Board index ‹ Assorted Bible Questions

[Nicholas]

What defines human life (and how much is it worth)?

and a few more related questions (feel free to answer as few or as many as you'd like):

1. When does human life begin?

2. Did Neanderthals and homo erectus and other humans go to heaven, purgatory, hell?

a. If not, why not? Is the differentiation advanced language? If so, do we consider homo sapiens before advanced language to be "human"?

b. Do any other intelligent species go to these places?

3. If I create human skin cells in a petri dish, is that a human? What if I create a heart in a lab? A brain?

4. What is the value of life?

5, If life is the most valuable thing, is it immoral not to be making babies all the time via pregnancy and laboratories?

[jimwalton]

> When does human life begin?

Biologists, embryologists, and geneticists tell us that human life begins at conception. From conception, a zygote is 23 pair of chromosomes, either XX or XY (male or female), unmistakably human and distinctly different from the mother (the host womb).

The Bible doesn't specify when life begins, but it hints that it begins at conception as well. The New Testament teaches personal continuity from womb to grave. In the OT law, both a woman and her fetus were protected (Ex. 21.22-25). A high value was placed on both. The fetus was given both "image of God" (Gn. 9.6; all humans have the image of God, and if you have the image of God, you are human) and nephesh status (Lev. 24.17-18). The fetus was not considered a "potential life" (potential life was in the loins of the father). With conception, the fetus was considered human life—a precious gift from God (Ps. 139.13-18)

> Did Neanderthals and homo erectus and other humans go to heaven, purgatory, hell?

That that we know of. They were hominids, but not "human." (It has nothing to do with the capability for language.) It's very possible that God had not yet revealed Himself to Adam and Eve at that time, so Neanderthals, Denisovans, homo erectus, et al. were all considered pre-human. At least that's my understanding of the science.

> If I create human skin cells in a petri dish, is that a human? What if I create a heart in a lab? A brain?

Those are human parts, or human organs, or human cells, but not "a human."

> What is the value of life?

Anything that God makes has value. Nature has value, therefore, in itself, because God made it. God saw that it was good. Nature is not just utilitarian, it has intrinsic value. Humankind has value even more so, since we are not only created by God, but also created in God's image. My integration point is upward, not sideways. While part of nature and related to it, humans are separate from the rest of nature. Nature is to be respected and treated with dignity.

We as humans have higher value because God invested us with value as being in His image. Therefore we have a unique dignity and value, a worth and significance as persons in creation.

> If life is the most valuable thing, is it immoral not to be making babies all the time via pregnancy and laboratories?

We were ordained to be fruitful and multiply, but there is never any rebuke or judgment of immorality for not making babies. Singleness is not condemned in the Bible, nor is sterility. At times not having children is even honored. Therefore it is not immoral not to be making babies all the time via pregnancy and laboratories.

[Nicholas]

> Those are human parts, or human organs, or human cells, but not "a human."

So at what point do you have a human? Do you need all of the parts together? And do they all have to be working?

[jimwalton]

I think you know the answer. It's a matter of medical science and common sense. We obviously don't need all the parts, since people without legs or arms don't have all the parts and they're human. Helen Keller, blind and deaf, didn't have all working parts, but she was human. But just a human heart isn't a human. Just an ear isn't a human person, even if it's VanGogh's. Scientists may have saved Einstein's brain, but that doesn't mean they have a human being in a jar. But I have confidence you know this.

A zygote in a womb is human life. A fetus is human life. So also a baby, an autistic person, a psychopath, a person with serious disabilities, Downs Syndrome, black and white, male and female, slave and free.

What's your real question—the honest one?

[Nicholas]

> Not that that we know of. They were hominids, but not "human." (It has nothing to do with the capability for language.) It's very possible that God had not yet revealed Himself to Adam and Eve at that time, so Neanderthals, Denisovans, homo erectus, et al. were all considered pre-human. At least that's my understanding of the science.

"homo" means human. they are scientifically classified as humans. also, if adam and eve were the first humans in a line of evolution, would their parents not be considered human, too?

[jimwalton]

"Homo" is Latin for "man." In taxonomic categories, it is used both for human and pre-human forms. As bipedal human-like primates evolved from the austral- line of evolution, the "homo-" prefix was used for pre-human forms such as homo-erectus, homo habilis, and homo-neanderthalis. Later, as scientists believe that evolution gave us genuine human beings, they were labelled homo-sapiens: "Wise Man." Primates with the gift of reason.

> also, if adam and eve were the first humans in a line of evolution, would their parents not be considered human, too?

I subscribe to the theory that Adam and Eve were historical but they were not the first humans in a line of evolution. They were humans who had evolved to the point where they were spiritually capable and morally culpable, and God took them out (Gn. 2.15) from among the others to represent humanity. In that sense (as well as in others), Eve was the "mother of all the living." (I could explain that in more detail if you like.)

So would their parents not be considered human, too? Possibly. It's obviously a fine line of progressive evolution, but if God chose to reveal himself in a special way to the couple we call Adam and Eve, that would set them apart all that was necessary from their parents and their ancestors.

[Nicholas]

I actually don't know where a human begins and ends. I'm trying to figure that out. Is a human grown that is normal in all ways except for genetically engineered pig feet a human? I believe so, because instinctually I think it comes down to one's ability to intelligently perceive. But then is a zygote a human? No. Is a collection of living human cells in a petri dish a human? No. Is an AI human program a human? Yes. Is a person who was born with a dysfunctional brain a full human? I don't think so.

