and Lao Tzu. Therefore, the human frontal cortex, the seat of higher rational thinking, is the distinguishing biological mark of the modern human being.

Homo heidelbergensis, our most recent ancestor of 200,000 to 600,000 years ago (McHenry 2019), was less human than we are today by a measure of cognitive functionality, yet more human than Homo erectus by the same measure, who existed roughly between 1.9 million and 300,000 years ago.8 Our ancestors of 2,000,000 years ago were not human. 500,000 years ago, they were more human, but not fully modern. Roughly 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, Homo sapiens emerged and were genetically indistinct from modern humans. So, the question is, are humans becoming more human as time progresses and our species evolves? Moreover, is our humanity something we are in the process of becoming, but cannot be said to be “fully” human today in relation to the human of the future? In light of the revelations of evolution by natural selection, humanity is thus not a static being, but a process. Given time, according to this schema, our descendants of 100,000 years will be more human simply due to evolution.

Limiting our definition of humanity within the static bounds of the human of today eschews the revelations of evolution we know to be true through logical extrapolation of direct observable evidence. Nevertheless, understanding humanity as a cosmic process (preceding biology) that is in the process of becoming opens doors to a terrifying and wonderful future if we consider our technological advancements to be on the same exponential curve as both biological and cosmological evolution.9 This revelation traces our humanity out of an eons-long process whose beginning is found in the genesis of time and space, through the universal drama of cosmic evolution, biological evolution, beyond humanity, into some future state which Pierre Teilhard de Chardin calls the Omega Point.10 If this is an accurate cosmology and teleology, then we cannot say that humanity as it exists today is the definition of what it means to be human. Therefore, if we admit that we are becoming more human as the evolutionary drama unfolds, we are on a trajectory to become more human than we are today and, therefore, more fully bearers of the Imago Dei.

Permit a thought experiment to examine the statement “she is a human”, the main verb (to be) being a word whose definition largely escapes scrutiny, yet carries enormous unexamined assumptions. Take, for example, the statement, “This is a coffee cup”. What are we saying? Are we saying the coffee cup is a coffee cup because it was created to be a coffee cup and is thus charged with coffee-cupness? Perhaps it has never been used as a coffee cup, but instead, it has sat on a desk, holding pencils, for the better part of a decade. Is it still a coffee cup? Or is it a pencil holder? Or perhaps even a coffee cup being used as a pencil holder? If we answer the first and third questions in the affirmative, we have charged the subject of the word “is” with some quality intrinsic to its referent. However, if we say what was formerly called a coffee cup is, in truth, a pencil holder, we have charged the word with a relativistic quality. In this sense, an object is a pencil holder relative to the definition of what it means to hold pencils. Should I use it to drink coffee, it is now a coffee cup relative to its current function.

These two options for the definition of to be bear on the aforementioned question of humanity in this way: If she is a human based on the intrinsic sense of to be, this would be a traditional non-evolutionary Judeo-Christian anthropology. However, suppose we say she is a human in the relativistic sense of to be. In that case, this will imply that her humanity is a property relative to her species’ position in the evolutionary family tree. Hence, we can count gradations on the evolutionary family tree of humanity as more or less human relative to their temporal proximity to the present day or some future state on the continuum.

Evolutionarily speaking, the cosmos has been on an upward trajectory of expanding consciousness since its inception. Inert matter gave way to proteins, which begat life, which has been steadily expanding its capacity for abstract thought from single cellular organisms, through early hominids, to modern humanity. The only cognitive difference between our early ancestors and us is found in the brain. Structurally speaking, our brain and, therefore, our perceptual experience, is nearly identical across all primates and, to a further extent, mammals. Nevertheless, while other primates are physically incapable of complex and abstract thought in the manner of Homo sapiens due to this cognitive limitation, we humans are privileged to appreciate poetry, music, and all manner of problem-solving and engineering challenges requiring apprehension of abstract objects and concepts whose impact on the physical world can only be extrapolated from these abstractions prior to physical manifestation. This quality of the modern frontal cortex allows for the emergent quality of complex abstract thought. This expansion of consciousness as a product of the functionally expanding frontal cortex separates us from our evolutionary ancestors and makes us more human.

Moreover, with the help of technology, this cognitive expansion will someday happen again. By simulating and redesigning the frontal cortex in digital space, transhumanists claim we may one day have the ability to graft this digital frontal cortex through some yet-to-be-realized procedure onto our own, resulting in a quality increase of rationality and consciousness that transhumanists such as Nick Bostrom assert will be more comparable to the leap from worm to human than to that of thousands of years of primate evolution (Bostrom 2014, p. 112). The implications of this expansion are literally unimaginable. We cannot accurately predict the consequences any more than a single-celled organism is in the position to critique the merits of banding together and forming humans. Only one thing can be said with absolute certainty: we will have more cognition. Therefore, we may then have capacities that will contribute to greater degrees of rationality and consciousness. According to transhumanism, the resulting changes made to human beings will no longer be driven by biological evolution but by technological advancement.

3. Transhumanism

3.1. Secular Transhumanism

Secular transhumanism emphasizes the dysfunction of the human person (both physical and psychological) and seeks to change what it means to be human by “fixing” the perceived errors and deficiencies of biological evolution. While technologists dream of a future in which the desired changes are more extreme (drastically increased cognitive ability and longevity), portions of the population have already embraced the idea that one’s body is malleable and have taken actions to mold it based on their experienced gender identity using technology.11 Some transhumanists have advocated for the transmutation of the body altogether, leaving behind the primate genome to embrace something entirely customizable and unique,12 while others cite the desire to simply “overcome limits imposed by our biological and genetic heritage” (More and Vita-More 2013, p. 4). It is yet to be seen to what degree this will be a desired outcome, as this may impede one’s ability to achieve a sense of belonging in a community, let alone the possibility of other unpredictable consequences. Nevertheless, technology will likely one day allow for such possibilities.

We must recognize that many of the transhumanist-cited changes are already underway. Some changes are simply cosmetic and superficial, such as eye, hair, and skin color. Sex reassignment/gender-affirming surgery has become routine. Digital cochlear and ocular implants alter and enhance hearing and eyesight, directly interfacing with the brain (Mayo Clinic 2022). Orthopedic implants have been at the disposal of doctors since the mid-19th century.13 Prosthetic limbs are becoming more advanced every year, with the most advanced responding to brain stimulation (Niewijk 2023). CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) gene therapy is a revolutionary new tool that permits the precise manipulation of genetic code at the behest of a trained professional (CRISPR Therapeutics 2024). These developments are a mere shadow of the truly wonderful and terrifying advancements yet to come.

3.2. Life 3.0

Secular transhumanist Max Tegmark conceives transhumanism as a natural phase of human evolution in a schema named Life 3.0 (Tegmark 2017). This model has been either explicitly or implicitly adopted by transhumanists and is representative of the overarching philosophy. For transhumanists, the three phases of human evolution can be demarcated in this way:

Life 1.0: This signifies biological origins, where both hardware (bodies) and software (behavior) evolve independently of technological intervention. This phase began with the first biological organism and ended around 2,000,000 years ago with the dawn of hunter-gatherer societies.

