The Struggle for Cognitive Liberty: Retrofitting the Self in Activist Theology

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtas20

The Struggle for Cognitive Liberty: Retrofitting the Self in Activist Theology

Ted Peters

To cite this article: Ted Peters (2020): The Struggle for Cognitive Liberty: Retrofitting the Self in Activist Theology, Theology and Science, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2020.1786219

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1786219

Published online: 01 Jul 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtas20

https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2020.1786219

TheStruggleforCognitiveLiberty:RetrofittingtheSelfin ActivistTheology

TedPeters

ABSTRACT

Humanfreedomisbestunderstoodasself-determination.Free actionconsistsofdeliberation,decision,andaction.Thefree humanpersondeservesdignity,thatis,weeachdeservetobe treatedasamoralendandnotmerelyasameanstosomeone else’send.Neurocentristphilosophy-aformofeliminative materialism-basedonneuroscience,however,threatensthe extinctionofthehumanselfand,thereby,threatenstoturnour experienceoffreedomanddignityintoameredelusion.This evacuatesthemoralagendaofeveryactivistliberationtheology. Onetaskoftoday’spublictheologianistoprotectCognitive Liberty,becauseitconceptuallyundergirdspolitical,economic, andsocialliberation.

KEYWORDS

Politicaltheology;public theology;liberationtheology; cognitiveliberty;activism; dignity;dignitarian counterpolitics;freedom; freedom-denial;self; consciousness;eliminative materialism;neurocentrism; AlanWeissenbacher

Theessentialcomponenttoliberationistheconferralofdignityonthosewhohavepreviouslybeendenieddignity.Dignity,asdefinedbytheKantianEnlightenment,meanswe treateachpersonasamoralendandnotmerelyasameanstosomeoneelse’send.1 Once suchdignityisconferred,thenowdignifiedpersonrisesuptoclaimit.Thetacitorovert claimofdignity findsexpressioninself-determination,thatis,inhumanfreewillconsistingofdeliberation,decision,andaction.Insum,toliberateistosetatlibertyfreewill understoodasself-determination.

Now,whatwouldhappenifwelearnthatthereisnoselftoliberate,noselfcapableof deliberation,decisionandaction?Wouldliberationloseitslogic?Yes.Thismarkstheconceptualdisasterawaitingusifneurocentristinterpretationsofneuroscienceholdthe field. Nevertheless,thepublictheologianhasgoodreasontocritiquethisneurocentristposition and,intheprocess,conceptuallyliberatethehumanselffromitspotentiallossto neurodeterminism.2

Inthisexerciseinpublictheology,3 Irecommendthatweconstructaliberationontologyguidedbyanethicofconferringdignity called dignitariancounterpolitics–thatpresupposestheself-as-storywithinwhichhumanfreedomissupportedbyeffortsto maintainandextendcognitiveliberty.Ifthisseemsobscurantist,pleasepermitmein whatfollowstoexplainwhatthismeans.

1.TheThreatofNeurosciencetoSelf-Determination,FreeWill,andHuman Dignity

Publictheologiesofactivismandresistanceaimedatliberationareunknowinglythreatenedbyanearthquakerattlingthefoundationsofhumanfreedom.Theepicenteris theconversationbetweenneuroscientistsandneurophilosophers.Theseismicrumbling ©2020GraduateTheologicalUnion(CTNSProgram)

beginswiththistesthypothesis:freedomunderstoodasself-determinationisa fiction.It doesnotexist.Thedelusionthatwearefreelychoosingsubjectsisfobbedoff onusbythe brain’sneuro-activity,allegedly.Thispositionis flaggedas self-as-delusion,eliminative materialism, or neurocentrism, asubspeciesof free-will-as-illusion.4 Ifthedisciplesofneurocentrismprovetheirpoint,liberationtheologianswillbeleftwithnoonetoliberate.Isit timetoseismicallyretrofitourunderstandingoffreedom?

Ordinarily,activisttheologianswithliberationandpostcolonialcommitmentspay scantattentiontodevelopmentsinscience.Why?Becausescientificknowingonly extendscolonialhegemony.Postcolonialthoughtaimsat “decenteringuniversaland transhistoricalvaluesofWesterncategoriesofknowledge,” aversR.S.Sugirtharajah. Postcolonialactivism “questionsthethreemainstaysoftheEnlightenment:objectivity, rationalism,anduniversalism.”5 Withthisassumption,neitherneuroscienceorany othersciencepromptseveninteresttothiskindoftheology,letaloneanapologetic defense.

Nevertheless,theundeniablerealityisthatthescientistsamongusmakeuniversal claims,claimsthatpurportedlyapplytoeveryhumanbeingregardlessofsociallocation. Therefore,Icontend,inthecaseofneuroscience,perhapsWesternsciencewarrants apologetictheologicalattention.Thisisbecauseneurosciencecappedbyneurocentrist philosophythreatenstoundermineliberation’sfoundationbywashingawaytheontologicalconceptofhumanfreedomanditsmoralcorrelate,humandignity.

Whilealerttothepoliticsofclass,race,genderandevenbodydiscrimination,activist theologiansareasleepwhenitcomestoscientizedbiopolitics.Weusetheterm biopolitics torefertomodernWesternpublichealthprogramsformulatedaccordingtostatistics;andstatisticspaynoattentiontothedignityoftheindividualperson. “Biopolitics,” accordingtoGaymonBennettatArizonaStateUniversity, “iscentrally concernedwithnormalizingconstructionsofhumanlifeandthepotentialofscience andtechnologytorenormalizehumanlifethroughtechnicalandpoliticalintervention.”6 Thebiopoliticsofpublichealtharebynomeansdemonic,tobesure;yet,the normsofbiopoliticalideologyneedconstantcounter-critiquetoprotecttheindividual personfromstatisticaloppression. “Dignitarianpolitics serveas ‘ethicalequipment’ … Talkofdignityequipsus:itprimesourattentiontotheexcessesofbiopower … andto biopower’slimitations.”7 Withoutarobustdoctrineofthehumanselfcombinedwithan ethicofcognitiveliberty,activisttheologianswouldhavenogroundingfordignitarian counterpolitics.

