Interreligious Perspectives on Mind, Genes and the Self

Emerging Technologies and Human Identity

Joseph Tham,Chris Durante,Alberto García Gómez

• Editorial: Routledge
• Año: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429850844
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Teologia e religione
• Categoría: Religione e scienza

Attitudes towards science, medicine and the body are all profoundly shaped by people's worldviews. When discussing issues of bioethics, religion often plays a major role. In this volume, the role of genetic manipulation and neurotechnology in shaping human identity is examined from multiple religious perspectives. This can help us to understand how religion might affect the impact of the initiatives such as the UNESCO Declaration in Bioethics and Human Rights.

The book features bioethics experts from six major religions: Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism. It includes a number of distinct religious and cultural views on the anthropological, ethical and social challenges of emerging technologies in the light of human rights and in the context of global bioethics. The contributors work together to explore issues such as: cultural attitudes to gene editing; neuroactive drugs; the interaction between genes and behaviours; the relationship between the soul, the mind and DNA; and how can clinical applications of these technologies benefit the developing world.

This is a significant collection, demonstrating how religion and modern technologies relate to one another. It will, therefore, be of great interest to academics working in bioethics, religion and the body, interreligious dialogue, and religion and science, technology and neuroscience.

1 Some convergence of religious views on the ethics of neurogenetic technologies

Alberto García Gómez and Claudia Ruiz Sotomayor

1 Introduction

Neurogenomics is the study of how the genome contributes to the evolution, development, structure and function of the nervous system (Boguski & Jones, 2004). There is much hope in neurogenomics and the development of genomic therapy, which can lead to the diagnosis and cure of many diseases such as cancer, genetic mutations, and neurodegenerative conditions. In 2016, researchers were able to identify a gene that indicates the greater likelihood of cognitive problems in people with Parkinson’s disease. These findings explain why some patients develop memory loss and prompted more trials to discover personalized treatment approaches (Liu et al., 2016).

As these discoveries continue to emerge, so does the need to analyze the ethics of neurogenetic technologies that will protect human dignity. Genetics and genomics have provided fertile ground for ethical analyses on the gained power of humanity through an increased understanding of these sciences (Mauron, 2003). So far, secular analysis of ethical, legal and social implications associated with technoscience are quite abundant compared with studies from religious and spiritual perspectives (Canli, 2015). Principal Eastern and Western religious views on the body-soul relationship can shed light on the ethical limits of neurogenetic interventions and enhancements and their access within the community.

In accord with the UNESCO Chair in Bioethics and Human Rights’ goal of fostering convergence in global ethics, this article looks at areas of commonalities among six religions – Buddhism, Confucianism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism – regarding the ethical limits of emergent neurogenetic technologies.

2 The person and the soul

When addressing the topics of genetics and neuroscience, questions on the nature of the mind, the body, the soul and the person are pertinent because of the possible effects such technologies may have on them.

Brief and Illes (2010) say that neurogenetics offers the blueprint (genetics) to understand the self because the brain is considered the “self-defining essence of a person.” However, the predominantly Western concept of the person is not easy for Eastern cultures to grasp. Ancient Western philosophers have concentrated their analysis on understanding nature and reality. For them, human beings are part of nature, rational animals that depend on natural laws. They did not explore the concept of what it means to be a person. The Latin word persona originally denotes the mask worn by an actor. From this, the term applies to the role one assumes, and eventually to any character or individual stage of life (Geddes, 1911).

Christianity later adopted and developed the concept of the person as we understand it now. This notion moved from a cosmos-centric view to an anthropological one that distinguishes the creature from the creator (Palazzani, 2011). Boethius first defined a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” After him, other philosophers have added, subtracted or changed the concept altogether. In ordinary usage, a “person” is co-extensive with a “human being.” However, the definition of personhood is more complicated in its legal, philosophical and theological meaning¹ (Teichman, 1985). In this article, we will focus on the relationship between personhood, selfhood and the human individual, and the body, soul and mind to explore the areas of agreements and divergence between the East and the West.