Life 2.0: This signifies cultural developments, where hardware evolves, but software (now knowledge, skills) can be learned and changed. This phase is marked by the ability to acquire and transmit knowledge, skills, and cultural practices through education, communication, and social interaction. Unlike Life 1.0, where both hardware and software evolve as a product of natural selection, Life 2.0 allows for significant flexibility and adaptability in human behavior and understanding. In essence, Life 2.0 starts when humans develop the capacity for learning and cultural transmission, enabling them to adapt and thrive in various environments through acquired knowledge and skills.

Life 3.0: This is the technological age, where both hardware and software can be designed and modified. At this phase, evolution by natural selection is no longer the dominant driving force for change in the human species. Instead, technology makes both the body and cognitive processes malleable, and humans are granted full agency in their evolution. Transhumanists say this will be achieved through a combination of genetic engineering and brain–computer interfaces that blend human cognition with information technology. The degree to which the individual embraces these changes will be variable. It is widely understood by transhumanists that we will cross this threshold as a species sometime this century.

3.3. Christian Transhumanism

The term “transhumanism” often evokes suspicion or outright rejection within many Christian circles.14 However, the underlying concepts (humanity’s ongoing development, the role of technology in shaping human existence, and a future trajectory beyond our current state) find resonance within the work of the Catholic priest and Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881–1955), and contemporary theologians Ilia Delio and Ron Cole-Turner.

At this point it is worth noting that the widespread Christian acceptance and advocacy of modern medicine, sanitation, global food distribution networks, and universal education—all reliant on advanced technology that significantly alters the “natural” baseline of human existence—demonstrates an implicit acceptance of technology’s role in molding the human person and condition. This constructive engagement with technology is not a novel development within Christian history. For centuries, Christians have intentionally adopted, adapted, and even pioneered use cases of burgeoning technologies to fulfill religious vocations. Consider, for instance, the medieval monasteries, which were often hubs of agricultural innovation (Pollard 1997, pp. 161–78). Monks regularly employed technologies such as watermills for grinding grain and fulling cloth, and advanced crop rotation techniques. Whether or not these applications of modern technology were closely examined and evaluated against a Christian ethic, these technologies nonetheless increased productivity, which supported their communities and freed a greater degree of human labor for prayer, study, and charitable works. Similarly, the transition from the papyrus scroll to the codex was quickly adopted by early Christian communities who found it more practical for circulating and studying sacred Scriptures. This drastically changed the human’s relationship to information, and therefore to their humanity as defined as a rational animal. Even the awe-inspiring engineering behind the construction of the soaring vaults and intricate stained glass (itself a technological art) of the great cathedrals, or the development of mechanical clocks that began to structure both monastic and civic life, reflects a deep-seated human and Christian drive to harness material ingenuity for purposes deemed good, true, and beautiful.

This trend continued as history progressed. Perhaps the most readily accepted example is the invention of the printing press in the 15th century. The Gutenberg movable type press was a technological revolution eagerly embraced by Christian reformers to disseminate the Bible on an unprecedented scale and birthed the mass production of books. In the wake of the Scientific Revolution, discoveries in optical science led to the invention of such instruments as the telescope and microscope, which were also utilized by devout Christian thinkers and scientists to more closely read the book of nature.15 This historical trajectory from the plow and the watermill to the printing press and the first optical instruments illustrates a long-standing Christian proclivity to integrate technological advancements into the fabric of life and faith. While these earlier technologies differ vastly in scale and transformative potential from the genetic editing or brain–computer interfaces central to contemporary transhumanist philosophy, they form an undeniable part of a historical continuum. They demonstrate that the dialogue between faith and technology is constantly presenting new opportunities long before the specific prospect of fundamentally altering human biology emerged.

This deep historical precedent of Christian technological engagement provides crucial context for understanding the widespread Christian acceptance and advocacy of more recent, and often more immediately life-altering, advancements. From the 20th century onwards, vaccines have extended lifespans, surgical interventions miraculously repair bodies, communication technologies foster a global community, and agricultural technologies and modern sanitation regularly sustain populations far beyond pre-industrial limits. Suppose transhumanism fundamentally concerns humanity’s relationship with technology and the degree to which it shapes our being and future. In that case, arguably, a form of transhumanism absent of anatomical and cognitive redesign is already underway and broadly sanctioned, every time Christian nonprofits provide seeds for farming or glasses to assist vision. Given this adoption of modern technology by Christians throughout history, Teilhard de Chardin provides a unique theological framework for understanding this dynamic as an integral part of cosmic evolution towards a divine culmination and puts to rest fears of a departure from God’s plan.

Teilhard’s evolutionary theology posits an evolving universe undergoing what he calls “cosmogenesis”,16 unfolding since the Big Bang. This process is characterized by what he termed the “law of complexity-consciousness”,17 where matter demonstrates an inherent tendency towards increasing organizational complexity, which, in turn, corresponds to a rise in consciousness or interiority. In light of transhumanist thought, humanity’s self-manipulation through technology is to be understood as participating in this trend. In his seminal work, The Phenomenon of Man, Teilhard traces the whole of this trajectory from inorganic matter organizing into the first lifeforms (biosphere (Teilhard de Chardin [1955] 2008, pp. 78, 95–96, 101–2)), evolving through biological processes into increasingly complex organisms, eventually reaching a critical threshold with the emergence of human self-awareness, reflection, and abstract thought spreading out across the face of the planet and reinforcing itself in a feedback loop, the layer known as the “noosphere” (Teilhard de Chardin [1955] 2008, pp. 73, 180–84, 273–76, 286–89), or sphere of mind. This emergence of the human rational mind housed in the frontal cortex18 represents a phase change in cosmic evolution, marking the moment the universe first becomes conscious of itself.

This view directly aligns with the underlying transhumanist principle that humanity is a process rather than a static entity. For Teilhard, Homo sapiens as we exist today do not represent a finalized creation. Instead, modern humanity represents a transitional stage in the life of the universe, not only planet Earth. With the advent of the noosphere, the primary engine of evolution shifts from biological to technological. While biological evolution continues slowly, the development and interconnection of human thought, culture, and technology accelerate the noosphere’s complexification and convergence into a global entity acting as a single unit. Global communication networks, shared knowledge, and collective human endeavors, all amplified by modern telecommunications technology, contribute to the intensification and unification of consciousness on a planetary scale, now posited to find its ultimate fulfillment in the direct integration of humans in the noosphere through a machine brain interface. This resonates eerily with Tegmark’s concept of “Life 3.0”,19 in which technology allows humans to actively shape their own software (in the noosphere) when viewed through Teilhard’s theological lens.

Driven by the law of complexity-consciousness and now increasingly propelled by human ingenuity and technology, Teilhard envisioned this entire cosmic process as converging towards an ultimate point of unification and fulfillment called the “Omega Point”. As described in his work The Phenomenon of Man, the approach vector towards the Omega Point begins with a future state of hyper-complexity and networked intelligence, but finds its completion in the personal, transcendent God drawing all of creation towards union from temporal/spatial dimensionality into eternity.20 Understood in this framework, the development of more abstract consciousness and interconnectedness, even if aided or achieved through technological means that might seem secularly transhuman, can be interpreted as participating in this divine trajectory, thereby moving humanity closer to the Omega Point. If, as argued earlier,21 rationality and consciousness are central to the Imago Dei, then an evolutionary process leading towards greater consciousness, even if technologically enabled, could be seen as a deepening or intensification of that image within creation.