Sleepingactivisttheologiansareunawarethatscientizedforcesareerodingthevery understructureuponwhichtheyhaveconstructedtheirethicofliberation. “Theissueof freewillisthemostphilosophicallychallengingandexistentiallyimportantissueconfrontingbelieftoday.BeliefnotonlyinGod butinpoliticalelections,criminaljustice,creative endeavors,andhardwork,” contendsJamesWalters; “civilizationitselfpresupposesthat individualsfreelychooseorrejectideasabouthowweshouldlive.”8 Withoutreliance onthedignityofthefreelychoosingperson,liberationbecomesavacuousfantasy.

PaulChungisawake.Heconstructsa PostcolonialPublicTheology thatmakesthecase forincludingscience.

Publictheologyestablishesworldwiderelevancebyseekingemancipationfromviolence, poverty,andinjustice,whileacknowledgingtheothernessofGodinGod’ssolidaritywith

innocentvictimsandnature Publictheologynecessarilyengagesinthescience-religion dialogueaboutecologicalawarenessandthescientificunderstandingoftheEarthandcreaturelylife.9

Chungrefersspecificallytoenvironmentalscience.Mightapublicpostcolonialtheology respondtoneuroscienceandthequestionofcognitivelibertyaswell?Ibelieveitshould.

2.LiberationTheology,PoliticalTheology,andPublicTheologyShould Ask:WhatisFreedom?

Theneurocentricbatteringramisabouttobreachtheself-understandingthatfortifies activisttheology.Whatfortifiestoday’sactivistvisionistherenewalofourplanet’slifegivingfecunditycombinedwithdistributiveandrestorativejusticeformarginalized personsandpeoples.10 RabbiMichaelLerner,editorof Tikkun,integratesliberationand eco-ethicswithPassover. “Passovermustbecomethetimetoreplenishourenergiesto becometheagentsofanexpandedconsciousnessthatcanenvisionandthencreatea worldthatlivesinharmonywithplanetEarth.”11 Expandingconsciousnesscombined withliberativeagencysharewithenvironmentalrestorationinchoateassumptionsregardingwhatconstituteshumanfreedom.Itistimeforactivisttheologianstogetspecific:what ishumanfreedom?HereishowHakJoonLeecutsthecurrenttheologicalpie.

Liberationtheology seeksliberationfromoppression,while politicaltheology pursuesthe radicalinterruptionandtransformationofsocietyintheeschatologicalanticipationof God’sfuture; publictheology,bycomparison,strivesforanewsocialconsensusandthe moralrenewalofcivilization.12

2.1.LiberationTheology

Icutthepiesomewhatdifferently.Liberationtheologyisthe firstslice.13 Theliberation theologyofthelate1960swasasiblingofthepoliticaltheologyofthe1960swhich,as Leerightlynotes,beganwithavisionofGod’skingdomandsoughttotransform today’ssocietyinlightofthatvision.14 Liberationtheologiansaddedtothatagendaa specificobservation,namely,structuresofeconomicandpoliticaloppressioncombined withculturalfalse-consciousnessshouldbetaggedasthechainswhichbindthevictims ofoppression.15 Toliberatemeanstosetfree,tobreakthechains,tocounterconstraints. Toliberateimplicitlymeanstoconferdignityonthosetowhomdignityhasbeendenied culturallybyclass,race,gender,ageorbypoliticalrepression.Oncethechainsofoppressionwouldbebroken,thenindividualandclassself-determinationwouldreplacetheprevioushegemony.Dignitariancounterpoliticsisthecentralcommitmentofliberation theology.

Now,thisisliberation theology,notjustliberationpolitics.Freedomforthetheologian ismuchmoresubtleornuancedthanitisincommonparlanceorpoliticalrhetoric. GustavoGutiérrezplummetsthedimensionsoftheselfthatneedsliberationfromtheself.

FreedomisacentralelementoftheChristianmessage … .Itisnecessarytoconsidera freedom from andafreedom for. Theformerpointstosin,togreed,tooppression,toinjustice,toneed;conditionsthatallrequireliberation.Thelatterpointstothereasonforthis freedom:love,thatiscommunion,isthe finalstageofliberation. Freedomfor givesaprofoundmeaningto freedomfrom.16

Accordingtothetheologian,theselfneedstobeliberatedfromitselfinordertolovethe neighbor.But,whenitcomestoactivistpoliticaltheology,freedomfromrestrictionson self-determinationbecomesthefocusofpropheticpoliticaltheology. “Itistheintention ofourpoliticaltheologytotransformpersonsfromdegradedobjectsatthemercyofexternalforcesintofreesubjectsoftheirownlives,” announcesJürgenMoltmann.17 Totransformpersonsfrombeing “degradedobjects” requirestheconferralofdignity.Nowweask: whatispresupposedaboutfreedomhere?Freedom from mightbethebestthatliberating praxiscanaccomplish.Wecanonlypraythattheliberatedselfwillexercisefreedom for

2.2.PoliticalTheology

ThisleadstothesecondsliceofHakJoonLee’stheologicalpie:politicaltheology.Herewe mustdistinguishbetween PropheticPoliticalTheology, suchasthatespousedbyJürgen Moltmann,whichplacesanegativesocialcritiquewithinthecontextofapositive visionoftheeschatologicalKingdomofGod, and DescriptivePoliticalTheology,the aimofwhichistoprovideadescriptiveanalysisofthehiddenreligiousdimensions presentinexistingstructuresofpoliticalpower.

