Transhumanism and Catholic Social Teaching
McGinley Dugan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think this is an excellent article. It is well-presented and even-handed. My comments are mostly about small things.
First, a question: In lines 40-42, you define transhumanism. Is this your definition? Is this a universally accepted definition? It makes it sound like an ideology -- is that your intention? Is it an imperative to guide, as you say, or more an acceptance of the inevitability of this outlook in our technology-driven world? It might be helpful to clarify this.
Line 44: This is because, for many (strike "that")
Line 55: I know you have it in the Abstract, but the first time you use CST in the paper itself, you should spell out Catholic Social Teaching.
Line 60: incomplete. critiques it faces from a Christian ethical what? Should it be Christian ethical perspective?
Footnote 15: If this is all a quotation, then you need single quotation marks around 'Omega Point'. Also, if this is all a quotation from Castillo, I know you can't change it, but I take issue with saying Teilhard "abandoned the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." I think he himself saw all of his insights as growing from and extending Church teachings. Church officials may have had issues with his thought (as they often do with cutting-edge theologians), and he may have argued with certain aspects of Church teaching, but it's too strong to say he abandoned it. One could just as easily argue he was ahead of his time and the Church needed to catch up.
Lines 233-234: Does more cognition always equal being more rational and more conscious? Some holistic philosophy argues that our passions and emotions also inform our rationality, such that mere cognition is not sufficient. I wouldn't say we'll be more rational and more conscious "with absolute certainty."
Footnote 38: Again, use single quotation marks within the larger quotation.
Line 464: methods of science (strike "the")
Line 623: transhumanist inclinations (not transhumanists)
Footnote 50: forcefully, not force-fully (unless that way in the original)
Line 762: space between brain and that
Line 778: Teilhard
Line 781: designated as the intended state...
Line 821: that respect the human and are oriented...
Line 894: honors God and creation (strike "the")
Line 915-916: "Indeed, this is the very claim of secular transhumanism." Because of your reference to CST in the prior sentence, we lost the intended antecedent for "this." It's almost implying that creation as a gift that needs to be received and cultivated is the claim of secular transhumanism.
Just a final, overall comment: As I said, this is an excellent paper. But I'm left wondering how to move forward since any transhumanist innovation is likely to run into at least one of the ethical problems you outline. Given human "sinfulness" (to use a theological term), it seems that abuse (or misuse) of any transhumanist technology is inevitable no matter how cautious we are. But at least your article makes us aware. We have been warned! And at least you're keeping religion in the conversation by using Teilhard.
Thank you for this fine paper.
Author Response
Comment 1: In lines 40-42, you define transhumanism. Is this your definition? Is this a universally accepted definition? It makes it sound like an ideology -- is that your intention? Is it an imperative to guide, as you say, or more an acceptance of the inevitability of this outlook in our technology-driven world? It might be helpful to clarify this.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have qualified that this is the working understanding of transhumanism for my paper while acknowledging that exact definitions for philosophy may vary. I have also added references that points to the original usage of the term, as well as one that highlights the moral imperative. I have also included an excerpt from the 2024 Cambridge Companion to Religion and Artificial Intelligence in which modern process theologian Ilia Delio defines transhumanism in her chapter Transhumanism and Transcendence. (Lines 40-54)
Comment 2: Line 44: This is because, for many (strike "that")
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. The change has been made.
Comment 3: Line 55: I know you have it in the Abstract, but the first time you use CST in the paper itself, you should spell out Catholic Social Teaching.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. The change has been made. (Line 68)
Comment 4: Line 60: incomplete. critiques it faces from a Christian ethical what? Should it be Christian ethical perspective?
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. This is a typo that should read “…a Christian ethic.” The change has been made. (Line 73)
Comment 5: Footnote 15: If this is all a quotation, then you need single quotation marks around 'Omega Point'. Also, if this is all a quotation from Castillo, I know you can't change it, but I take issue with saying Teilhard "abandoned the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." I think he himself saw all of his insights as growing from and extending Church teachings. Church officials may have had issues with his thought (as they often do with cutting-edge theologians), and he may have argued with certain aspects of Church teaching, but it's too strong to say he abandoned it. One could just as easily argue he was ahead of his time and the Church needed to catch up.
Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. ‘Omega Point’ has been placed in single quotation marks. (Footnote 20)
Regarding Castillo stating that Teilhard, “abandoned the traditional teachings of the Roman Catholic Church…” I have extracted this quote and replaced it with “[…]”. Castillo’s comment is not relevant to the argument being made and only confuses the reader. The Castillo quote was chosen because it succinctly summarized Teilhard’s idea of the Omega Point relevant to the over-arching connection bringing my earlier statements of gradations of humanity in ancestral species to transhumanist aspirations. It is important for my argument that the reader contextualizes transhumanism in a Christian context before using CST to evaluate the ethics, and Teilhard serves as the bridge between these two topics. (Footnote 20)
Comment 6: Lines 233-234: Does more cognition always equal being more rational and more conscious? Some holistic philosophy argues that our passions and emotions also inform our rationality, such that mere cognition is not sufficient. I wouldn't say we'll be more rational and more conscious "with absolute certainty."
Response 6: You are correct, and I agree with this comment. It is important for my argument to state that greator cognition will contribute to greator rationality, but this is an assertion I am making. Therefore, I have edited the two sentences to read, “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.” (Lines 266-268)
Comment 7: Footnote 38: Again, use single quotation marks within the larger quotation.
Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and have made the requisite change. (Footnote 43)
Comment 8: Line 464: methods of science (strike "the")
Response 8: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. The change has been made. (line 570)
Comment 9: Line 623: transhumanist inclinations (not transhumanists)
Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. The change has been made. (Line 729)
Comment 10: Footnote 50: forcefully, not force-fully (unless that way in the original)
Response 10: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. After checking the original source, I can confirm that it does indeed read “force-fully.” Therefore, I have added “[sic].” (Footnote 58)
Comment 11: Line 762: space between brain and that
Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and the change has been made. (Line 868)
Comment 12: Line 778: Teilhard
Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment and the change has been made. (Line 884)
Comment 13: Line 781: designated as the intended state...
Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have changed the wording accordingly. (Line 887)
Comment 14: Line 821: that respect the human and are oriented...
Response 14: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have changed the wording accordingly. (Line 927)
Comment 15: Line 894: honors God and creation (strike "the")
Response 15: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have changed the wording accordingly. (Line 1000)
Comment 16: Line 915-916: "Indeed, this is the very claim of secular transhumanism." Because of your reference to CST in the prior sentence, we lost the intended antecedent for "this." It's almost implying that creation as a gift that needs to be received and cultivated is the claim of secular transhumanism.
Response 16: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with this comment. Therefore, I have removed the sentence, and altered the wording of the sentence containing the original antecedent. It now reads, “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 (LS’ 106).” (Lines 1015-1021)
Comment 17: Just a final, overall comment: As I said, this is an excellent paper. But I'm left wondering how to move forward since any transhumanist innovation is likely to run into at least one of the ethical problems you outline. Given human "sinfulness" (to use a theological term), it seems that abuse (or misuse) of any transhumanist technology is inevitable no matter how cautious we are. But at least your article makes us aware. We have been warned! And at least you're keeping religion in the conversation by using Teilhard.
Response 17: This is an apt point. The purpose of the paper is not to chart the course forward, but to contextualize transhumanism within a Christian worldview using Teilhard, then to use CST as a lens to evaluate this recontextualized understanding of transhumanism. If we go straight from transhumanism to CST, we are left with little constructive criticism. However, by drawing the parallels between transhumanism and a Teilhardian world view, we can then evaluate some of the ethical issues raised fairly from a Christian perspective without resulting in reflexive rejection. Much of this technology remains speculative, and we won’t be able to determine the appropriate path forward until they are actualized in the coming years. I am doing my best to stand on my hilltop and evaluate what I see. But I can only see so far. For example, around 2010, social media was seen as an almost universal boom for democracy and a force for bringing voice to the marginalized. The Arab Spring was identified as a prime example. Mark Zuckerburg was paraded around Washington D.C. as if he were a hero. Very few people anticipated the atrocious effects social media would have on body image, mental health, mis- and disinformation, alienating echo chambers, teen suicide rates, attention span decline, and so on. Likewise, transhumanism has not fully matured, and when it does, we may see that we had it entirely wrong. My goal with this paper was to provide some meaningful signposts that can help us chart this future ethically starting today. I personally am optimistic, but cautious. Stay tuned for the sequel in 20 years!