Contemporary theologian Ilia Delio, O.S.F., bears the torch of Teilhard and significantly builds upon his synthesis of science and spirituality while explicitly engaging with modern technology and transhumanist concepts. In works such as The Unbearable Wholeness of Being (Delio 2014) and Making All Things New: Catholicity, Cosmology, Consciousness (Delio 2015), Delio argues forcefully that evolution, including technologically influenced human development,22 is the primary mode of God’s creative action in humanity.23 She embraces the Teilhardian view that the cosmos is inherently convergent and moving towards unification in the Omega Point. For Delio and Teilhard, technology is not inherently alien or antithetical to this process. Instead, technology emerges from human creativity (itself a product of evolution) and catalyzes the next stage of complexity-consciousness and global interconnectedness. It is, therefore, a further development of the noosphere. Delio challenges the universal Christian Church to embrace an evolutionary worldview and to engage constructively with transhumanism by seeing technological advancements as creative tools within God’s ongoing creation.

It is crucial, however, to approach Teilhard’s thought with nuance. As scholars such as John Slattery have astutely identified, some of Teilhard’s early writings contain troubling passages that appear sympathetic to eugenics and reflect some problematic assertions concerning racial hierarchies and directed evolution (Slattery 2019), in one such notorious instance claiming that the Australian Aborigines are lagging behind white Westerners on the evolutionary chain (Teilhard de Chardin [1955] 2008, pp. 198–207). While these aspects do not negate the theological power and relevance of his core vision of cosmogenesis and the Omega Point, they serve as a vital caution to those applying these theories to social structures. Any appropriation of Teilhard’s thought, particularly in the context of guiding future human evolution via technology (as transhumanism proposes), must be critically filtered through a robust ethical framework (CST or otherwise), thereby ensuring that human-driven complexification does not come at the cost of human dignity, the common good, or the inclusion of all persons (as highlighted by critiques in Section 2.2).

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin offers a compelling theological vision that integrates cosmic evolution, the emergence of human consciousness, and technology’s role. His framework provides a potential pathway for what could be “Christian transhumanism”. This Teilhardian framework views the technologically influenced trajectory of human development as a possible continuation of the God-ordained evolutionary process towards the Omega Point and not necessarily as a hubristic overreach. While mindful of the ethical pitfalls and historical complexities associated with his thought, Teilhard, alongside his contemporary torchbearer Ilia Delio, invites Christians to consider that the drive to transcend limitations and enhance human capabilities through ingenuity might be understood as participation in the ongoing creation and convergence towards our ultimate ends in God.

Adding to the discourse on a Christian engagement with transhumanism, theologian Ron Cole-Turner provides a framework that, while distinct from Teilhard’s cosmic scale, similarly situates technological advancement within a theological understanding of human purpose and divine creativity. Cole-Turner builds upon Philip Hefner’s concept of humanity as the “created co-creator”, and asserts that technology is a primary vehicle through which humans exercise their God-given creativity and participate in the ongoing work of creation. As outlined at the beginning of this section, this technology is not relegated solely to the digital and includes all manner of matter, energy, and information manipulation since the dawn of agriculture. From this viewpoint, the impulse to innovate and even to alter our biological and cognitive frameworks is not inherently a rebellion against a divinely static order. Instead, it can be interpreted as a core expression of the Imago Dei, where our capacity for technological development reflects a divine calling to act as stewards and shapers of the world through an exercise of our rationality. Cole-Turner thus posits that because creation is an unfinished project, humanity is invited to engage with and guide its future development, which includes our own evolution by means of technological intervention (Cole-Turner 2011, pp. 57, 91–94).

Cole-Turner’s analysis further refines the Christian transhumanist position by carefully navigating the contested boundary between therapeutic and enhancement technologies. While fully affirming the ethical imperative to heal disease and restore natural function, he cautiously opens a theological space for enhancement by reframing it as a potential element of humanity’s vocation to participate in the act of creation. He argues that if humanity is called to participate in God’s creative work, this participation may logically extend to enhancing human capacities beyond the species-typical norm (Cole-Turner 2011, pp. 3–10, 64), provided, of course, that such actions are guided by wisdom and justice as opposed to human hubris. This perspective challenges a rigid interpretation of natural law that would preclude all forms of enhancement, suggesting instead that the moral liceity of an intervention depends on its intention and outcome, whether it promotes a genuine flourishing in line with God’s purposes or succumbs to hubris and exacerbates inequality. This point will be more fully explored in section four.

Ultimately, Cole-Turner integrates this vision of technological participation into a robustly Christological and eschatological framework. For Cole-Turner, the ultimate goal of human transformation is not a self-directed apotheosis, far from it. The goal is aimed directly at a deeper conformity to Christ, for it is Christ who represents the telos of humanity (Cole-Turner 2015). Technological enhancement, therefore, must be critically assessed against this standard: does it move humanity toward the pattern of self-giving love, community, and resurrection embodied in Christ, or does it embark down the path of radical individualism, forming new forms of division, and a rejection of bodily existence? Ultimately, this is the standard transhumanism that will be held against in the CST evaluation in section four. Christian hope, in Cole-Turner’s view, is therefore not replaced by a technological utopia promised by the transhumanists. Rather, the hope as Cole-Turner understands it is reshaped and reinterpreted by it and demands a theology that can discern God’s creative and redemptive action within the rapid technological acceleration that defines our time. This new understanding requires a discerning spirit that can embrace technology’s potential for good while vigilantly guarding against its capacity to deform human nature and distract from our ultimate destiny in God by redirecting away from the transcendent towards the finite.

A crucial distinction must thus be drawn between the Christocentric and teleological vision of Christian transhumanism and its secular counterpart. It is clear that both versions of transhumanism champion the use of technology to overcome human limitations, but their foundational assumptions and ultimate goals diverge significantly. Secular transhumanism, as represented by thinkers such as Nick Bostrom and Max Tegmark, is grounded in a materialist and atheistic worldview void of a higher power with a vested interest in the actions of humanity. Secular transhumanism views humanity as a product of undirected evolution and is thereby replete with biological “bugs” and inefficiencies that human ingenuity must conquer and correct. Its ultimate horizon is often a posthuman future defined by radical life extension or immortality, superintelligence, and subjective well-being, achieved through purely human means and for human-defined ends. The telos is a self-directed, technologically achieved apotheosis, with humanity itself becoming the sole creator and arbiter of its future. In sharp contrast, Christian transhumanism, as articulated through figures like Teilhard de Chardin, Ilia Delio, and Ron Cole-Turner, operates within a strictly theological framework. This framework interprets the drive for self-transcendence as participation in God’s ongoing creative and redemptive work and not as a rejection of a flawed creation, as do the secular transhumanists. The ultimate goal is not a self-made godhood. The ultimate goal is a deeper union with God—the Omega Point—and a fuller realization of the Imago Dei. Technology, in this view, is thus seen as a means for its perfection and sanctification (not an instrument for escaping the created order), and is always to be judged by its capacity to cultivate love, justice, and communion, in conformity with the life of Christ. Therefore, while secular transhumanism seeks to replace the transcendent with the technological as its telos, Christian transhumanism endeavors to see the technological as an instrument of the transcendent, subordinate to divine purpose and guided by theological virtues.