Descriptivepoliticaltheologytodayhaslargelydowsedtheprophetic firethatonce burnedinthe1960s.Backinthedaysofprophetic fire,JohannesMetzlitthefuseon thedynamite. “Iunderstandthispoliticaltheologytobeapositiveattempttoformulate theeschatologicalmessageundertheconditionsofourpresentsociety.”18

But,politicaltheologyhasself-degraded.Themoodhasmellowed.Today’sleadingpoliticaltheologianshavesaturatedtheirworkwith descriptionwhilesmotheringthepropheticsparkof prescription.TheapproachofVincentLloyd,editorofthejournal, Political Theology, merelyoffers “ananalysisoftheroleofreligiousconceptsinpoliticaltheory andpractice–withoutChristianpresuppositions.”19 PaulKahnsimilarlysays,the “political theology,asIpursueithere,isaprojectof descriptive politicalanalysis.”20 Snuffedoutis thepropheticsparkofliberation.Activismhasbeenreplacedwiththeparalysisofanalysis, atleastamongdescriptivepoliticaltheologians.

Oneneedstogotoanon-politicaltheologian,suchasNewTestamenthistorianN.T. Wright,toretrievethe fireofthepreviouspropheticmood.

TheChristiantaskinthepresentistoanticipatethiseschatology,toborrowfromGod’ s futureinordertochangethewaythingsareinthepresent,toenjoythetasteofoureventual deliverancefromevilbylearninghowtolosethebondsofevilinthepresent.21

ThedignityofeachpersontodayisconfirmedprolepticallybyGod’seschatological promiseofcitizenshipintheeverlastingKingdomofGod.

2.3.PublicTheology

Thirdly,publictheology.22 IlikethedefinitionofferedbyPaulChung.

Publictheologyisatheological-philosophicalendeavortoprovideabroaderframeofreferencetofacilitatetheresponsibilityofthechurchandtheologicalethicsforsocial,political, economic,andculturalissues.Itinvestigatespublicissues,developingconceptualclarity andprovidingsocial-ethicalguidanceofreligiousconvictionandresponsetothem.23

KatieDayandSebastianKimprovideaparallelascription. “Publictheologyreferstothe churchreflectivelyengagingwiththosewithinandoutsideitsinstitutionsonissuesof commoninterestandforthecommongood.”24 Accordingtothisdefinition,publictheologybeginsinthechurchandthenengagesmattersofpublicinterestinserviceofthe commongood.Publictheologyincorporatesacomponentoftransformation,perhaps evenemancipation.

Insofarasthesethreeschoolsofoverlappingthought–liberationtheology,political theology,andpublictheology–setforthemselvesanagendaofactivismandresistance onbehalfofmarginalizedpeoplewhoarevictimizedbystructuresofoppression,they mustpresupposeanunderstandingofhumanfreedomthatincludesself-determination. Oncethechainsofrepressionhavebeenreleased,whatremainscanonlybeself-direction onthepartoftheliberated.Freedomasself-determinationistheonlylogicalgoalofsocial transformationintheseChristiantraditions.

Thisstronglysuggeststhatcognitivelibertyshouldbecomefundamentaltothetheologian’slistofliberties.CognitiveLibertyshouldbecomethestalkfromwhichleaveswill sproutintopolitical,economic,andculturalfreedom.Thismovewillmandatethetheologiantopursueacarefullythoughtthroughphenomenologyorevenontologyof freedom,especiallyfreedomviewedasself-determination.Suchaproposalmaysound Pelagiantoclassicaltheologicalears;butinthismodernandemergingpostmodern contextwemustunderstanddivinegraceasempowermentoftheselftodetermine itselfwithindailylife.

3.FreedomasSelf-Determination

Withthisinmind,myconstructiveproposal–activisttheologyshouldincorporatecognitiveliberty–reliesuponthefollowingpresupposition:theintentionalconstructionofa doctrineofcognitivelibertymustavoidthetrapofassumingthatthedebateisbetween determinismandfreedom.Thecontestisnotbetweenadeterminingexternalcoercion, ontheoneside,andanundeterminedinternalliberty,ontheother.

Thisancientformofthedebateismisleading,becausehumanfreedomisnotaformof indeterminism.Rather,freewillisaformofdeterminism,specifically self-determinism. Whatfreedomaddstogardenvarietydeterminismisthesubjectiveself–thewhole humanperson–asadeterminingagentaffectingtheworld.Modernlibertarian freedom isbestdefinedasself-determinationthroughdeliberation,decision,andaction. 25 Liberation, inturn,isbestdefinedasdecreasingoppressiveobstructionswhileincreasingopportunities(capabilities)whereinself-determinationcanbeactualized.Theagentwhodeterminesistheselftowhomweconferdignity,andtheconferralofdignityistheessence ofliberation.

It’stimeforactivisttheologianstoaskquestions.Doesahumanselfevenexistthat couldbeliberated?Whatifliberationtheologiansareconstructingjustanother figurative selftocompetewiththeselfpreviouslyconstructedbycolonialoppressors?Whatifthe onlyselvesthatexistbelongexclusivelytoacomplexof figurations,socialconstructions, socialimaginaries, fictions?Whatiftheveryexpectationthatwehaveaselfisitselfabrand offalseconsciousness?Mostimportantly,hastheselflostitsontologicalwarrantfor dignity,protection,andemancipation?

