The rapid scientific and technological advances of recent centuries have profoundly changed humanity’s understanding of itself. Through their scientific revolutions, Copernicus and Darwin transformed the conception of the human being: “The Earth is not the center of the universe” and “The human being is also only an animal.” Today, the fields in which questions concerning human nature and the need for ethical limits are most intensively debated include biogenetics, where the human genome can be copied and altered; medical ethics, including assisted suicide and preimplantation genetic diagnosis; brain research, which raises the question of how free the human will is; and artificial intelligence, which seeks to reproduce the human mind by computational means.

The question of the essence of the human being—its distinctive nature, developmental possibilities, and creative potential—is answered in controversial ways. Some, following Goethe, regard human beings as “noble, helpful, and good.” Others are more inclined to follow Darwin and see them as beasts capable of becoming wolves to their own kind. For decades, education has been marked by a dispute between strictness and laissez-faire: Is a child primarily a tyrant who must be tamed, or a little god? Are human beings good or evil by nature?

From a theological perspective, should the human being be regarded as the image of God, whose body was given life through God’s spirit and who is invited into a partnership with the Creator? In the words of Psalm 8:6, humanity was made only “a little lower than God” and entrusted with responsibility for administering the Earth. Or should the emphasis, from a psychological perspective, be placed on environmental influences and socialization? Alternatively, should genetic endowment be regarded as the determining factor and the psyche understood as a “fate of the drives,” at the mercy of its own needs? This deliberately exaggerated contrast illustrates how different perspectives shape conceptions of what it means to be human.

There is no universal and unambiguous answer to the question of what constitutes the core of humanity or where the differences between human beings and other living creatures are to be found. One academic subdiscipline, philosophical anthropology, systematically reflects on the fundamental existential questions: “What can I know? What should I do? What may I hope for? What is the human being?” In recent years, the critical impulses of this school of thought have received renewed attention. This is because the increasingly popular “life sciences,” with their tendencies toward self-optimization, controversies in medical ethics concerning the beginning and end of life, and the social challenges of digitalization have made the question “What is the human being?” more urgent (cf. Ebke/Hoth 2019).

Furthermore, the enormous growth of knowledge in our time, accelerated once again by the digital revolution, calls the fixed structures and boundaries of value systems into question. The continually expanding body of specialized knowledge—the quantity of scientific data produced doubles every year—poses a major challenge to the development of a comprehensive conception of humanity capable of integrating every detail.

At least psychological anthropologies based on empirical findings are now available, such as Frick 2013. They attempt to define the core characteristics of human beings in a differentiated manner without reducing individual diversity. Nevertheless, the ideological perspective remains decisive: what human beings are or can become depends, among other things, on the subjective pre-suppositions and values that determine their lives.

Knowledge for Control and Knowledge for Orientation

Since the digital revolution, a large proportion of humanity’s available knowledge has become accessible within seconds. But what use is detailed factual knowledge when the wisdom required to use it properly is lacking? In today’s information society, what is required is not only factual knowledge but also orientational knowledge. This intuitive form of knowledge provides “criteria that allow people to regard their lives as fulfilled” (Baatz 2017, 21).

While the facts of control-oriented knowledge can be retrieved from the internet anytime and anywhere, there is a lack of criteria by which the flood of information can be evaluated and interpreted. A functioning society requires knowledgeable people who assess and apply the information they find with wisdom. Responsible engagement with facts requires an ideological orientation grounded in a particular conception of humanity.

Orientational knowledge enables individuals to make decisions that are personally coherent within a particular situation. What is needed is not all-encompassing explanations or contradiction-free theories, but criteria relevant to action. Orientational knowledge is therefore always perspectival. Personal decisions contribute to the formation of identity and shape a distinctive character.

The psychologist Hellmuth Benesch regards the development of one’s own worldview and personal conception of humanity as the most important characteristic of human intellectual activity. He argues that this is more necessary today than in earlier periods because “the unquestioned trust in the intellectual security of a generally accepted worldview system has been lost” (Benesch 1990, 21).

Benesch distinguishes five dimensions of a worldview:

1. View of the world: How does one explain the world, and what happens after death?
2. Conception of humanity: What are the distinctive characteristics and limitations of human beings?
3. Attribution of meaning: What makes everyday life meaningful?
4. System of values: Which ideals are pursued?
5. Morality and ethics: Which rules and norms are binding?

The New Challenge of Digitalization

The digital revolution raises entirely new questions concerning conceptions of humanity. The increasing use of machine learning and artificial intelligence offers undeniable benefits, but it also evokes alarming visions of human beings becoming subordinate to more intelligent machines or of privacy being subjected to comprehensive control and surveillance through “big data.”

These developments affect the ideals of freedom and self-determination that shape our society’s conception of the human being. To safeguard these ideals, scientists have formulated a “Digital Manifesto” (cf. Könneker 2017, 3–22). In it, nine international experts warn that the revolution in digital technology could undermine democracy and civil rights. They warn against the automation of society and the emergence of totalitarian tendencies.

As brain–computer interfaces continue to improve, a phenomenon of “virtual embodiment” through avatars and robots is emerging (Thomas Metzinger in Könneker 2017, 261–277). However, many questions remain unresolved. For example, who is responsible when a robot causes damage: the manufacturer, the software engineer, or the owner of the machine? The consequences that the spread of virtual embodiments and digitalization in general will have for the conception of humanity cannot yet be foreseen.

