Mystery XX: Corrupt vs. Incorrupt Eternity

Don: Last week we talked about the common fear of death. Yet some people are afraid of its opposite—immortality, particularly a “useless” immortality. A Time magazine article from Feb. 10, 2011, “2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal” says that by 2045 the technology will have been developed to enable a human mind—its memories, dreams, knowledge, aspirations, consciousness, everything—to be downloaded (transferred) into a machine. It sounds like science fiction, but the fact is that respected scientists are working on it. If they succeed, then immortality will be possible.

As the article points out, the human-machine interface is already starting to blur, as machines acquire more and more human-like intelligence. The notion that creativity—in art and other spheres—is uniquely human is being challenged by apparently creative machines able to compose original music and paint original art. The difference between what is natural and what is artificial is growing less and less distinct.

We face a future in which computers might very well exceed humans in intelligence. Some years ago, chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov lost a tournament to a computer, and more recently the TV game Jeopardy was won by a computer playing against two human champions of the game.

In Daniel 12:4, a messenger from god told Daniel that toward the end of time, “many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”

In an article entitled “Fear of Immortality” Slate magazine reported the results of a Pew poll that found that most Americans do not want to live forever; indeed, the vast majority do not want to live past 90, regardless of their wealth and regardless of their belief (or not) in an afterlife. Much of this sentiment centered on the uncertainty of what a very long or even immortal life would bring. Nevertheless, 25 percent of respondents thought it probable that by the year 2050 the average lifespan would be 120; 50 percent thought that most forms of cancer would be curable; and 71 percent foresaw artificial limbs being superior to natural limbs.

Despite this optimism, Americans seem not to welcome living very long lives. Fifty-one percent thought that an average lifespan of 120 would be unnatural and bad for society (interestingly, though, there has been a 75 percent increase in longevity in the past 100 years) and 56 percent said they would not avail themselves of medical treatment that enabled such a lifespan, yet 58 percent thought that most people would want the treatment. The findings suggest that younger people, people who equate medical treatment with quality of life, and people who associate longevity with productivity all tend to favor longevity more than others. Those who see longevity and old people as a burden on society’s resources tend to be opposed to it, as do older people themselves.

The notion of immortality is evidently linked with fear of what becomes of the physical body. In 1 Corinthians, Paul makes many points about death and resurrection and the afterlife, and as of now over a million people have reported having had “near-death experiences” of which some have been scientifically studied. Putting those studies together with the scientific theories of and seeming progress toward a breakthrough in mortality then we begin to see a confluence of scientific points and ideas about death and resurrection and an afterlife. Are we getting to the point where science will have more valid things to say on these topics than faith does?

Paul himself seemed to approach the topics almost scientifically. In 1 Corinthians 15:21-25 he began to outline the topics:

For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

In verses 39-49 he continues a detailed explanation with a somewhat scientific “if-then” ring to it:

All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.

So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual. The first man is from the earth, earthy; the second man is from heaven. As is the earthy, so also are those who are earthy; and as is the heavenly, so also are those who are heavenly. Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly.

He then goes on in verses 50-54 to mention the Mystery we have been discussing in recent weeks:

Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, “Death is swallowed up in victory.

He concludes the passage with this (verse 58):

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.

How can an understanding of the Mystery of death, resurrection, and afterlife inform our lives today? Paul seems to be saying that this understanding is of vital practical importance for our present life; it’s not just of academic interest, and it’s not just about preparing us for the afterlife. And what can best provide that understanding—science or faith?

Dave: If we live forever then sin, pain, war and other bad things go on forever, and who wants that? Perhaps this was behind the reluctance against longevity found in the Pew study. Even if our minds become housed in machines, it does not follow that the intelligent machines will be morally superior in any way. They will continue to sin and wage war. The Pew study might show that even people of no faith recoil at the thought.

Donna: Physical death is a scientific death. We can keep people physically alive using machines. Spiritual death is not necessarily simultaneous with physical death. So how can we download/transfer spiritual life to a machine? Since there are two spirits—one holy, one evil—vying for control of the spirit, which one will prevail in the transfer?