Dignitariancounterpoliticsmustrelyuponanunderlyinganthropology,onbeliefinthe intrinsicvalueofthehumanselfevenwhentheregnantbiopoliticsofthedaydeniesthat verydignity.GaymonBennett,whogivesustheterm dignitarianpolitics, makesthisclear. “Thelogicofbiopoliticsandthelogicofhumandignityaresharplycontrastive.The firstis relativeandameliorative,thesecondintrinsicandinvariable.”26 Ifthehumanselfhasbeen kidnappedbybiologicalscience,thedignitarianactivistmustlaunchasearchandretrieval effort.

4.HavetheNeurocentristsTakenmySelfAway?

Intheconversationbetweenneuroscientistsandphilosophersofneuroscience,we findthe latterdenyingtheexistenceofthehumanself.Denyingtheexistenceoftheselfturns neuro-philosophersintofreedom-deniers.

Ifwedefinetheselfasa firstpersonsubjectwhoexperiences qualia–thatis,whoexperiencesmeaningfulfeelingsandvalues–thenthisselfdoesnotexist,accordingtofreedomdeniers.Suchaphilosophicalpositionisoftentagged mind–brainidentitytheory,eliminativematerialism, or neurocentrism. “Themind … isthebrain,” TuftsUniversityphilosopherDanielDennettsaysrepeatedly.27 GermanphilosopherThomasMetzingerweighsin. “Subjectiveexperienceisabiologicaldataformat,ahighlyspecificmodeofpresenting informationabouttheworldbylettingitappearasifitwereanEgo’sknowledge.But, nosuchthingsasselvesexistinthisworld”28 DennettandMetzingerbelongtothehypocenterreleasingtheseismictremorsandintellectualtsunamisthatwillsooninundateliberationactivists.

Notthelaboratoryscientists,butratherthephilosophersembrace neurocentrism as “theviewthathumanexperiencecanbebestexplainedfromthepredominantoreven exclusiveperspectiveofthebrain.”29 Inshort,becauseitdoesnotexist,theconscious selfcannotbecomeatopicforscientificresearch.

Scientistscanstudythebrain,ofcourse.Thebrainismaterial,physical,chemical,and biological.Hereisthekeychallenge:accordingtoneurocentrists,wemayreducewhatwe thinkofasthemindtoitsmaterialsubstrate,thebrain.Themindisthebrain,andonlythe brain.Whatgetseliminatedhereisthehumansubjectorselfalongwithfreedomunderstoodasself-determination.30

Theneurotheologianprotests.Heorshewillnotacceptthisproposedeliminationof theself. “Strictlyspeaking,consciousnessinvolvesthegenerationofaSelfasanelement insubjectiveawareness,” declareEugeneD’AquiliandAndrewNewberg.31

5.TheDilemma:CartesianDualismvs.EliminativeMaterialism

Letmesetuptheproblemanthropologicallyandmetaphysically.Therearetwohornsof theanthropologicaldilemmaforthetheologian:Cartesiandualismandeliminativematerialism.QueertheologianMaryEliseLoweseesthe firsthornbutnotthesecond. “Queer theologiesrejecttheCartesianmodelofthesubjectandarguethatstableidentityismerely anillusion.Identity likegenderandmeaning isconstructed.Subjects cometobe within andareconstitutedbylanguage,discourses,andmaterialconditions.”32 Lowehassuccessfullyprotectedherselffromthedualisthorn.But,themenacingshadowofeliminative materialismgoesunnoticedandunaddressed.33

Inthisarticleweareasking:howmighttheconversationamongneuroscientistsandneurocentristphilosophersaffectactivisttheologiansforwhomliberationiscentral?Aseismic retrofitoftheconceptoftheself-needing-liberationisrequiredoftoday’sactivists,whether promulgatingpost-colonial,black,feminist,queer,political,orotherpublictheologies.This isthecasewhethertoday’spost-colonialtheologianthinksofliberationasapplyingtothe individualortoamarginalizedgroup.Withoutarobustdoctrineofthehumansubjector self,theentireliberationagendawillslideintoamoraineofmeaninglessbafflegab.

AllenWeissenbacher,currentlythebookrevieweditorfor TheologyandScience, furnishessomesturdymaterialsthatcouldaidintheretrofit.Specifically,itisWeissenbacher’streatmentofcognitivelibertythatwewanttorequisition.But,beforewecallin therepairtechnician,letmeassesssiteswhereneuroscienceisinvisiblydisruptingthe self-understandingofactivisttheology.

5.1.SiteAssessment1:Neuroscience&NeurocentricPhilosophy

First,letmeassessthehiatusbetweenneuroscienceasascienceandtheneuro-reductionist philosophythatsometimescapsthescience.

Laboratoryresearchersstudy,amongmanythings,therelationshipbetweenneuroactivitywithinthebrainandconsciousthought.BrainresearcherStanislasDehaenein France,forexample,asksthefascinatingquestionofconsciousness-access:justhow doesfundamentalperceptionget filteredandselectedandorganizedforconsciousawareness?Heobservesthatineverydayactivitywefailtorealizefullyjusthowmuchofour activityisguidedby “anunconsciousautomaticpilot … Weconstantlyoverestimatethe powerofourconsciousnessinmakingdecisions–but,intruth,ourcapacityforconscious controlislimited.”34

Eventhoughunconsciousneuroprocessesframeourconsciousdeliberation,there remainsplentyofroomforconsciousdeliberation.Thisdeliberationtakesplacein whatDahaenecallsthe GlobalNeuronalWorkspace (GNW).