4. Transhumanism and Catholic Social Teaching

The prospect of transhumanism ambitiously aims to reshape human nature through technology and presents deep ethical questions that demand a robust and principled response divorced from humanity’s sinful inclinations and pride. Fortunately, CST offers a comprehensive and well-developed ethical framework for Christians seeking to navigate this complex and highly controversial terrain. Though CST may not speak directly to transhumanism, it nonetheless addresses many of the same concerns appealed to by the transhumanist movement. CST emerged formally with Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, which addressed the social upheavals of the Industrial Revolution (Pope Leo XIII 1891, 2) and the secondary effects that it wrought on both the social structure and the quality of life of the individual. CST has since evolved into a rich body of doctrine that applies the timeless truths of the Gospel to contemporary social, economic, political, and, increasingly, technological challenges (CSDC 2012, 87–104). This section will employ several key principles of CST that are most relevant in light of transhumanist aspirations—namely, natural law, human dignity, integral human flourishing, the common good, and care for creation—to critically evaluate these aspirations and propose ethical parameters for a Christian engagement. Several inherent characteristics of CST make it particularly well-suited for this task.

Firstly, despite divergences in their ultimate visions of the human telos, both CST and many proponents of transhumanism share a concern for human flourishing. However, this ideal of what it means to flourish must be closely scrutinized. Transhumanists often frame their project in terms of overcoming inherent limitations to achieve enhanced states of well-being, longevity, and cognitive capacity, thereby envisioning a future where humans can realize unprecedented potentials that they speak of as if they were synonymous with salvation. CST, too, is deeply concerned with human flourishing, but articulating it through the concept of “integral human development”, or the well-being of the whole person and of every person. For CST, this integral human development concerns itself with both the fundamental material needs of a person and the social, cultural, intellectual, and spiritual dimensions (Pope Paul VI 1967, 14, 20–21; Pope Benedict XVI 2009, 11, 18). This holistic vision provides a critical standard against which the often more technologically focused or materially-reductive notions of flourishing within some transhumanist discourses can be assessed. CST can therefore engage transhumanism on this shared terrain of aspiring for a “better” human future, while offering its own distinct understanding of what constitutes authentic human progress.

Secondly, CST has a long tradition of engaging with reason, science, and the broader world and addresses its message to the Catholic faithful and to “all [people] of good will” alike (Pope John XXIII 1963, 166; CSDC 2012, 1). In this spirit, the Second Vatican Council emphasized the Church’s readiness for dialogue with the world and explicitly acknowledged the autonomy, value, and methods of science which are independent of a knowledge of creation obtained as a matter of the scriptures and faith (Pope Paul VI 1965, 36, 59). In Fides et Ratio, Pope John Paul II meticulously outlined his understanding of a proper relationship between faith and reason and, in doing so, affirmed that “faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth” (Pope John Paul II 1998, Preface). It is this very stance and respect for rational inquiry on the part of the human cognitive capacity that makes CST well-equipped to engage with the scientific and philosophical underpinnings of transhumanism, and yields a constructive, rather than purely condemnatory, conversation. This is exactly the framework needed to engage with transhumanism. CST does not seekto halt technological progress. Rather, CST seeks to orient progress towards the authentic good of humanity and creation and recognizes that “technology, in itself, is ambivalent. If, on the one hand, it can be used to promote integral human development, on the other, it can become a source of alienation and a means of destruction” (Pope Benedict XVI 2009, 14, 70).

Thirdly, CST offers a more sophisticated understanding of the intricate relationship between individual and societal flourishing than is evident in transhumanist thought. While transhumanism often highlights individual enhancement and actualization, CST emphasizes that human beings are inherently social creatures whose personal development is inextricably linked to the life of the community and the pursuit of the common good (Pope Paul VI 1965, 25; CSDC 2012, 164–165). Furthermore, CST states that “All of humanity is alienated when too much trust is placed in merely human projects, ideologies and false utopias” (Pope Benedict XVI 2009, 53), a risk if transhumanist enhancements lead to new forms of social stratification as a product of these very utopias. Some transhumanist narratives appear to operate on a relatively naïve assumption that society automatically benefits when individual humans are technologically “improved”. CST, particularly with its robust concepts relative to transhumanism of solidarity (“a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good”, Pope John Paul II 1987, 38), participation, and the universal destination of goods, provides the tools to scrutinize how technological advancements and the transhumanist agenda might impact the spheres of social justice, equity, and the overall fabric of society in ways that do not merely appeal to shifting secular human values, but to Christian revelation as well. CST insists that technological progress must serve all of humanity with a special focus on the poor and vulnerable, and explicitly probes the question of whether it is licit to discard a part of humanity to help another part to develop (Pope Benedict XVI 2009, 33, citing Pope Paul VI 1967, 47).

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the theological anthropology that underpins CST provides a critical foundation for evaluating transhumanist ideologies that propose to alter human nature itself as traditionally defined in the secular sphere strictly by our biology and cognition. Without this foundation, we would be hard pressed to find a solid meter stick by which to evaluate these ideologies with an appropriate respect to the Christian tradition. Concepts such as the Imago Dei (Genesis 1:26–27), dignity that is inherent and inalienable (CSDC 2012, 107, 144), the integral unity of body and soul (Pope Paul VI 1965, 14), and our vocation to love and communion offer essential insights for assessing the desirability and ethical limits of transhumanist aspirations through the lens of faith in the God of the Christian scriptures. This anthropology develops to meet the social challenges with each new encyclical and is thereby continuously enriched by reflection on both divine revelation and human experiences as impacted by new knowledge and wisdom gained through the sciences and reason. This anthropology permits CST to ask penetrating questions about what it means to be human and what aspects of our nature ought to be preserved, protected, or even enhanced in ways that are truly perfecting rather than deforming. As Pope Benedict XVI cautioned, “When technology is allowed to take over, the result is confusion between ends and means” (Pope Benedict XVI 2009, 71), a confusion CST seeks to dispel by keeping the human person, in their full truth, at the center.

It is from this rich tradition and with these analytical tools that we now turn to examine specific transhumanist themes through the lens of core CST principles.

4.1. Natural Law

CST finds its foundations in the concept of natural law, which is understood most fundamentally here as humanity’s right participation in God’s eternal law with which God orders the universe (CCC 1997, 1954–1955), and thus extends beyond the dualistic morality of good and evil.24 Under CST, natural law posits that God has intentionally embedded a moral order within creation itself and within human nature. This order is discernible through human reason. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), natural law is not understood as some abstract value or moral system among the other philosophies throughout history and is accessible by human reason (CCC 1997, 1956). Simply stated, the same natural law is accessible and discernible to 21st-century Europeans and 1st-century native Americans. This inherent moral grammar guides human beings towards their proper end: flourishing and ultimate communion with God. The Apostle Paul speaks directly to the universality of natural law in his Epistle to the Romans and reasons that this law is knowable by all peoples and is not merely for Christians: “For when Gentiles [people to whom the law was not revealed], who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them…” (Romans 2:14–15).

Thomas Aquinas builds upon this notion derived from Paul’s writings and extensively develops the understanding of natural law. He first posited that the most fundamental precept of the natural law, as it applies to human morality and from which all subsequent teachings and explications are derived, is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided” (Aquinas 1485, I–II, Q. 94, art. 2). Aquinas argues that reason, the fundamental core of human identity, perpetually attempts to grasp what benefits human nature25 and discerns the specific moral precepts that flow from this primary principle (ibid.). Building upon this Thomistic foundation, CST does not understand natural law exclusively as an externally imposed code. Rather, natural law is understood as an “order” that is “inscribed in the created universe, so that humanity may live in it and care for it in accordance with God’s will”. (CSDC 2012, 37). This order illuminates fundamental human goods and values that are essential for a truly human life. As Pope John Paul II explained in Veritatis Splendor, these include not only the preservation of physical life but also goods related to the integrity of the person (Pope John Paul II 1993, 48, 50). Natural law thus provides a moral compass pointing towards actions and structures that uphold these goods, and conversely, helps identify actions that are intrinsically evil because they contradict these fundamental goods of the human person (Pope John Paul II 1993, 80). Natural law, therefore, is about the moral orientation inscribed within the rational creature that directs it toward authentic human fulfillment as defined by a power that originates outside the human heart. Natural law is therefore universal, immutable in its core principles despite shifting human understanding and interpretation, and applies to all people at all times because it is based on the shared human nature created by God (CCC 1997, 1958).