More Than a Materialistic Conception of Humanity?

Scientific findings are given high priority in a highly technological society. However, self-awareness, which is regarded as humanity’s unique anthropological characteristic, has led to the first-person perspective of subjectivity gaining importance in the health sciences in recent years.

In the “Galileo Commission Report,” published in the autumn of 2018, more than 90 international scientists concluded that, despite the undeniable achievements of the natural sciences, important findings had so far been neglected. A strictly materialistic view of the world and humanity cannot explain phenomena such as near-death experiences or reports of non-local perception.

This network of scientists seeks to build bridges between the natural sciences, spirituality, and consciousness research. It advocates expanding science beyond its self-imposed boundaries by regarding and recognizing consciousness as fundamental to matter, rather than matter as fundamental to consciousness (cf. Walach 2018).

Subjective inner experience is thereby given greater importance and recognized as a significant source of orientational knowledge. The report presents a model involving two complementary perspectives, according to which matter and mind, consciousness and the associated neuronal activity, constitute two aspects of human reality. Consciousness is understood as an independent domain forming the inner aspect of a material structure.

This also provides an opportunity to introduce theological insights concerning the human being into interdisciplinary discussion without resorting to esoteric speculation.

Conceptions of Humanity in Dialogue

In a cultural-psychological study, Straub (2016) calls for dialogue between the deeply estranged siblings of knowledge and faith. A pillar of identity serves as a bridgehead from which, in his view, an appropriate dialogue with people of different beliefs can be conducted.

According to Straub, a secular age provides an especially suitable platform on which religious and nonreligious forms of life can coexist peacefully. He believes that the politically significant dividing line today does not run between religious and nonreligious people. Instead, it runs between people who have integrated their faith into their understanding of themselves and those who indiscriminately devalue what is foreign by constructing hostile images.

Straub describes the latter as “structured in a totalitarian manner—regardless of whether they are believers or not” (ibid., 112). According to Straub, a religious faith grounded in a person’s individual identity remains open to experiences of doubt and to new, alternative models for interpreting meaning. A religious faith personalized in this manner can enter into an open dialogue with secular forms of life.

Rather than competing with and disparaging one another, religious and secular individuals could jointly investigate the question of meaning within the tragic and potentially absurd dimensions of human existence. At this point, Straub’s atheistic position resembles the Christian attitude of faith, which shapes a person’s character throughout life, must withstand periods of doubt, and remains open to what is new.

Views of the world and conceptions of humanity are indispensable for the personal interpretation of meaning and life. In the past, religious environments provided a widely accepted framework for defining an individual worldview (cf. Gabriel 2018). Statistics and forecasts concerning church membership indicate that the importance of the Christian conception of humanity will continue to decline. Dialogue with other constructions of reality is therefore more important than it was in the past.

For open discussions in a multicultural society, where people encounter many unfamiliar worldviews, it is important to understand one’s own ideological “lens” and one’s own position.

Throughout the world, there is an alarming increase in irreconcilable positions, hostile stereotypes, and fundamentalist attitudes expressed in both political and religious forms. In view of this development, intercultural and interreligious understanding on equal terms is more necessary today than ever before.

Making one’s assumptions about human nature explicit improves mutual understanding. Social cohesion now requires tolerance toward unfamiliar conceptions of humanity and religions because, within an ideologically pluralistic community, traditional and new ways of life intersect with religious and secular ideals.

Isolation within closed ideological environments, which is based primarily on prejudice, can be overcome through reflection on and transparency concerning one’s own assumptions about human nature. In this context, Christians can introduce hopeful confidence into current social conflicts, seek what is best for the city, and pray for it (cf. Jer. 29:7).

People have so far reflected on or discussed their own conception of humanity too rarely because it tends to develop intuitively. Deeply rooted values and views of the world are generally treated as private matters. In an age characterized by a diversity of conceptions of humanity, a change in thinking is necessary. A culture of dialogue must be developed in which personal perspectives are brought into conversation with other points of view.

When assumptions about human nature are reflected upon and communicated, different systems of values and interpretations of meaning can be brought into dialogue. Despite differing conceptions of humanity, values, and ideals, people can work together for the common good.

References

Baatz, Ursula (2017): Spirituality, Religion, Worldview: Maps for Systemic Practice, Göttingen.

Benesch, Hellmuth (1990): Why Worldview? A Psychological Assessment, Frankfurt am Main.

Ebke, Thomas / Hoth, Sabina, eds. (2019): Philosophical Anthropology and Its Relationship to the Sciences of the Psyche, Berlin.

Frick, Eckhard (2013): Psychosomatic Anthropology, Stuttgart.

Gabriel, Karl (2018): “Religious Milieu,” in Pollack, Detlef et al., eds.: Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, Wiesbaden, pp. 611–630.

Könneker, Carsten, ed. (2017): Our Digital Future: What Kind of World Do We Want to Live In?, Heidelberg.

Straub, Jürgen (2016): Religious Faith and Secular Forms of Life in Dialogue: Personal Identity and Contingency in Pluralistic Societies, Giessen.

Walach, Harald (2018): *Science beyond a Materialistic World View: Towards a Post-Materialistic Science*, London.[www.galileocommission.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Galileo-Report-Final.pdf]. Accessed March 5, 2019.