Charles: The so-called “Singularity movement” behind the downloaded mind theory seems to me to be a manifestation of our desire to return to unity, reconciliation, and atonement with god that can occur only at the time of physical death. To Singularitans, that unity is achieved technologically rather than spiritually, but the end result is the same.

The yearning for transcendence of death seems hardwired into the human genome. The Pew statistics are not surprising. As we have discussed, we begin life with total dependence on (faith in) others but go on to accumulate suffering and cynicism, to the point where we desire to get back to that earlier state. That is god drawing us back, preparing us for reconciliation.

The Singularity movement is practically a religion in suggesting that something will arise that will solve all problems; the only difference is that their “something” is technological rather than spiritual. I don’t know who’s right, but I tend toward the spiritual myself. I am not a technophobe, but it seems to me that to attach to technology emotion and spirituality and everything else it means to be human is to demean humanity. I cannot refute the notion scientifically and I cannot deny the scientific steps that have been taken toward it, but I cannot make the final leap the Singularitans make. The universe itself is corruptible and subject to the law of entropy and decay. Even the most advanced machine is corruptible. So the notion that anything can be truly immortal in the current reality of the universe does not hold.

Dave: Even if we assume that robots live forever, then sin would live forever. We are slaves to sin. Instead of solving our problem of sin, we would be compounding it, “eternalizing” it. The only way to be freed from sin is in the afterlife, not in the present life.

Donna: In my work, I see the devil use technology as a tool to destroy and corrupt. It frightens me.

Don: What about Paul’s conclusion that an understanding of what happens after death helps in our life today?

Dave: We go through phases in life—of dependence, a stage of acquisition, and so on. They tend to be self-centered phases, until we get older and enter a phase of contemplating our mortality and realizing that there are more important things to consider than our material needs. Maybe I’m just speaking for myself. But there have been many books on the subject.

Charles: We chose our will over god’s will at the time of the Fall and became enslaved to desire and temptation and sin. Our yearning for atonement and reunification with god can only occur through faith and actions that are consistent with “the law”. I still struggle with the question of why atonement had to occur through the death of Jesus. I believe it, but I don’t understand it. Why can’t god just forgive sin through a life well lived? Why can it only come about through a death on a cross?

Donna: The cross seems to me a symbol for how ugly true death will be, in contrast to the beauty of true life as revealed through Creation and through the life of Jesus. That is why it is necessary to accept that Jesus is one’s personal saviour.

Dave: We have to die to live. If we live forever, sin lives forever. Jesus showed us that on the cross. Symbolically, sin dies when we are baptized, but it only really dies when we die. Only then is eternal life truly open to us.

Donna: The question goes to the physical death of Jesus. Who was in charge of it?—Satan was. He is in charge of physical death and god is in charge of spiritual death. God knows the heart. I try to listen to what my spirit is telling me instead of seeing what my eyes are showing me. Sometimes god will give me physical hints. Sometimes I can see physical death in a room, where others in the room cannot.

Don: The story Paul is trying to impart is not simply about physical death, about transitioning to the afterlife. The story of the Mystery—of the reversal of the Fall—is a recreation of something that was perfect before. Even if we were to find a technological way to immortality, it would not amount to a rebirth, a reversal of the Fall, a recreation of the Garden. It would extend and compound the sorry state we are in. Paul is talking not simply about going from living to dying to living again; he is talking about going from living in a corruptible situation, through death, to a new incorruptible, imperishable phase in which there is no darkness, no sin.

Charles: The question of reconciliation with the divine and why it has to occur through the death of Jesus intrigues me. We are to understand that humankind fell away from god in the Garden and the only way back is through the man-god Christ. By sinning, we are opting for death and corruption. The only way out of this is through the physical death of not us but of Christ, followed by his resurrection. This is hard to understand.

Don: We will return to explore this question. There is something different about the resurrection of Jesus. Lazarus was resurrected, but he was not “reborn” incorruptible—he died again, eventually. His resurrection needed human intervention (to move the stone covering the tomb entrance, to remove his death shroud, etc.) whereas Jesus’s resurrection required none: The stone was moved, the shroud was removed, but not by human hands. This is a contrast between two types of resurrection—one physical, one spiritual.

* * *