Consciousnessisbrain-wideinformationsharing .Consciousnessisanevolveddevicethat allowsustoattendtoapieceofinformationandkeepitactivewithinthisbroadcasting system.Oncetheinformationisconscious,itcanbe flexiblyroutedtootherareasaccording toourcurrentgoals.Thuswecannameit,evaluateit,memorizeit,oruseittoplanthefuture. Computersimulationsofneuralnetworksshowthattheglobalneuronalworkspacehypothesisgeneratespreciselythesignaturesthatweseeinexperimentalbrainrecordings.35

GNWincludesbothwhatisconsciousalongwiththeinfluenceofwhatispreconsciousor unconscious.Itmanifestsglobalizingmentalactivity.

Wenoteinadditionthatsomeautomaticbrainactivityisself-determined.Takehabits, forexample. “Themoreroutineabehaviorbecomes,thelessweareawareofit.”36 By deliberatelyestablishinghabits–perhapsasanathleteintrainingoranasceticestablishing habitsofvirtue–ourconsciousnessgetsrelievedofpayingattentiontoeachdetailofour activity.Ourtrainedbodyautomaticallyclicksinwhenappropriate.Thisisself-determinedautomaticity.

Whydowedeliberatelycultivatehabits?Byassigningcertaintaskstoautomaticnonconsciousrepetition,ourGNWbecomesfreetofocusattentiononselectednewtasks.In bothathletictrainingandspiritualpractice,ourGNWhasorganizedourpreconscious

influencesoastoliberateconsciousattention.Thismeansthatourconsciousself–ifwe haveaselfatall–includes,inpart,preconsciousautomationwhichtheselfitselfhasdetermined.Itappearsthatviadownwardcausation–viasupervenienceortop-downorwholepartcausation–ourconsciousnessdeterminesatleastsomeofwhatisunconscious,even someautomaticity.Doesthisimplythattheselfisanagentinitsownconsciousnessaccess? Byappealingtosupervenience,atheologiansuchasPhilipClaytoncanavoidbothsubstancedualismandeliminativematerialismatthesametime.

Iadvocateaformofsuperveniencetheory,whichholdsthatmentaleventsaredependenton theirphysicalsubstratebutarenotreducibletothem .Idefendaversionof “weak” superveniencethatallowsforgenuinementalcausation;notallcausesofhumanbehaviorare purelyneuronalcauses.37

Eventhoughthemindisconstrainedbythebiologythatgivesitexistence,themindisnot reducibletoitsbiology.Themindinfluencesmatter.

Withsuperveniencecomesfreedom,aversNanceyMurphy.Anorganismisawhole thatisgreaterthanthepartsthatmakeitup,greaterthanthechemicalandbiologicalprocesseswhichprovideitsphysicalmake-up.Thementalcapacitieswehaveashumans includeemergentpropertieswhichexceedbrainchemistry;theygiveusself-control, evenadegreeofbody-control.Ourmindsupervenesonourbody.38 Thehumanselfis constitutedbythequalityofwholenessinthewholethatweare.

WhattheologiansClaytonandMurphywouldcall supervenience,neuroscientist WarrenBrownexplicatesintermsoftop-downagency. “Top-downagency referstothe abilitytomodulatebehaviorinrelationshiptoconsciousthoughtandintention.”39 In otherwords,oursymbolicunderstandingandourabstractreasoningwithintheGNW providetop-downinfluencesonconsciousnessaccessand,inaddition,theymakepossible ouragencyintheworld.

Ibelievethenotionsofsupervenienceandtop-down-causationsupportthefollowingconclusion:thehumanselfisahigherorderagentwhotakesactionandcauseschanges,even changesinthedevelopmentoftheselfitself.Thatself,theselfasthewholeperson,deserves dignity.Theessenceofliberationistherecognitionandconferralofdignityonthosetowhom dignityhasbeensocially,culturally,racially,economically,orpoliticallydenied.

However,noteveryonedrawsthisconclusion.Theneurocentristsamongusclaimthat thisselfismerelyadelusion.Theypickupontheobservationthatmuchofouractivityis influencedbyunconsciousbrainprocesses,byautomaticity.Theseunconsciousbrainprocessesbecomereifiedintoadoctrineofneurodeterminism,renderingtheselfadelusion fobbedoff onourconsciousnessbyanunscrupulousbrain.

“Thebrainmakesusthinkthatwehaveaself,” writesneurocentristPatriciaSmith Churchland. “DoesthatmeanthattheselfIthinkIamisnotreal?No,itisasrealas anyactivityofthebrain.Itdoesmean,however,thatone’sselfisnotanetherealbitof soulstuff. ”40 CertainlyChurchlandhasprotectedusfromCartesiandualismbydenying thattheselfisaseparatesubstance.Butatwhatcost?Hasshetradedinsubstance dualisminordertobuyeliminativematerialism?

Though “real,” hastheselfherelostitsagency?Hasitlostitsontologicalwarrantfor dignity,protection,andemancipation?Ifsuchaneurophilosophybecomeswidelyused topropupouranthropology,thentheveryfoundationforanyliberationpoliticalideal willbewashedawaybytheeveningtide.

Now,lookagainatthelogicofthiseliminativistposition.Whathashappened? Throughslightoftheeliminativereductionisthand, some acknowledgedautomaticity hasbecome exhaustive automaticity.But,weshouldpointoutthatthiseliminativereductionismdoesnotactuallysquarewithwhatlaboratoryresearchhasrevealed.NeuroscientistssuchasDahaenecandemonstrateempiricallythatmanymentalfunctionsaredueto preconsciousandautomaticbrainactivity.Sofar,sogood.But,because some mentalfunctionsareautomatic,doesitfollowthat all are?No.Thefallacyofhastygeneralizationis committedwhenaneurophilosophersuchasChurchlandleapstotheconclusionthat everymentalfunctioncanbereducedtoautomaticityinthebrain.Themoralisthis: thetheologianshouldlistencarefullytotheneuroscientistwhilechallengingthecredulity oftheneurophilosopher.

