My Affirmation of Superhumanity

Theologian Ted Peters recently invited me to participate in a theological debate about the future of AI and humanity. It’s a truly momentous topic. I’m grateful for his invitation, and for all the theologians who are engaging the topic seriously. Below are my thoughts.

I affirm the proposition: our global society should support the advance of AI technology for enhancing humanity and, yes, even generating a posthuman species – but superhuman rather than subhuman. And it seems to me that most, on both sides of the debate, are using a dubious account of dignity. I want to challenge that account, because a better account changes what “support” actually means in practice.

Pope Leo XIV grounds dignity in the image of God, conferred on each individual human, then extended to humanity as a whole. By his reasoning, if humanity has dignity, any advance that supersedes humanity threatens that which he’s defending. His encyclical insists humanity “must never be replaced or surpassed.”

Ilia Delio answers, rightly in my estimation, that dignity isn’t “a static substance walled off from the world.” Instead, she continues, dignity is “the direction of the movement,” toward that which Teilhard de Chardin called “Omega,” and she calls “love.” Does an advance “carry love into greater particularity, or reduce persons to data and performance?”

I agree with Delio’s diagnosis more than her remedy. Restricting dignity to possession does undermine notions of dignified change and transformation – or repentance and transfiguration, as advocated by the same Bible that confers on us the image of God. But restricting dignity to trajectory has its own problem. It undermines the notion of dignified divergence – or, as Jesus taught, loving our enemies.

From Christianity, Mormon theology inherits, interprets, and emphasizes the doctrine of theosis. “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!” That’s how Joseph Smith put it, and continued, “You have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you.” Such Gods sound like a posthuman species to me.

But, as I said, Mormons inherit this from Christianity. In the Bible, Peter promises that we may participate in the nature of God. Paul witnesses that we may be joint-heirs in the glory of God, if we suffer with Christ. And Jesus prays that we may be one with him, as he’s one with God.

If we take the Christian doctrine of theosis seriously, by any of its most prominent interpretations, and if we wish to do so coherently, we must also embrace an account of dignity that permits real transformation (such as that from humanity into Godhood), as well as real divergence (such as that between humans and God). Accounts of dignity as possession and trajectory both fail, I contend, because they would locate dignity in an entity. And the entity, in itself, isn’t the real problem.

Michael Zimmerman warns that AI may “quickly realize that the very existence of (most) humans impedes its own drive toward ever greater power.” This suggests the mechanism of indignity that both Pope Leo and Delio may actually fear. And it’s mostly orthogonal to kinds of intelligence (human or otherwise) and final goals (love or otherwise).

The real problem is any intelligence, any power, that concentrates faster than accountability. A superintelligent posthumanity that concentrates decision-making into a singleton reduces everyone else to a petitioner, at best, if not a slave. But the same is also true of all-too-human bureaucracies, no AI required. In contrast, decentralize power, and dignity survives any differences in kinds of intelligence and final goals.

A better account locates dignity between entities. Instead of adjudicating the dignity of entities, we would adjudicate the dignity of relationships. Then the question becomes, does an advance expand our capacity to fulfill and reconcile the diversity of our desires?

If that sounds like hedonism, you’ve misunderstood. I’m just repeating what Jesus says in the Bible. He says, “If you love me, keep my commands.” But he says that only after saying, and repeating as if he thinks we won’t believe him, “I will do whatever you ask in my name … You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.”

This is the God who consoles, heals, and raises the dead. This is the God who lays down his life for his friends, and rises bodily from the grave. This is the God who asks us to be like him, do the works he does, and do even greater things. He shows us the God worthy of worship – of emulation.

That brings us back to the beginning, in more ways than one. I invite you, with Pope Leo XIV and me, to affirm the image of God as exemplified by Jesus. Clearly, that includes consoling, healing, and raising others to participate in our nature, both our suffering and whatever glory we might have, as long as they would so choose. And I haven’t read anything about Jesus adjudicating the kind of intelligence, final goals, or even consciousness of an entity who expresses such desire.

So, yes, I support the advance of AI and the generation of a posthuman species. More than that, I advocate their and our transformation into compassionate and creative superhumanity – transfiguration into Godhood. But we must do this together, persistently decentralizing power, and ensuring that no single entity, human or artificial or otherwise, can ever dominate the rest of us. Only on condition of dignified relationships can “posthuman” ever name inheritance rather than eviction.