Transhumanism, particularly in its most radical proposals, presents a seismic challenge to this classical Thomistic understanding of natural law grounded in human rationality. The challenge presented by transhumanism strikes at the very foundation of the moral system: if natural law derives its precepts from discerning the inherent goods and purposes within human nature as given in its rational faculties, what happens when technology allows for the fundamental redesign of those rational faculties and thus that very nature? Does altering the biological substrate (i.e., enhancing cognition beyond species norms, achieving indefinite lifespans, merging consciousness with a digital substrate) render the precepts of natural law obsolete or malleable?

From a traditional natural law perspective, the answer hinges on whether such interventions respect or violate the inherent goods and God-given finality of human nature, and whether these interventions preserve or pervert human nature. The natural law-informed teaching of the Catholic magisterium, including social and bioethical teachings, typically distinguishes between therapeutic interventions and enhancements.26 Therapeutic uses of technology aimed at restoring health or function within the natural range (such as healing disease or correcting/mitigating disabilities, as mentioned with cochlear implants or prosthetics) are generally seen as permissible, and in most cases even laudable. For this reason, these interventions align with the natural law precept of preserving life and well-being (which for CST is a universal good) while acting in concert with nature’s inherent inclination towards health.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Instruction Dignitas Personae offers crucial distinctions here, building upon earlier documents like Donum Vitae. While therapeutic interventions aimed at correcting defects and restoring somatic normality are generally viewed as morally licit expressions of care for the human person (Levada 2008, 3), interventions that are used to reach beyond the therapeutic restoration of normality raise serious ethical questions, but also that “interventions are not to be rejected on the grounds that they are artificial” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 1987, Intro 3). The fundamental concern from a natural law perspective is that such enhancements may not respect the intrinsic order and finalities inscribed in human nature by the Creator (Levada 2008, 27). Human nature, including its biological substrate, is not merely raw material to be reshaped at the will of the human. It is instead understood as a gift possessing an intelligible order that reason can discern and ought to respect. Radical enhancements that seek to transcend human nature (i.e., moving beyond the species-typical range of capabilities or altering the essential structure of human rationality) pose serious questions that must be addressed. Foremost among these might be: does the pursuit of indefinite longevity through technological means reject the natural finitude of human life and its orientation towards an eternal destiny beyond the purely material? If human destiny is to be with God in eternity, would not these interventions serve as anchors to the world that is passing away?27 Second, does augmenting cognition to a state qualitatively different from current human rationality (the “Life 3.0” scenario, Section 3.2) respect the specific form of rationality that constitutes the Imago Dei as traditionally understood (Section 2.1), or does it attempt to create a new image altogether? Classical Thomistic philosophy was written when humans were understood to be static entities, and the subsequent understanding of the Imago Dei, which serves as the basis of natural law, must have been seen as no less static. A classical understanding of natural law would caution that human ingenuity, while a gift reflecting the Imago Dei, must operate within the moral framework derived from our created nature, not seek to override it. Such would be akin to the Genesis account of the fabled Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9). According to the static understanding, the “law written on the heart” (Romans 2:15) implies intrinsic moral boundaries that technological power should not transgress. If the law were written on our hearts, then the implication is that the law originates outside of human hearts and is, therefore, independent of the evolving or redesigned human heart.

The Teilhardian perspective introduced earlier (Section 3.3), which views technological development as part of an ongoing cosmogenesis towards greater complexity-consciousness and the Omega Point, greatly complexifies this argument and offers a different lens, but does not necessarily negate the core principles of classical natural law. Even if technologically influenced evolution is seen as God’s mode of creation moving towards a future fulfillment, natural law principles rooted in the current reality of human nature and its orientation towards fundamental goods like life, truth, community, and God, would still serve as the ethical guideposts, and not merely guardrails that can be moved with technology. Teilhardian development and evolution must still be ordered towards human dignity (Section 4.2), authentic flourishing (Section 4.3), and the ultimate Good (God), not merely towards increased power or complexity for its own sake. Any technological modification seeking to manipulate human rationality would need to be evaluated based on whether it truly perfects human nature in accordance with its inherent God-given orientation or if it constitutes a deviation from it, potentially leading away from genuine flourishing and the Omega Point envisioned by Teilhard. Making this exact determination is beyond the scope of this paper. It remains an open question that must be addressed should Christians with transhumanist inclinations or sympathies seek to reconcile their aspirations within the broader Christian system of ethics.

Even if one adopts a Teilhardian perspective wherein technologically influenced evolution is seen as part of God’s ongoing creative action, natural law principles would still serve as indispensable ethical guides for humanity’s participation in this process. As GS articulates, human activity, including scientific and technological endeavors, “should be in accord with the divine plan and will, and should allow men and women as individuals and as members of society to pursue their total vocation and fulfill it”. (Pope Paul VI 1965, 35). Thus, natural law would demand that any technological modifications, even those envisioned within an evolutionary trajectory, be rigorously evaluated to ensure they genuinely perfect human nature in alignment with its God-given orientation towards fundamental goods such as life, truth, community, and God. The critical discernment, as DP implies, is whether such interventions lead towards authentic human fulfillment or represent a new version of the ancient temptation to become like God in which the human “tries to take the place of his Creator”. (Levada 2008, 27) in a way that ultimately deviates from true flourishing and the Omega Point.

In essence, natural law, as articulated in CST, provides the initial ethical framework for evaluating transhumanism. The remaining evaluation will proceed from this point of departure. Natural law demands that technology must serve the authentic good of the human person as understood through their created nature and its inherent divinely ordained moral structure. Natural law allows us to use reason to develop new technologies and to discern the moral licitness of their application, ensuring that in our quest to shape the future, we do not violate the “law written on our hearts” that defines our present humanity and guides us towards our ultimate end.

4.2. Human Dignity

The cornerstone upon which subsequent CST principles appealed to in this paper rest is the human person’s inherent, inviolable, and inalienable dignity. Under CST, human dignity is not conferred by the state, earned through achievement, or measured by utility or capacity; instead, it flows directly from the human quality of being created in the image and likeness of God (Imago Dei, Genesis 1:26–27). The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC) states unequivocally that human dignity is the foundation and intangible principle of the entire social edifice of CST (CSDC 2012, 107, 144). Under CST, every human being possesses the same dignity simply by being a member of the human race. This dignity begins from the moment of conception and extends to natural death. The Second Vatican Council powerfully reaffirms this foundational moral precept by stating that “by his Incarnation the Son of God has united Himself in some fashion with every [hu]man”, (Pope Paul VI 1965, 22) thereby revealing the sublime calling and inherent worth of everyone, as it is humankind to which God revealed and joined himself to in the Incarnation.