Pleasebeclearonjustwhaterodesselfhood.Neurosciencepersehelpfullyilluminates therelationshipbetweenthebrainandthemind,butithasnowarranttoeliminatethe mindentirely.Neurocentricphilosophers,interpretingneuroscience,typicallyadvance anideologyofeliminativereductionism.Hereweask:howmightthisaffectthefoundationsforliberationoractivisttheology?

5.2.SiteAssessment2:MetaphorsfortheBrain

Likeaspysatellitewatchingformilitarymovementsontheground,postmodernandpostcolonialtheologiansofliberationareeveralerttoregnantmetaphors.Metaphorscanliberateandinspirenewunderstanding.Metaphorscanalsofunctiontostratify,rank,and repress.

Theologiansarewellawarethatmetaphorsdonotmerelygarnishlanguage.Rather, theystructureourverythinking,evenourself-understanding.ThisiswhySallie McFaguealertsus: “… metaphorisawayof knowing, notjustawayofcommunicating. Inmetaphorknowledgeanditsexpressionareoneandthesame;thereisnoway around themetaphor;itisnotexpendable.”41

Metaphorsarejustasimportanttoscienceastotheology. “Metaphorschangehow scienceisdone,bylicensingnewinterpretationsorinspiringnewexperiments.”42 In ourownera,scientificandconventionalmetaphorsforthehumanbrainareborrowed fromtelecommunications,infrastructurenetworks,machines,robots,computers,and theinternet.Theprevailingmetaphorincorporatesthesimile:thebrainislikecomputer hardwarewhilethemindislikecomputersoftware. “Comparingthebraintoacomputeris beguiling,” observesClarksonUniversityhistorianStephenCasper, “butneglectsthat brainsarealsoorgans,andawareonesatthat.”43 Rememberthatthebrainisanorgan, hesays;afactobscuredbythecomputermetaphor.But,thetheologianmuststillask: whereistheperson?

Supposewedescribethepersonorselfasapackofneurons.Thisiswhatgeneticist FrancisCrickconcludes. “You’renothingbutapackofneurons.”44 Noticethe nothingbuttery:youare “nothingbut” neurons.TobemorepreciseaboutCrick’sposition, whatmakesyou “ you ” canbefoundnotinthematterofyourbrainbutintheblueprint ofhowthatmatterisstructuredandhowitbehaves. “You” arenotthehardwareofyour brainbutthesoftwarethatorganizesitandkeepsitrunning.Theselfbecomesinformation.Isitapacketofneuronalinformationthatactivisttheologianswishtoliberate?

Moregenerally,theologiansshouldremainverywaryofmetaphorsgeneratedinthe scientificcommunity.Asinpoliticaldiscourse,scientificdiscoursecanfrequentlyhide prejudiceinplainsight.

Researchersshouldacknowledgethatalthoughcertainwordchoicesseeminnocent,many carrymalignovertones.Ideasofthebrainhaveoftenembeddedinequitiesandprejudices aboutrace,class,gender,sexuality,andagency .Seeminglyinnocentmetaphorslike “higher” and “lower” functions,ordescriptionsofspecificanatomicalstructuresas “primitive”,carryracializedbaggage.45

Inshort,theologiansshouldnotswaptime-testedtermsthatwarrantdignity – self, person,soul,andsuch – forscientificallygeneratedmetaphorsaboutthebrain.

5.3.SiteAssessment3:CapabilityFreedom&PropheticActivism

Today’spostcolonialresistanceandactivism,liketheprecedingliberationtheology,seeks tothrowoff thechainsofoppressionandliberatethevictimsofoppressionforself-determination.Thereisadialecticatworkherebetweentheinnerandtheouter,betweenthe subjectiveandtheobjective.Atthelevelofinnersubjectivity,freedomconsistsofdeliberation,decision,andaction.Atthelevelofouterobjectivity,theremovalofexternal restraintsorcoercionsexpandsour “capability” toself-determine.

Thiscategoryof “capability” comesfromeconomistAmartyaSen,whoholdsthat “the ideaoffreedomrespectsourbeingfreetodeterminewhatwewant,whatwevalueand ultimatelywhatwedecidetochoose.”46

Includedinafreeperson’scapabilitiesareopportunities.Inanoppressivesituation, opportunitiesareminimal.Inaliberatedsituation,opportunitiesareexpansive. “A person ’sadvantageintermsofopportunitiesisjudgedtobelowerthanthatofanother ifshehaslesscapability–lessrealopportunity–toachievethosethingsthatshehas reasontovalue.”47 Byreducingconstraintorcoercion,itispoliticaloreconomicliberty thatenhancesfreedomasself-determinationinthesocialfabric.

PropheticactivistHelenSlessarev-Jamirpicksitupfromhere.Theliberativetaskof thepropheticactivististoincreasecapability,increasetheopportunitiestoexercisethe freeactualizationofwhatwevalue.Resistanceandorganizing “enhancesfreedomby improvingthequalityofandaccessibilitytothoseinstitutionalstructuresthatgenerate opportunitiesforupwardmobilitysuchasschools,recreationalspace,healthinsurance, jobtraining,anddecentaffordablehousing.”48 Liberationconsistsofunchaining oppressivesocialstructures–expandingcapabilities–andsettingtheselffreetodirect itself.