In Judaism, particularly the philosophy of Maimonides, the soul is the main component of the human being. When Maimonides uses the term “soul,” he does not mean a mystical entity that controls a person from the outside, but rather the natural life force residing in human beings (Mizrahi, 2011). For the Talmudic rabbis, the soul is separable from the body based on the following scriptures: “God breathed the soul into the body of Adam (Gen. 2:7; Ta’an. 22b).” “During sleep, the soul departs and draws spiritual refreshment from on high (Gen. 14:9).” “At death it leaves the body only to be united with it again at the resurrection” (Sanh. 90b – 91a). Jewish theology has not elaborated views on the relationship between body and soul in a precise manner. However, there is some evidence that medieval Jewish philosophers studied the body primarily with the aid of Aristotle and Galen, and they believed that the soul is the king and ruler of the body and its principle of life, organization and perception (Jewish Virtual Library, 2018).

Islam names the entity that moves the body as the soul (Bedir & Aksoy, 2011). Most Muslim authorities consider the human person to be a combination of matter and spirit. Islamic theologians define death as the moment when the material body and the immaterial soul separate (Brockopp, 2008). Islam does not neglect the corporeal aspects of life, because the body is the appropriate asylum of the soul. That is why strengthening the body and hygienic practices are as significant and desirable as the grooming of the human soul to favor its prosperous flourishing (Gauri, 2009).

Some Christians emphasize the ultimate spiritual goal of human existence – the crucial question of the salvation or loss of our soul (Maher & Bolland, 1912). Regarding its constitution, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that the “[soul] signifies the spiritual principle in man. Man, though made of body and soul, is a unity. Through his very bodily condition he sums up in himself the elements of the material world … The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body” (Catholic Church, 2010, n. 363–365).

At the other end of the spectrum, Eastern cultures present a different perspective on the relationship between the soul and the body. In the Confucian view – as Fan (2010) explains – there are different types of qi for life, including essential qi and nonessential qi. Essential qi makes up the soul of a human being, and nonessential qi makes up other parts of the body. The soul under the Confucian conception consists of two parts: the hun (the intelligent soul) and the po (the animal soul). In life, one’s hun and po are united, with the hun providing consciousness and rational guidance and the po overseeing corporeal activities such as nutrition and movement. At death, the hun and the po separate.

According to Buddhism, human beings cling to what they consider “me” or “mine,” even though the Buddha advises them to abandon these attachments that trouble them. The Suttanipata (collection of sutras) observes that human beings take the self for what is not self and cling to its “name and form.” The “name and form” and the “body” here designate a person, an individual composed of five aggregates: rupa (material form, four elements – earth, water, fire, air – and six organs), vedana (physical and mental sensations), samjna (perceptions), samskara (mental formations), and vijnana (consciousness) (Ishigami-Iagolnitzer, 1997).

In Hinduism, the true self is the soul, which is considered immortal, eternal, perfect and with unlimited inner essence. As divine souls, humans are evolving toward union with God through a process of reincarnation. In some Hindu traditions, the destiny of the soul after liberation is an eternal and blissful enjoyment of God’s presence in the heavenly realms. In others, the soul’s fate is perfect union in God or the Infinite All, in a state of oneness (

Veylanswami, 2009).

3 Concerns posed by neurogenetic technologies

3.1 Reductionism

For many, the brain is a necessary but insufficient organ that accounts for all the physiological and psychological properties that make each of us unique. With current technologies, such as neuroimaging, it is possible to explore some patterns related to attitudes, predilections and states of mind (for example, whether individuals are lying or telling the truth) (Pirruccello, 2012). However, it is evident that the brain is not the sole cause of the mind but is a relational organ that shapes and is shaped by the mind, mediating the interaction between the person and the world. Exclusive emphasis on the neurobiological basis of the mind fails to appreciate the extent to which factors inside and outside of the brain influence our desires, beliefs, emotions and intentions (Glannon, 2009).

As we note in the previous section, the notions of the body, soul and personhood are intimately linked to the individual and her transcendence. Therefore, we should not confuse the brain with the soul and the mind. When this confusion occurs, we reduce the mind, the body and the soul to objects of easy manipulation. This reductionist interpretation would prevent the person from experiencing a deep spirituality that lies within her innermost self. Carrara and Bovassi note in Chapter 12 that “there must be an anthropological background of neurogenomics that avoids all kinds of reductionism, especially a mechanistic understanding of human life and neurological reductionism.” Fan (2010) also expresses the incompatibility between Confucianism and naturalism because of the latter’s tendency to objectify the body and the soul, reducing them to molecules.²

3.2 Enhancement

Some have defined enhancement as “improvement in the absence of medical need” (Lipsman, Zener, & Bernstein, 2009). However, the line between therapy and enhancement is growing fainter as technology advances. For instance, some genetic interventions that formerly “enhanced” are now proposed as therapy because they could bolster the immune system, improve memory in dementia-prone patients or delay the aging process (FitzGerald, 2002). From the naturalist position, there is concern that enhancing the person will change one’s characteristics. Thus, naturalism understands the Posthuman person in strict connection with the appearance of a creature in possession of higher-quality emergent properties. On the contrary, the personalist approach does not concentrate on individual characteristics, but on the person’s entire reality (Holub, 2016).