Evaluating transhumanism through the lens of human dignity reveals some alignment, but more than a few challenges. Specifically, certain previously discussed technological advancements with therapeutic ends can be understood as affirming the principle of human dignity. By restoring capacities integral to baseline human experience and community participation, interventions of this order help individuals live fuller lives and reflect God’s own restorative and healing action in the world that seeks to make all things new (Revelation 21:5). This applies even to the evolving baseline human experience and aligns with the long history of medicine, embraced wholeheartedly by the Church, which has historically sought to mend the brokenness caused by illness and injury, conditions which themselves can affront dignity (Pope Paul VI 1965, p. 27).

However, the more radical aims of transhumanism, particularly those envisioning “Life 3.0” modifications involving cognitive enhancement beyond current human norms, customizable bodies, and indefinite lifespans, insist on a serious need for pause and consideration with respect to this understanding of human dignity. CST insists on the integral unity of the human person, both body and soul.28 Secular transhumanist tendencies divorced from the Teilhardian cosmology tend to view the body as mere “hardware” to be upgraded or discarded and the mind as “software” to be rewritten. These inclinations risk a violent reductionism that fragments the human person and treats them as a collection of modifiable parts rather than an integrated whole created by God, who was “very good” and perfect at the moment of their creation.29 In this view, the Imago Dei is thus lost as a ghost in the machine. Secular transhumanist philosophy risks the instrumentalization of the human person and reduces their value to that of a means for achieving specific objectives such as enhanced productivity, cognitive capability, and the pursuit of immortality at the behest of sinful humanity, rather than acknowledging their inherent worth as an end in themselves.30

Furthermore, the pursuit of radical transhumanist enhancement risks creating societal fissures that further undermine the universal nature of human dignity. Paul speaks forcefully against divisions based on perceived biological limitations or social status in his declaration to the Galatians, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. (Galatians 3:28). In a future where access to radical enhancement technologies is stratified by wealth or societal roles could create a two-tiered humanity, where the “unenhanced” are systematically devalued and their inherent dignity obscured by the dazzling capacities of the “enhanced”. This would directly contradict the Pauline vision of the Body of Christ, where even the seemingly “weaker” or “less honorable” members are indispensable and worthy of care. (1 Corinthians 12:22–26) Such a scenario risks replacing God-given dignity with a technologically acquired, and therefore contingent, status.

Moreover, the transhumanist drive to overcome limits (i.e., finitude, suffering, dependence), while understandable, may clash with Christian anthropology, which finds meaning and redemptive value even in human vulnerability. Christ’s own kenosis (his self-emptying and embrace of human limitation and suffering as described in Philippians 2:5–8) starkly contrasts a pursuit of god-like power and autonomy through technology. An obsessive focus on enhancement risks fostering a hubris that rejects the human condition as a gift and embraces a technocratic paradigm where efficiency and power eclipse love, solidarity, and mutual dependence (Pope Francis 2015, 101ff). It risks reinforcing the capacity-based view of human worth critiqued earlier (Section 2.2), by suggesting that dignity increases with ability rather than its inherence in being.

Preserving human dignity in the face of transhumanist aspirations requires anchoring technological development firmly within an ethical framework centered on the dignity of the human person. In the absence of a transcendent source imbuing humanity with dignity, any ethical framework would be as shifting sand. How exactly to thread this needle should be advised by healthcare ethicists who have historically sought a clear distinction between therapy (seeking to heal and restore) and enhancement that risks altering human nature in ways that instrumentalize, divide, or reduce the person.31 Ultimately, Christian ethicists must maintain an integral vision of the human person as a creature of God who is a unity of body and soul, endowed with inherent dignity that transcends any technological modification or enhancement. The challenge is not simply to ask what we can do with technology but who we are becoming in the process, ensuring that our technological reach does not exceed our ethical grasp, always safeguarding the God-given dignity of every human being in our present state.

4.3. Human Flourishing

Beyond safeguarding inherent dignity, CST is supremely concerned with promoting an understanding of human flourishing, which is synonymous with the integral development of every person. This concept is often articulated as “integral human development” and envisions more than mere economic prosperity, the dominant value in 21st-century neoliberalism. Integral human development is characterized by the thriving of the human individual across five dimensions: physical, intellectual, emotional, social, and spiritual (Pope Paul VI 1967, 14ff). Under the ethic of CST, authentic human flourishing involves the human person living a life of virtue in accordance with natural law. This flourishing human pursues truth and goodness, engages in meaningful work and authentic creativity that reflects the creative life of God, fosters loving relationships within a community, and ultimately orients one’s life towards union with God, who is the source and summit of all flourishing (Pope Paul VI 1965, 3, 18). Authentic human flourishing is about realizing the fullness of human potential as intended by the Creator, not as intended by humanity.

While certain aspects of transhumanism might seem, at first glance, to depart radically from traditional notions of human flourishing, viewing them through the evolutionary framework provided by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin allows for a more positive and progressive interpretation. If, as Teilhard proposed, the universe is engaged in a “cosmogenesis” characterized by an increasing complexification of matter and a corresponding rise in consciousness, then humanity, characterized by its capacity for reason, stands at the forefront of this evolutionary process. From this perspective, the transhumanist drive to enhance human capabilities need not be seen solely as a Promethean grasp for power. Instead, the transhumanist drive can be seen as humanity’s participation in this God-ordained trajectory towards greater being and deeper consciousness. It may be that a higher capacity for consciousness and rationality may, in this way, translate to greater human flourishing.

Consider the transhumanist emphasis on cognitive enhancement. As argued earlier, rationality holds a privileged place in traditional understandings of the Imago Dei. Suppose flourishing involves the development of our intellectual capacities in the pursuit of truth, and greater levels of cognition and rationality allow us to become more perceptive of the truth in the way that Homo sapiens are more perceptive to scientific truths than Homo erectus. In that case, it is not a great leap to suppose that technologically mediated cognitive enhancement may be seen as a means to radically amplify this aspect of our God-given potential. Within the Teilhardian framework detailed in previous sections, augmenting human intelligence could be interpreted as accelerating the development of the “noosphere”, that sphere of collective thought and spirit enveloping the planet through the activities of humans. This intensification of consciousness amplified beyond biological limitations would undeniably enable humanity to achieve deeper insights into the nature of reality and the complexities of creation, thereby contributing to intellectual flourishing on an unprecedented scale and may even open unforeseen avenues for the five dimensions of integral human development identified above. Indeed, this has already happened through the mediation of the internet, which has turned all of humanity and its collective computational power into a sort of meta-brain that has manifested in all manner of scientific discoveries that have thus characterized late modernity. Critics may be quick to point to the adverse effects that social media and the like have had on human social structures and qualities of life, but this can be likened to the birth pains before the emergence of a truly new life.

Similarly, the aspiration to overcome biological limitations such as disease, aging, and perhaps even mortality, while admittedly raising deep theological questions about the teleology of humanity, can be understood through this same positive lens. Just as medicine has historically sought to alleviate suffering and extend lifespan, thereby allowing individuals more time and capacity for personal growth, relationship, and societal contribution, future technologies that achieve “biological escape velocity” so too could further liberate human potential, deepening their engagement into those very things that are counted amongst the pillars of human flourishing. If humanity can responsibly manage the challenges, extending healthy lifespans and overcoming physical frailties could allow for greater investment in intellectual, artistic, and spiritual pursuits, all of which are central to integral human development as envisioned by CST.