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper can be of interest to a general audience; however, restricting a discussion of transhumanism to principles of catholic social teaching based on Thomistic theology is not helpful, unless you can show why Thomistic theology is relevant to the dynamism of technological change. Your position makes theological assumptions that are outdated in terms of process theology, even though you incorporate ideas from Teilhard de Chardin, who was a process thinker.
The emphasis on the human as image of God based on rationality needs to be updated in light of current discussions on consciousness, especially discussions on AI and the extended mind. One AI scholar recently stated: "Our resistance to seeing AI “consciousness” rests to a significant degree on self-deception about our own human consciousness. We imagine ourselves as deep thinkers making careful, reasoned decisions. But the reality is far different. We are primarily pattern-matching machines, puppets driven by emotions that are often invisible to us without careful attention."
The paper is unwieldy in its discussion. It incorporates a plethora of ideas without building a sound argument. Principles of natural law, the concept of divine participation, and other religious aspects of this paper render it out of sync with current trends in science and technology--unless it can be shown otherwise.
I would suggest: 1) demonstrate a robust understanding of transhumanism, 2) how Christianity can be interpreted as a form of transhumanism (see Ron Cole-Turner's work), and 3) what distinguishes Christian transhumanism from technological transhumanism, especially in terms of Catholic moral principles. This might make a better approach, overall.
As it is, the paper is too long and random in discussion, and fails to convince the reader of the importance of CST for transhumanism.
Author Response
Comment 1: This paper can be of interest to a general audience; however, restricting a discussion of transhumanism to principles of catholic social teaching based on Thomistic theology is not helpful, unless you can show why Thomistic theology is relevant to the dynamism of technological change. Your position makes theological assumptions that are outdated in terms of process theology, even though you incorporate ideas from Teilhard de Chardin, who was a process thinker.
Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I appealed to Aquinas to ground the Imago Dei in rationality because of the transhumanist belief that cognition (and therefore rationality) will be enhanced. This point comes into play in the discussion involving Teilhard, which sees humanity on a developing trajectory that has yielded higher degrees of cognition (or rationality) over the course of human evolution. This is where Thomistic theology becomes relevant to the “dynamism of technological change.”
I believe I sufficiently represent the refutation to this assertion in section 2.2, and in turn pointed out that some of the racists conclusions that have been drawn are not relevant to, nor implied, by my argument. However, your point on outdated terms of process theology is well taken. I do not wish to overcomplicate this section further, as my desire is to ultimately demonstrate that transhumanism in light of CST may hold some merit if it indeed is on the path towards Teilhard’s Omega Point, and therefore conducive to human flourishing due to fuller embodiment of the Imago Dei by way of expanded rationality. I have therefore added a footnote at the end of section 2.1 that both bolsters my assertion and provides two references as counter arguments that would deem this theology as outdated should the reader decide to read further should they wish to contend with this point. Therefore, I feel as though I have sufficiently defended my assertion by tracing its development, and have acknowledged that there is modern opposition. The footnote is as follows:
“The identification of the Imago Dei with the rational was heavily influenced by early patristic engagement with Greek philosophy. Figures like Augustine of Hippo, particularly in his De Trinitate (Book XV, ch. 9), located the divine image in the mind's tripartite structure of memory, understanding, and will, and understood it as an analogy for the Trinity. This intellectualist interpretation was systematically codified and reached its apex in the scholasticism of Thomas Aquinas (Cf. Summa Theologiae, I–II, q. 93, a. 4. — “Since man is said to be the image of God by reason of his intellectual nature….”). In his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas argued that the Imago Dei resides preeminently in the human capacity for intellect and reason and concludes that this faculty most perfectly mirrors God's own intellectual nature. This "substantive" or "structural" view of the divine image found in humanity’s capacity to reason became the dominant theological understanding in Western Christianity for centuries and thereby defined the essence of human distinctiveness as the capacity to know and love God through the rational soul.