Itmightbeinstructiveatthispointtodistinguishtwooverlappingdimensionsof freedominoursurroundingmodernculture.Bothbelonginthelibertyorlibertarian camp.Typeonefreedomconsistsofmakingchoicesthatalterthefuture,decisions basedonthevaluesofthedecision-maker.Typeonefreedompresupposesthatone couldhavechosentodootherwise. “Inordertobefree,” claimedthelateblacktheologian JamesCone, “a[person]mustbeabletomakechoicesthatarenotdependentonthe oppressivesystem.”49 DoesConepresupposethatliberatedblackpeoplebecometheir ownagentsmakingtheirownchoicesaccordingtotheirownvalues?Yes,indeed.It appearsConereliesonlibertarianfreedomtypeone.

Typetwofreedomconsistsofthecapacitytosettheveryvaluesaccordingtowhich futuredecisionswillbemade.Sometimescalled meta-free-will, thehumanpersoncan choosetobecomeacertainkindofchooser.Here’showcognitivescientistPeterU.Tse putsthematter.

Assumingindeterminism,itispossibletobeaphysicalistwhoadherestoalibertarianconceptionoffreewill.Onthisview,mentalandbraineventsreallycanturnoutotherwise … .Imaginationiswheretheactionisinfreewill.Itallowsanimalsnotonlytoconsiderpossiblecoursesofpresentaction(type-1libertarianfreewill),butalso,atleastforthecaseof humans,itallowsustoconsiderwhatkindsofchooserswewanttostrivetobecome (type-2libertarianfreewill).50

Now,weask:justwhichagentisdoingthisvaluingand,evenmoreaudaciously,ischoosingthevalues?Thebrain?Theself?Theperson?51

Tokeepliberationtheologycoherent,Irecommenddefendingaholisticdoctrineofthe humanself.ThelateIanG.Barbour,theindividualwemightcallthe “dean” oftheTheologyandSciencecollege,providesaworkableposition.Aholisticviewofthehumanself …

… isconsistentwithneuroscience,computerscience,andatheologicalviewofhumannature tounderstandapersonasamulti-levelpsychosomaticunitywhoisbothabiologicalorganism andaresponsibleself.Wecanavoidbothmaterialismandbody–souldualismifweassumea holisticviewofthepersonwithahierarchyoflevels … .Alivingorganismisamany-leveled hierarchyofsystemsandsubsystems:particle,atom,molecule,macromolecule,organelle,cell, organ,organism,andecosystem.Thebrainishierarchicallyorganized:molecule,neuron, neuralnetwork,andbrain,whichisinturnpartofthebodyanditswiderenvironment.52

6.ChristianFreedom?

Beforeturningtotheissuesraisedbycognitivelibertyinthewiderpublic,weneedtoshow therelationshipbetweenfreedomaseverydayself-determinationanddistinctively Christianfreedom.Althoughconnected,somesubtledistinctionsrequireattention.Within westernculture,freedomisunderstoodasautonomyandunfreedomasconstrainton autonomy.HerbertMarcuseoftheFrankfurtSchoolofcriticalsocialtheory,for example,makesclearthat “thefreedomorunfreedomofmanisdecidedonearthitself, insocialpraxis,andmanis,inthemostdangeroussenseoftheword,freefromGod andcanbecomefreetohimself.”53 Insum,freedomunderstoodasautonomyrequires emancipationfromexternalsocialandevendivineconstraints.

Here,libertyforanautonomousagentconsistsofhumanfreedomoveragainstGod, rightalongwithindependencefromeverybodyelse.Butweask:whatwouldfreedom in God looklike?Weask:howcanthehumanselfelectagoodwhichtranscendstheself? “Ultimatelyfreedomistheautonomouscapacitytooptforwhatistrulygood,” aversLadislasOrsy,S.J. 54 Howdowegetfromaself-oriented-toward-itselftooptingforwhatis trulygood?Enter:ChristianFreedom.

IntheAugustiniantradition,humanfreedomisconstrainedbysinandliberatedby grace.WhenGod’sgraceseeksusout,wearefoundtobeboundtosinand,perversely, free from justice.ByplacingChristwithinourfaith,theHolySpiritrestores “true freedom(libertas)toourpoweroffreechoice(liberumarbitrium)bygrantingfreedom frombondagetosinandfreedomtocooperatewithgraceinlivingaccordingto caritas [love].”55 Freedom from sinandfreedom for lovingbothGodandneighbor.

DistinctivelyChristianfreedomintheAugustiniantraditionisanindividualexperience intimeandplaceinspiredbythepresenceofGod’seternalwordthatliberatestheselffrom theselftoloveselflesslyone’sneighbor.AccordingtoMartinLuther,

AlthoughtheChristianisthusfreefromallworks,heoughtinthislibertytoemptyhimself, takeuponhimselftheformofaservant,bemadeinthelikenessofmen,befoundinhuman form,andtoserve,help,andineverywaydealwiththisneighborasheseesthatGodthrough Christhasdealtandstilldealswithhim.Thisheshoulddofreely,havingregardfornothing butdivineapproval.56

Insuchfreedomtheselftranscendstheselfand,thereby,establishestheselfasonewho loves.Thisself-transcendenceisprecipitatedhistoricallyintimeandplacewhenonehears thedivinewordofgraceandrespondsinfaith. “Luther’stheology … isgroundedinthe concrete,oralandpubliceventofwordandfaith,” observesOswaldBayer,thevoiceof Godthatcallstheselftotranscenditself.57

WhatmakesChristianfreedompossible,accordingtoKarlBarth,isthatitisrootedin God’sfreedom.58 OurfreedomisrootedinGod’sself-determination–thatis,indivine Seblstbestimmung.Yes,tobesure,divineself-determinationtestifiestoGod’sautonomy, sovereignty,andlordship.Yet,thereismore.Whatweknowfromrevelationhistoryin JesusChrististhatGodelectstobeinlovingrelationshipwithcreation,withus.Godis freeeventousedivineself-determinationtosurrendertheGodselftocreation’sagenda, freetobecomeahumanpartner.