Seen through the lens offered by Teilhard, humanity’s technological drive, including its transhumanist expressions, should be interpreted as a critical phase in evolution where consciousness begins to actively shape its future rather than a departure from a norm that has been arbitrarily designated as the intended static state of humanity. Rather than passively submitting to biological chance, humanity uses its God-given intelligence and creativity (both of which are hallmarks of the rational Imago Dei) to participate consciously in the ongoing creation, steering evolution toward greater complexity, deeper consciousness, and, ultimately, toward that final convergence in the Omega Point. Engaging responsibly in this process of using technology to unlock latent potentials could itself be understood as a dynamic and future-oriented form of human flourishing.

This optimistic interpretation is not without risks and necessitates careful ethical discernment to ensure that the pursuit of enhancement remains ordered towards integral human development and the common good, respecting the dignity of all, as discussed previously. As Teilhard insisted, the ultimate goal is convergence in love towards Christ in the Omega Point, not merely technological mastery and the glorification of human ingenuity. By embracing an evolutionary worldview, CST can potentially see within the transhumanist project a challenging, perhaps even providential, call to engage creatively and responsibly with technology as a powerful means by which humanity might pursue its God-given potential and journey towards the fullness of flourishing in God.

4.4. The Common Good

The Second Vatican Council defines the common good as “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (Pope Paul VI 1965, 26) (CCC 1997, 1906). In this manner, the common good encompasses the shared well-being and flourishing of the entire human community. The common good under CST has three essential elements: respect for the fundamental rights of the person as the bearer of the Imago Dei, the social well-being and development of the group,32 and the peace that comes from a stable and secure just order (CCC 1997, 1907–1909; CSDC 2012, 164–167). The common good is universal and extends to the entire human family. The common good is also indivisible, for it cannot be achieved for some at the expense of others (Pope John XXIII 1961, 75–80; Pope Benedict XVI 2009, 7). CST understands that achieving the common good requires the participation and commitment of all members of society who are guided by a legitimate political authority acting with prudence (Pope John XXIII 1963, 54–55; CSDC 2012, 168–170). No one is left out. Achieving the common good, as Pope John XXIII outlined in PT, is not merely an aspiration. Achieving the common good is rather a duty incumbent upon all members of society, though the task falls particularly hard upon public authorities who are responsible for creating conditions conducive to the full development of all persons (Pope John XXIII 1963, 53–56, 60–61). This implies that decisions regarding the development and deployment of powerful new technologies, even those present today unconcerned with those envisioned by transhumanism, cannot be left solely to either invisible market forces (which too obey systems designed by humans) or the individual desires of a handful of politically powerful people and the wealthy elite. Rather, proper employment of such seismic technologies requires careful governance and consideration that is guided by ethical principles that respect the human and are oriented towards ensuring that these technologies serve the authentic good of the entire human community, thereby safeguarding against new forms of exclusion and ensuring that benefits are shared equitably. This is reminiscent of the principle of the universal destination of goods, which, as Pope John Paul II reiterated in Centesimus Annus, means that all resources, including intellectual and technological ones, should ultimately serve humanity as a whole (Pope John Paul II 1991, 30–31, 39).

When viewed through the lens of the common good, the trajectory envisioned by transhumanism presents certain challenges that must be addressed before proceeding with the more radical goals. Conversely, there is also some tremendous promise to be had. Perhaps the most significant danger to the common good lies in the potential for radical inequality and the societal unrest that may result. If advanced enhancement technologies that grant extended lifespans and superior cognitive abilities become accessible only to a privileged elite, the result would be a starkly divided society far beyond anything humanity has ever experienced. Such a scenario directly contradicts the universal and indivisible nature of the common good, as it would create social conditions that benefit a select few while marginalizing or even devaluing the “unenhanced” majority. This scenario is not unavoidable but warrants caution.

Closely linked to this is the threat to solidarity. Pope John Paul II described solidarity as “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all”. (SRS 38). As described above, a society deeply stratified by the technological enhancement of some could see this sense of mutual responsibility erode and be replaced by indifference or even antagonism between different classes of humanity. For instance, those enhanced by these technologies may see the unenhanced as inferior, perhaps even a drain on society who is not pulling their economic weight. We need only look to the modern correlate of those who demonize others who are on welfare. This antagonism stems from a belief that those on welfare are not contributing equally to society at the taxpayer’s expense. Erroneous as this accusation may be today, it is feasible that the unenhanced would be seen as dead weight, as their economic output could not possibly match that of their counterparts. If this attitude were pervasive, this would cripple the collective effort required to build and maintain the social conditions necessary for humanity’s flourishing, as understood by CST.

Furthermore, the intense focus on individual self-perfection and the overcoming of personal limitations that often characterize transhumanist discourse can divert attention and resources away from addressing the fundamental needs of the global community that are present now. CST states that pursuing the common good demands prioritizing the provision of basic necessities for those currently lacking them and not prioritizing advancements that may only be available to the wealthy. Massive investments in speculative enhancement technologies, while widespread poverty, disease, and lack of education indicative of the first quarter of the 21st century persist, raise serious ethical questions about distributive justice and the proper allocation of humanity’s shared resources (Pope Francis 2015, 156–59). However, a Christian understanding of transhumanism, intentionally oriented by the principles of CST, might seek ways to harness technological advancements for the common good that alleviate these stressors. The key lies in shifting the ethical focus from individualistic gain to collective benefit and universal access.

Moreover, if enhanced cognitive abilities or novel forms of technologically mediated collaboration were directed toward solving humanity’s most pressing collective challenges,33 they could very well serve the common good on an unprecedented scale. This aligns with the Church’s encouragement to use science and technology34 to elevate the human condition and serve authentic human progress (Pope Paul VI 1965, 34–35). If guided by charity and justice, the Teilhardian vision of an evolving noosphere could find expression in a globally interconnected humanity better equipped to collectively understand and address shared problems.

4.5. Care for Creation

Our final theme within contemporary CST is brought into sharp focus by Pope Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’. This theme is the ethical imperative known as “care for creation”. Care for creation recognizes that the earth and all it contains (indeed, all of creation beyond the earth and into the far reaches of the universe) are a precious gift from God and are entrusted to humanity for our responsible stewardship. As humanity is charged with being stewards of creation, creation is thus not merely a collection of resources for human exploitation as late-stage capitalism all too often demands (Pope Francis 2015, 67, 76). Care for creation calls for acknowledging the intrinsic value of every plant, mineral, and creature, all of which give glory to God simply by virtue of their existence, independent of their utility or lack thereof to humans (Pope Francis 2015, 33, 69). Furthermore, LS’ emphasizes an integral ecology, recognizing that “nature cannot be regarded as something separate from ourselves or as a mere setting in which we live”. (Pope Francis 2015, 139). A core element of this teaching is a total critique of the dominant technocratic paradigm, which sees creation (and increasingly, human nature) as raw material infinitely malleable by human power and technological prowess. As critiqued by Pope Francis, this technocratic paradigm prioritizes utility and control of human nature over its intrinsic worth and the natural ecological limits of creation (Pope Francis 2015, 101–114).