This traditional understanding faced a significant challenge in the 20th century, most notably from process theology, which critiqued the static and individualistic nature of the intellectualist model codified by Aquinas. Cf. Alfred North Whitehead, David Ray Griffin, and Donald W Sherburne, Process and Reality: An Essay in Cosmology (New York, N.Y.: The Free Press, 1985).
Classical process theologians like John B. Cobb Jr. subsequently reconceived the Imago Dei as a dynamic participation in God's "creative transformation" as opposed to what he deemed a fixed substance. John Boswell Cobb and David Ray Griffin, Process Theology: An Introductory Exposition (Westminster Press, 1976), 96,100-3, 105-6, 131.”
(Footnote 13)
I have also added an additional Ilia Delio (modern process theologian) reference in the introduction, thereby further rounding my working definition of transhumanism.
(Lines 43-54)
Comment 2: The emphasis on the human as image of God based on rationality needs to be updated in light of current discussions on consciousness, especially discussions on AI and the extended mind. One AI scholar recently stated: "Our resistance to seeing AI “consciousness” rests to a significant degree on self-deception about our own human consciousness. We imagine ourselves as deep thinkers making careful, reasoned decisions. But the reality is far different. We are primarily pattern-matching machines, puppets driven by emotions that are often invisible to us without careful attention."
Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment. I believe you make an excellent point, but I do not directly address AI in this paper, and I believe a passing reference such as what you have suggested would open an entirely tangential discussion that I do not wish to entertain. You have stated that the paper is too long, random, and unwieldy. I believe introducing a discussion about AI consciousness would not serve to mitigate this critique. In addition, to say Aquinas’ theology needs to be updated in light of AI would relegate Aquinas’ theology to the “God of the gaps.” i.e. Aquinas says humanity bears the image of God due to rationality. But if AI is rational, either a) Aquinas was wrong for this very reason or b) AI bears the image of God. Perhaps Aquinas’ definition of the Imago Dei does suggest that AI will someday bear the image of God as understood by Aquinas after it has sufficiently matured beyond its current stage, but to reach this conclusion in this paper would be far out of scope. This would be a fascinating discussion for another paper another time, but it would require much more ink than I am willing to spill here.
Comment 3: The paper is unwieldy in its discussion. It incorporates a plethora of ideas without building a sound argument. Principles of natural law, the concept of divine participation, and other religious aspects of this paper render it out of sync with current trends in science and technology--unless it can be shown otherwise.
Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I disagree with this comment. These religious aspects are what is necessary to draw a throughline between transhumanism and CST. I understand it may initially appear as meandering, but if I were evaluate transhumanism against CST without drawing the throughline through the Imago Dei, divine participation, Teilhard, and natural law, few positive comments could be made by CST regarding the merits of transhumanism. For this reason, I believe it was necessary to systematically treat each of these aspects in turn, in this order, prior to tackling the CST evaluation of transhumanism. CST has not engaged with transhumanism, therefore it was necessary for me to key in on certain aspects of the transhumanism argument in this fashion, drawing parallels to theological ideas such as the Imago Dei, the Omega Point, divine participation, and natural law, etc. to ultimately bring transhumanism into a fair conversation with CST. Each of the ideas presented prior to section four play into the CST evaluation. I believe that if I were to sidestep the theological parallels prior to the CST evaluation, I would have missed many of the nuances necessary to avoid a full condemnation.
I would be happy to entertain a conversation about what particular aspects of my argument prior to section four are irrelevant. But as they stand now, I believe they are necessary.
Comment 4: I would suggest: 1) demonstrate a robust understanding of transhumanism, 2) how Christianity can be interpreted as a form of transhumanism (see Ron Cole-Turner's work), and 3) what distinguishes Christian transhumanism from technological transhumanism, especially in terms of Catholic moral principles. This might make a better approach, overall.
Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I largely agree with this comment. I believe I have demonstrated a sufficient understanding of transhumanism for it to be represented fairly in the CST evaluation. I was attempting to construct a Christian understanding by means of the work of Teilhard, however I believe you are correct in saying that my argument could be greatly strengthened with the addition of a more contemporary theologian such as Ron Cole-Turner who has done much of this work already. Therefore, I have changed the title of section 3.3 to simply read “Christian Transhumanism,” (Line 323) and have added the paragraphs below directly following my discussion of Teilhard’s work along with appropriate references:
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 manners 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.[1]
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,[2] 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.[3] 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 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.
(Lines 461-531)
Comment 5: As it is, the paper is too long and random in discussion, and fails to convince the reader of the importance of CST for transhumanism.
Response 5: I believe I have addressed this comment in my responses to the previous comments and in my additions detailed above.
[1] Ronald Cole-Turner, Transhumanism and Transcendence (Georgetown University Press, 2011), 57, 91-94.
[2] Ronald Cole-Turner, Transhumanism and Transcendence, 3-10, 64
[3] Ronald Cole-Turner, “Eschatology and the Technologies of Human Enhancement,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology 70, no. 2 (2015): 21–33.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI want to like this paper and I see that the author has tried to understand transhumanism from the perspective of evolution. However, this paper is unwieldy, erratic and overly complicated in discussion. The structure moves from transhumanism, to the human person to image of God back to transhumanism then on to Catholic Social Teaching. I would advise you: 1) get a clear handle on transhumanism. This statement in your paper leads me to suggest you do not fully comprehend the nature of transhumanism: "Secular transhumanism emphasizes the dysfunction of the human person (both 273 physical and psychological) and seeks to change what it means to be human by “fixing” 274 the perceived errors and deficiencies of biological evolution." This is simply not correct. In fact, transhumanism is related to being image of God insofar as the God image is the basis of transcendent life. See David Noble's book on the Religion of Technology. 2) You have Thomas Aquinas and Aristotelian principles of nature trying to interact with transhumanist ideas. It would be helpful for you to understand the basis of artificial intelligence as it emerges from quantum physics. 3) You might shorten your paper to three major points: 1) focusing on transhumanism as a dimension of human life, 2) secular transhumanists and their aims, and 3) the difference Christianity can make to the forward direction of transhumanism. You have elements of these points, but the paper is all over the place.
Author Response
Comment 1: “Secular transhumanism emphasizes the dysfunction of the human person (both 273 physical and psychological) and seeks to change what it means to be human by “fixing” 274 the perceived errors and deficiencies of biological evolution.” This is simply not correct. In fact, transhumanism is related to being image of God insofar as the God image is the basis of transcendent life.
Response 1: I believe this quote accurately represents secular transhumanism, which is not interested in the image of God. As you have noted, a Christian understanding of transhumanism is fundamentally different. The quote you are commenting on above is a critique of secular transhumanism.
Comment 2: You have Thomas Aquinas and Aristotelian principles of nature trying to interact with transhumanist ideas. It would be helpful for you to understand the basis of artificial intelligence as it emerges from quantum physics.
Response 2: As fascinating as the quantum mechanical observer effect is, and its implications as to the nature of consciousness, I do not believe it is relevant to my paper. As I stated in my round one response, I do not wish to include a discussion on artificial intelligence, as I believe it would unnecessarily complicate the paper, which you have already described as “unwieldy.” I also do not believe quantum physics, nor its relation to artificial intelligence, is relevant to my paper.
Comment 3: You might shorten your paper to three major points: 1) focusing on transhumanism as a dimension of human life, 2) secular transhumanists and their aims, and 3) the difference Christianity can make to the forward direction of transhumanism. You have elements of these points, but the paper is all over the place.
Response 3: To attend to this comment would not bring the paper towards the aims of the special issue “Catholic Social Thought in the Era of the Un-Common Good,” for which the paper is being written. My paper does not aim to point to “the difference Christianity can make to the forward direction of transhumanism.” My paper seeks to characterize secular transhumanism, demonstrate that it is not entirely out of line with a possible Christian understanding of transhumanism, and then evaluate this new understanding against CST. I believe the steps I have taken are necessary to define a possible Christian understanding of transhumanism, which will enable me to evaluate it fairly against CST.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised paper is clearer and slightly better organized.
