Apologist Jimmy Akin addresses the question of how living indefinitely would be viewed within Catholic theology.
Transcript:
If someday we develop science fiction style longevity technologies which could stop people from aging, or help them to live indefinitely with these, would the use of such technologies ever be moral in any situation?
Well, why would they not be moral?
I could imagine that it could cause problems in terms of populations and in terms of the natural course of human life, potentially depending on how the technologies work. If they would interfere with some natural function of the body, well, maintaining it being alive, I could see some possible ways that it could be immoral.
Well, you’re adding to the situation. I mean, the question as phrased was, you know, if we develop a technology that will let people live indefinitely, is it moral to use that? Now, you’re introducing new factors like this technology having some kind of effects that are immoral on human bodily function.
So, if you’re building a technology that immorally affects human bodily function, well, then it’s not going to be moral to use that, but that’s not the same thing. The technology initially asked about was one that just lets people live indefinitely. So, without introducing new factors, can you think of any reason why it would be immoral to have a technology that lets people live indefinitely?
Not off the top of my head.
Yeah, neither can I. God doesn’t have a problem with us inventing medicines and techniques and technologies to extend human life. And so, given that, there doesn’t appear to be anything that would prevent us from being able to morally use one that’s more open-ended.
You know, if you have a technology that will let someone get past a medical crisis and say have another five years of life, that’s fine. If you then invent a technology that will let them extend the human lifespan by another five years, that’s fine. If it’s another 10 years, that’s fine. If it’s another 20 years, that’s fine. If it’s indefinitely, that’s fine.
Unless there’s some competing factor that results in a fundamentally immoral situation that cannot be circumvented by anything other than not using the life extension technology, then there’s nothing wrong with using life extension technology regardless of how far it might extend life.
Thanks Master Akin.
No Problem!
Padawan
Stephen, we’re glad you’re here. Go ahead with your question.
It’s more of an objection and a question, I guess. I think you were wrong on the first caller. I think that it is immoral. Yeah, I think that it was asking about the eventual technology that would allow you to live indefinitely. You said there’s nothing immoral about it, but I think it is immoral. Here’s my reason.
Okay. I think it’s immoral because it’s unnatural. God did not design us to live in our sinful nature indefinitely, he allowed us to live a certain amount of time, and the soul that’s in the flesh shall die. We’re allowed to live definitely for a definite amount of time in our sin, and that’s it—not indefinitely.
Plus, I think we’re also playing God by doing this. He wants to give us life indefinitely, which is eternal life, and we’re trying to play God by living indefinitely without him through technology. So these are my objections. I think it is unnatural because naturally we’re supposed to live only a definite amount of time, not an indefinite amount of time. It’s like we’re going against his will for our existence in our sinful state.
Okay. So you put a number of issues on the table there. Let me go through them, and you’ll need to help me out if I forget any of them.
The first argument that it’s unnatural to live forever is something that I would agree with in a specific sense. Any natural system is going to break down over time. That’s because the universe is subject to entropy. This is something that’s not new; St. Thomas Aquinas pointed this out. Any natural system that’s not supported by grace is going to corrupt over time, in Aquinas’ language.
Therefore, the immortality that God had given Adam and Eve before the fall was unnatural. It went beyond nature. But that didn’t make it wrong. God will ultimately restore all of us to a state of immortality, and that’s not going to be wrong.
It’s also not the same thing as what I was talking about because I was asked about a technology that extends life indefinitely. But that doesn’t mean you’re not going to fall off a cliff and die. It doesn’t mean you’re not going to be stabbed and murdered someday. It’s not true immortality.
That’s something we don’t know how to achieve because that really does go beyond nature, and we can’t go beyond nature. What God has given us the ability to do is work with nature to extend life. So in working with nature to extend life, we are not doing anything unnatural. We would just be exploiting abilities that are resident within nature that God has given us the intellects to crack.
And just like we can use our intellects to ameliorate other aspects of human suffering by working within nature, if we found a way to dramatically extend human life, even indefinitely, by working with nature, then we wouldn’t be doing anything unnatural.
Okay, so that’s the first issue. You then started talking about living apart from God and…
And you’re changing the equation then. Just like I discussed with the first call, you’re introducing new conditions that are not part of the original question. I wasn’t asked, is it wrong to try to live forever without God? If that was the question I’d been asked, of course it is. We can only live with God.
If you’re trying to evade the divine reality by living forever, you need to get your priorities straightened out. On the other hand, if you are someone who’s living a life in harmony with God, and you’re able to work within nature to extend that life indefinitely, then the objection of living without God does not apply in this case.
So again, that’s changing the initial question. Also, we’re not going to be evading God indefinitely because he is coming back someday. There’s nothing wrong with living until the second coming. St. Paul even expects it.
In 1 Thessalonians 4, he talks about how when Jesus comes back, then we who are alive and remain will be transformed. He expected to live to the second coming himself in his own life because the length of the church age had not yet been revealed. It later was in the first century. John became aware there would be this lengthy period symbolized by a thousand years before the end of the world.
But some Christians are going to be alive until the second coming. When that day arrives, everybody’s going to get judged. If you’re on God’s team, then you’ll be transformed in a good way. If you’re not on God’s team, things aren’t going to go well for you, but you’re not going to be evading God either way.
All we’re talking about is extending your life into some unknown lengths. If it happens to go up to the second coming, well, then you’re just one of those people who live until the second coming. There’s nothing wrong with living until the second coming.
Did I forget to address any of the points that you brought up, Stephen?
No, you covered it all.
Okay, awesome. Thank you for calling in. Always happy to entertain objections!