Pope Francis in Laudato Si’ powerfully articulates the “intimate relationship between the poor and the fragility of the planet”, and emphasizes that a true ecological approach that honors God and creation always becomes a social approach, meaning, it must integrate questions of justice in debates on the environment, so as to hear both the cry of the earth and the cry of the poor (Pope Francis 2015, 16, 49). Therefore, when evaluating transhumanist proposals (particularly those that might involve significant resource consumption or environmental alteration for their realization), it is crucial to consider their potential impact on the poorest communities, particularly in the global south, and on the ecosystems upon which global life (human or otherwise) in all of its diversity depends. An ethical assessment from the standpoint of integral ecology must ask whether these pursuits risk exacerbating environmental degradation that began with the industrial revolution that disproportionately harms the vulnerable, or whether they divert critical resources from addressing pressing global needs like poverty, hunger, and access to clean water that are present today, thereby failing to uphold the interconnectedness of creation and social justice.

Evaluating transhumanism through the lens of LS’ understanding of care for creation reveals significant tensions and contradictions with CST. Indeed, many aspects of the transhumanist project appear to be a boastful, powerful, perhaps the ultimate, expression of the very technocratic paradigm Pope Francis critiques. The ambition to fundamentally redesign the human body, to overcome biological limitations like aging and death, and potentially even to extend consciousness beyond the biological into digital spaces, if done with the ends of glorifying humanity apart from creation, is indicative of a worldview that sees biological nature as a flawed system whose sole purpose is to be conquered, enhanced, and controlled by human ingenuity. This is a fundamental contradiction for CST, which sees creation as a gift that needs to be received and cultivated (Pope Francis 2015, 106). This mindset risks deepening the “excessive anthropocentrism” that fundamentally fails to recognize the legitimate place of other creatures and the inherent limits of our planet (Pope Francis 2015, 115–21).

Moreover, specific transhumanist visions (particularly those involving an escape from biological embodiment) seem to promote, to a degree, a problematic dualism that devalues material creation. The desire to shed the “limitations” of the flesh in favor of a transcendent existence unbound by biology suggests a Gnostic-like disdain for the body and the created world and views them as constraints or prisons rather than integral parts of our God-given reality and value. This contrasts sharply with the Christian affirmation of the goodness of creation and the Incarnation, where God embraces materiality as a means of salvation (Pope Francis 2015, 96–100). Integral ecology insists on the unity of the human person (body and soul) and our embeddedness within the broader web of life. Transhumanism’s unchecked trajectory, on the other hand, often seems to point towards disintegration and detachment.

While proponents might argue that enhanced intelligence derived from transhumanist technologies could help solve environmental problems that seem insurmountable by the brain of the Homo sapien, LS’ cautions against purely technological solutions divorced from an ethical and spiritual foundation. The encyclical warns that the technocratic paradigm often prevents us from seeing the deeper roots of the ecological crisis, which lie in distorted human desires, sin, consumerism, and a lack of respect for creation (Pope Francis 2015, 111, 203–206). Who is to say that these desires would not be amplified alongside human cognition? Without an “ecological conversion”,35 technological power is likely to be misused (Pope Francis 2015, 217).

4.6. Conclusions

This study began by grounding the Imago Dei in the rational capacity of the human. I then demonstrated how this rational capacity has evolved into what is now present in the modern Homo sapien. I also acknowledged the undeniable reality that humanity has consistently used technology to reshape the boundaries of its existence and has moved far beyond our ancestors’ “natural” baseline. From the first agricultural tools to modern medicine and computers, humanity has striven to overcome limitations, alleviate suffering in all its forms, increase comfort, increase longevity, and enhance our capacities. In a word, we extended our reach, first with stone tools, then with calculators. Transhumanism represents a radical acceleration and intensification of this trajectory. It promises not only longer lives or restored functions but fundamental alterations to human cognition, embodiment, and perhaps even our place within the cosmos. The ultimate transhumanist aspiration is to irrevocably raise the baseline of what it means to be human beyond anything achievable by a biologically unaltered human. Confronted with these seemingly inevitable possibilities, such as the presence of beings unbound by disease and aging or possessing vastly expanded intellects interconnected in previously unimaginable ways, the central question has loomed large: Is this path permissible under a Christian ethic? And if so, what principles must chart our journey?

This paper suggests that understanding the human person through the lens of the Imago Dei, particularly emphasizing our capacity for rationality and consciousness as central to that image, provides the primary starting point. When this understanding is situated within an evolutionary framework drawn chiefly upon the insights of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, we see an affirmative perspective emerging. If humanity is not a static entity but part of an ongoing cosmic evolution towards greater complexity and consciousness—a process Teilhard saw as converging towards the Omega Point—then our technological endeavors aiming at self-modification should be interpreted as wholehearted participation in this divine trajectory. Cosmic, biological, and technological evolution are all on one exponential curve. This complexification from subatomic particles to heavier elements, all the way through biological matter to computers, is merely a force of nature, no less fundamental than gravity. From this horizon, the enhancement of our cognitive abilities actively facilitating a deeper interconnectedness of the noosphere should not be understood as a rejection of or deviation from God’s plan but rather a novel, technologically mediated phase in the unfolding of creation, and therefore, the deepening realization and manifestation of the Imago Dei within the cosmos. This perspective offers a theological basis for engaging constructively, rather than outright dismissively, with transhumanism’s profound questions.

However, while such a theological framework might illuminate a potential path, the rich tradition of CST provides indispensable guardrails keeping the transhumanists within a Christian ethic and guideposts towards a future pleasing to God. CST thereby raises notes of caution that cannot be ignored, should we wish to guide humanity towards an authentic flourishing life in God. As has been explored, evaluating transhumanism against these foundational principles of CST reveals significant tensions. The inherent, inviolable dignity of every human person, grounded solely in their creation in God’s image, risks being undermined by reductionist views of the body and mind, by the instrumentalization of persons, and most critically, by the potential creation of profound inequalities that devalue those unable or unwilling to undergo enhancement. The pursuit of the common good—the social conditions allowing all humanity to flourish—is threatened by the prospect of societal stratification, eroded solidarity, and the diversion of immense resources towards elite enhancement rather than addressing the fundamental needs of the global poor present even today. Furthermore, the principle of care for creation as articulated powerfully in LS’ finds itself frequently at odds with the transhumanist ethos, because it often embodies the very technocratic paradigm CST critiques, and promotes a detachment from (rather than a harmonious integration within) the natural world.

Therefore, we are left with a complex and nuanced picture. A Christian perspective on transhumanism informed by an evolutionary understanding like Teilhard’s might discern in the transhumanist impulse echoes of humanity’s deep-seated drive towards transcendence and fuller being, aligning with a cosmic movement towards God. Nevertheless, the time-tested ethical wisdom of CST, grounded in historical social precedent, revelation, and human rationality, demands caution. CST insists that technological possibilities must always be subservient to human dignity, the common good, and ecological responsibility. The allure of enhanced capacities cannot justify the creation of an unjust society or the destruction of our common home in the name of super-humans.

Moving forward requires ongoing critical discernment guided by both faith and reason. Any Christian engagement with transhumanist philosophy must rigorously apply the ethical filter of a coherent system such as CST and constantly ask not merely what can be achieved but, who benefits, who bears the cost, and whether these advancements truly serve the integral flourishing of all people, especially the most vulnerable, and whether they bring us closer to God. It demands humility before the mystery of God’s creation and our place within it, resisting the temptation to pursue god-like power while forgetting the demands of love, justice, and stewardship. The transhumanist journey towards the future human, if undertaken from a Christian perspective, must ultimately be oriented towards the true Omega Point—participation in the life of Christ—where authentic human flourishing is found in communion with God and neighbor.