Just like the rest of their peers in the various medical professions, psychologists are excited about the promise of applying nanotechnology to their own field. David Pierce is one futurist with a vision of psychology 50 years from now that is, so to speak, "stimulating". In his treatise "The Hedonistic Imperative" (see link below), Pierce argues that just as it seemed inconceivable in the medieval age that medicine could someday all but end physical suffering, people today cannot conceive of a time when psychical anguish will be likewise eliminated. He claims that we have wrongly assumed that suffering is an intrinsic part of our humanity, a part of our dignity, as it were. We should begin to come round to the idea that the use of nanotechnology to stimulate dopamines in our brains and produce constant happiness in other biological and psychological ways, is a good thing -- if it does not seem so now, it is because our judgement is clouded by our historical experiences as a species.

I have not yet arrived at a satsifying opinion of Pierce's apologetics for hedonism. On the one hand, I am compelled to agree that suffering is not an intrinsic element of what it is to be human -- the Bible itself makes clear as much, and in fact promises a state of perpetual happiness when God remakes his creation over again and puts an end to suffering. (There is, of course, more to it, but that belongs in a different thread.) Rather, the point at which doubts begin to arise for me is in considering whether we should seek to create a medically-assisted approximation of the paradise experience before its God-appointed time, right here in our present world. I'm not yet certain what I think of that.

Be that as it may, considering the issue makes me recognize that Christians today give sparse attention to the element of our humanity that is *spiritual* in nature. We are quick to promote the psychological benefits of turning to God: "Seek God, and you will find comfort, a feeling of fulfilled-ness, and even material prosperity." What will become of that brand of preaching when nanotechnology has ensured not only that everyone has what they need and much of what they want, but also that they "feel good" nearly all the time?

When Christians do talk about the spirit, we tend to equate it with a ghostly entity that survives the body after death. From what I can understand of it, the spiritual dimension of the human makeup is not that immortal "soul" at all, but has much more to do with our involvement in the moral dimension of existence. When an animal kills a human, we don't call the animal immoral; the act doesn't reside within the framework of right and wrong in that way. (My view isn't quite that simplistic, but it will do for the illustration.) When a human kills another human, we perceive that the act has a moral context; it is tangled up in the matter of right, wrong, and the use of our free will to choose one or the other.

When Christians say that God created humans as spiritual beings as well as physical beings, we mean (or *should* mean) that God has equipped us to take an active role in the moral aspect of existence. Just as God actively chooses to do what is righteous and good (I tire of the assumption that God is good because he has no choice in the matter), God has also enabled us to imitate him, as children imitate their mother and father, and learn to exercise our will in doing good.

It is easy, in a world full of suffering, to attract listeners with promises of prosperity and happiness. That strategy, however, I expect to be short-lived -- providing that nanotechnology does not destroy us before it confers its seemingly boundless benefits on us. Bliss, though promised eventually by God, is not our primary goal on earth, which helps somewhat to remain clear-sighted when considering "The Hedonistic Imperative" and its portrait of the near future.

--------------------

There is another impact that nanotechnology may have on matters of faith, which is disturbing. What will happen if, at a time when the world and all its population are endowed with nanites perpetually monitoring our physical and mental processes, it becomes possible to falsify all the things that we presently identify as works of God within the world? What will happen if natural causes are identified for previously unaccountable healings? For visions and foreknowledge of events? For circumstances which are so coincidental that they give the appearance of divine direction?

"God of the gaps" is the name given to the belief that God operates in anything that cannot be understood rationally. What happens when the last gaps are closed, allowing we, or our nanites, to "see" exactly how everything takes place, and the weight of evidence supports the view that "amazing" things are not so amazing after all -- it was only a matter of insufficient data? What then for the faithful? Part of the fear of science, where it still exists, must no doubt be fear of what the truth may turn out to be.

I do not expect the above scenario to come to pass. My experiences so far in studying "embarrassments to the faith," such as the long lineage of scholars who have attempted to discredit the historical veracity of the Gospel accounts of Christ and his ministry, have for the most part turned out in favor of my faith. God has frequently displayed a certain delight in overturning the confident assertions of one generation of scholars with the findings of the next. Yet even if the question is only hypothetical, it is difficult: what if it could be demonstrated that it is unreasonable to believe that God is at work in the world today?

One option is Deism: God simply created the world and set it loose to do what it will without his interference. But that is not a substantial belief; it is simply overlaying an arbitrary belief in God over an entirely naturalistic view of the world. Another option is atheism, since there would appear to be no good reason to believe in God in a world sans evidence of the divine.

A third option is "dishonest belief", which I label because of the contrast with the "honest belief" that I practice now. Right now, I honestly believe in the objective reality of a God who has worked in his creation in the past (which events are recorded in the Bible), and who continues to work observably in the world today. That belief is honest because it appears to be factual, and I do not expect science to demonstrate otherwise. The question is, if the factual (or at least evidential) footing on which that faith stands were removed, would I continue to believe as I do with no basis other than the stubborn will to believe?

That's a tough question, because I have gone to some lengths to present the Christian faith as much more than a set of highly subjective and convenient beliefs about the world. I strongly reject allegations that faith is a matter of personal preference that has no "real" bearing on our lives other than psychological comfort. Yet for all that, I'd have to say that even if God's observable work in the world were falsified, I think I would continue -- dishonestly with regard to the evidence -- to believe as I do. That is my concession to anyone who ever wants to discredit me by alleging that what I say about God is no more than "what I happen to think." It is true that in the last analysis, I value faithfulness to God, who first loved me, more than I value a rigorous effort to follow the interpretation of the facts that seems most sensible.

Funny, the things that scientific advance makes us contemplate.

Iss "I'd rather have Jesus than anything / This world affords today" achar