[jimwalton]

Well, I think you're asking a good question, and it's one that I think will be part of our scientific and legal conversations for years to come. Doctors have just as much trouble defining life and death. If the lungs and heart have stopped but the brain is still working, is the person dead? We decide such things sometimes arbitrarily and mostly they're judgment calls (non-resuscitatable body). Similarly biologists struggle to define "life" as they meddle in the proverbial protein pool. It's a great question that I fear is going to lack the precision you're hoping to find.

If we attach pig feet to human legs, I would still think it's human just as when we attach prosthetics to human legs.

But is a zygote a human? I would say yes, and obviously others would disagree. He/she has 46 chromosomes, 23 pair, and we can tell if he or she is male or female. He or she is not potentially human, but is fully biologically human. And since having all the parts and being fully functional is NOT how we define "human," on what grounds would we eliminate a human zygote as human?

Is a collection of living human cells in a petri dish a human? It's not "A human," but it's "human." If the DNA is human, then it's human, but it's not A human; it's not a person.

Is an AI human program human? Of course not. There's nothing human about it. Just because it replicates some human motions and can learn to process data ("think") doesn't make it human in any sense of the word "human."

Is a person born with a dysfunctional brain a full human? Yes, of course. If dysfunction disqualified one from being human, then a whole group of politicians just lost the label and the status!

I think (my opinion) you're on very dangerous ground. A person with a dysfunctional brain is NOT a full human, but an AI robot IS? 12 years ago, a friend of mine gave birth to a baby that the doctors said had only a partial brain and was going to be deaf and blind. They didn't expect her to live more than a few days. I sat with the parents who cried and held their poor little baby. She didn't die. The docs were wrong. She can hear (with aids), she can see with special glasses, and she's in school! Go figure. But you're telling me that an AI robot is more human than she is? I couldn't disagree more strongly. I'll just be honest with you and say I think your perspective is dangerous to the stability and survival of humanity.

[Nicholas]

> But is a zygote a human? I would say yes, and obviously others would disagree. He/she has 46 chromosomes, 23 pair, and we can tell if he or she is male or female. He or she is not potentially human, but is fully biologically human. And since having all the parts and being fully functional is NOT how we define "human," on what grounds would we eliminate a human zygote as human?

A zygote is a collection of cells that are performing their duties as prescribed by their DNA, but as a whole, do not have higher thought. If we look at any other comparable mass of DNA (a living piece of skin, some liver tissue in a petri dish, for example), we do not call these a human, either.

> Is an AI human program human? Of course not. There's nothing human about it. Just because it replicates some human motions and can learn to process data ("think") doesn't make it human in any sense of the word "human."

One could design a programatic but chaotic environment that matches our own and follows our laws of physics, and then drop several human AIs into that environment. The AIs, ignorant of their creation, could generate offspring, formulate complex societies, and in all aspects live lives that perfectly parallel our own. Who is to say that these AIs are not human?

> A person with a dysfunctional brain is NOT a full human

My point is there are deficiencies (subject to our own judgement) that could remove one from full human status. This could be an infant body that was born with no brain except for a stem, a being that can ONLY react to its environment and in very simple ways. To further illustrate the point, an infant body that only ever grew to be a torso would not be considered fully human in the way a typical person would understand it. How could a "soul" exist in this creature more than it could for an organ being grown in a lab? Conversely, I believe that some perceived deficiencies are not enough to disqualify one for human-status. At the extreme, a neanderthal, capable of using tools, creating basic art, and communicating in rather advanced ways, but which is subtly less sophisticated than a homo sapien, would still be deserving of human rights.

[jimwalton]

> If we look at any other comparable mass of DNA (a living piece of skin, some liver tissue in a petri dish, for example), we do not call these a human, either.

I would regard a mass of DNA not comparable. A mass of DNA (skin, liver, for example), will sit there forever as is, a static lump. A zygote, however, is in process of development. It is dynamically becoming, growing, and maturing. This is a person, not a lump.

> The AIs ... could generate offspring, formulate complex societies, and in all aspects live lives...

Here we get down to what is human. Ants generate offspring and formulate complex societies. Gorillas generate offspring, formulate complex societies, and live lives that somewhat parallel are own. These are not the criteria of "human."

> My point is there are deficiencies (subject to our own judgement) that could remove one from full human status.

So, in your mind, what defines a human life?

1. If it's biological, then it depends on chromosomal analysis and biological affinity to our definition of "human."
2. If it's functionality, and you consider anything less than full functionality as less than human, you enter the murky world similar to Nazism of the 1930s, whether there were attempts to kill the disabled, the elderly, and what they considered to be inferior: Jews and blacks. It's functional genocide based on arbitrary judgments of what qualifies as good enough. It's a horrific world view of the destruction of the unfit, and you or I could just as well fit into the category of "fit for destruction" depending on the assessment of those in power. Hitler was involved in such social Darwinism, and it was the embodiment of immorality and evil.
3. If it's the ability to breed and socialize in complex societies, then ants and bees are also human, as well as rats, wolves, and dolphins.

Perhaps it would help me if you could give me your perspective on what defines human life and how to determine its worth.