Enhancement presents contrasting religious perspectives on the use of emergent technologies. For Judaism, the person is God’s creation and therefore perfect. God has given us the responsibility to preserve our health. However, humanity’s ultimate purpose is to serve God while remaining humble. Everything in nature has its proper function and purpose designed by God. Species, categories and the forms of each creature are fixed, sacred and therefore ultimately good (Cole-Turner, 2008). God has an absolute dominion over creatures that we should not question. Trying to improve them without any reasonable explanation of therapy is contrary to Judaism because it implies acting against God’s perfect creation.

From a Protestant-Christian perspective, humanity is both finite and free. As a limited creature, the human being is created good and yet limited in body and spirit. For this branch of Christianity, the offense of enhancement lies in holding contemptible the very contingency of creation. Moral judgments evaluate the degree to which technologies promote complicity with narcissism, vanity, self-sufficiency and other sinful values (Hanson, 1999). The official teachings of the Catholic Church represent a strong ethic of stewardship. This ethic insists that we have a God-given responsibility toward all creation, and that extends to our bodies. We are not the owners of our bodies but only stewards of them, so we are not free to manipulate ourselves (or nature) at will (Fitzpatrick et al., 2014). Both Christianity and Judaism uphold the principle of caution in dealing with enhancing technologies and healthy people. They prohibit germ-line intervention and have serious concerns about possible violations of the equality and dignity of every person.

According to Islam, God the Creator has made us for a purpose. He will test who is “best in conduct,” and this will have consequences in the life that follows. Islamic biomedical ethics uphold these principles – to preserve life, to promote and restore health, to alleviate human suffering, to respect patients’ autonomy, to carry out justice, to tell the truth and to do no harm. Concerning neurogenetic enhancement, Islamic scholars encounter a still-evolving fine line between what we can technically do and what we should morally do with new scientific advances. Islamic scholars and scientists need to further study these issues together with interpreting the sacred law (Athar, 2008).

Eastern cultures are ambivalent about these issues; the acceptance of enhancements depends on the specific effects they may have on the person and the community. For example, Buddhism will permit neurogenetic improvement that leads to Enlightenment. The goal of a Buddhist is to attain Enlightenment regardless of the means, except when the process clashes with specific constraints of the Buddhist outlook on selfhood and the nature of wholesome states (Fenton, 2009). Deepak Sarma explains that the acceptance of neuroenhancement depends on the perception of the Hindu devotees. If they believe that enhancement will increase pāpa (demeritorious karma), they should avoid it. But they would welcome it if they can generate puṇya (meritorious karma), even when it is less worthy than similar results obtained by natural means (Fitzpatrick et al., 2014). For the Confucians, neurogenetic enhancement is admissible if it improves the family line or fosters self-cultivation (Fan, 2010). Adults may obtain enhancement for this cultivation themselves or anticipate it as a gift to their future offspring. Only when neurogenetic enhancement violates the goals of self-cultivation or disrespects parents and ancestors would such improvements be unacceptable (Wu, 2010).

4 Neurogenetics and the community

Since human beings are relational, what affects an individual will affect the community. Most religions consider social responsibility, resource allocation and distributive justice when addressing these new treatments and technologies. For example, with personalized medicine, a simple genetic test could, in theory, predict whether someone will have a positive response to a treatment. Such testing would see...

Índice

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Foreword
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1 Some convergence of religious views on the ethics of neurogenetic technologies
• 2 Cosmopolitan conversations
• Part I Asian religions: Buddhism
• Part II Asian religions: Confucianism
• Part III Asian religions: Hinduism
• Part IV Monotheistic religions: Christianity and Catholicism
• Part V Monotheistic religions: Islam
• Part VI Monotheistic religions: Judaism
• Conclusion
• Index