Inthisself-surrenderweseethatGodisfreeevenwithregardtoGod’sownfreedom ( frei … seinerFreiheitgegenűber).God’sfreedomincludesbecomingsubjecttodeterminationbytheplightandneedsofuscreatures,justasinChristianfreedomwebecome determinedbytheplightandneedsofourneighbor.Theformermakesthelatterpossible. God’sfreedommakesourfreedompossible.Insum,ourhumaninvitationtosurrender ourself-determinationonbehalfoftheneedsofourneighborisgroundedintheoriginal divinefreedomofself-determination.59 TheenigmaticpowerofGod’sfreedomtofreeus isentailedinthetheologicalconceptof grace.

Itisdivinegracethatproducesthefreedominneighborlove(Nächstenliebe).Roger Haightfollowsthetrail.

Theforgivenessofsinandopeningupoffreedominself-transcendinglove,cooperative graceandtheparticipationinGod’slifethatgiveshumanfreedomacapacityforcreativitythatitdoesnothaveonitsown–alltheseleadtotheclassicalChristianvirtueof loveofneighbor60

Thisbringsusagaintotheconferralofdignity.Conferringdignityisonewayto describe Nächstenliebe, sometimescalled agape love:thelovethattreatsthebelovedas amoralend.Welovebyconferringdignityonthebeloved.61 Lovealmostbydefinition requiresthattheloverseekthegoodofthebelovedsolelyforthebeloved’sbenefit. Agape istheNewTestamentwordforthis. Agape becomeseffectiveinliberationwhen onelovedstandsuptoclaimandownthatdignity.

Withthistheologicalbackgroundinmind,let’splacethemodernlibertarianviewof freedominitscontext.62 Themodernideaoffreedompresupposesthateachofusis bornwithaninnatepotentialforautonomy.Thetaskofeducation,then,istoactualize thispotential.Thetaskofgovernment,then,istoprotectthatactualizationfromexternal

political,cultural,social,andeconomiccoercion.Ifbotheducationandgovernmentare successful,theresultisanautonomousself-determiningindividuallivinga flourishinglife.

Thismoderndoctrineoffreedompresupposesthatwearenotbornwithapotentialfor Christianfreedom.Rather,today’stheologianmustsurmisethefollowing:distinctively Christianfreedommustbeproducedbyahistoricaleventinthelifeofeachpersonin whichthewordofGodimpartsandvirtuallycreatesthefreedomtotranscendtheautonomousself.Inshort,thewordofGodliberatesself-determinationtobecomeother-determinationasanactoffreedomitself.

How,then,shallweassessthethreatofneurocentrism?Doesneurocentrismthreaten bothlibertarianfreedomandChristianfreedom?Notyet.Theneurocentristearthquake hastodateshakenthefoundationsoftheautonomousselfofliberalthinking,butnot thelovingselfofChristianfreedom.Wordempoweredliberationwouldobtainregardless ofthesuccessorfailureofneurocentristphilosophy.Nevertheless,it’stoosoontopresume thatChristianfreedomwillbesafelysandbaggedfromtheneurocentrictsunami.Itis imperative,Ibelieve,thatdiscussionsofcognitivelibertybetakenupbypublictheologians ofactivismandresistance.Withlibertarianfreedomunderstoodasself-determination,let usturnbrieflytothepioneeringworkofAlanWeissenbacher.

7.CognitiveLiberty

Ifthedenialofthehumanselfshouldbecomeacardinalprincipleinanewpublichealth initiativeorbiopoliticalagenda,publicpolicycouldbecomeevenmorerepressivethan previoustyrannies.Inanticipationofthisprospect,weturntoAlanWeissenbacher.

The firstprincipleof cognitiveliberty, accordingtoWeissenbacher,affirmsthateach individualpersonhastherighttomentalself-determination.Therighttomentalselfdeterminationisexercisedpracticallywhenonechangeshisorherownmind,and whenchoosingthemeansbywhichthischangeoccurs.63 Wemustask:whoistheself withtherighttomentalself-determination?Thebrain?Or,theperson?

Weissenbacherstartshisanalysisofcognitivelibertywiththequestionofrightsinthe faceofprescribedbrainmodulationinthemedicalcontext.Doesanindividualperson havearighttocognitivelibertyprotectedbylaw?64

WeissenbachercitesUniversityofHamburglawprofessor,JohanChristophBublitz, whocontendsthattherighttocognitivelibertyinvolvestworelatedprinciples.The firstisthatpersonshavetherighttouseorrefrainfromusingneurotechnologies. Second,peopledeserveprotectionfromcoerciveandunconsenteduseofsuch technologies.65

Thecontextfordefenseofthisrightisbioethics;andthespecificprincipleappealedtois autonomy.Theautonomouspersonmustgiveconsentbeforehisorherbraincanbe medicallyaltered.Nowweaskagain:whoisthepersonwhogivesorwithholdsconsent regardingwhathappenstothebrain?Isthebrainitselfdecidingwhattodoaboutthe brain?Or,legallyspeaking,isthepersonmorethanmerelythebrain?

Hereisthekey:itisthe person whogivesorwithholdsconsenttobrainalteration.What isatdisputeiswhethertheperson–thepersonunderstoodasaconsciousself–evenexists letalonehasrights.Inshort,the firstrightofcognitivelibertyistherighttogiveorwithholdconsentregardingwhathappenstothebrain.Thisrightpresupposesandreinforces theexistenceofaself,aperson.

Notethatitisnotthebrainwhoseagencyisprotectedbythisrighttocognitiveliberty. Itistheperson.Eachindividualpersonhastherighttomentalself-determination,defined astherightchangehisorherownmindandchoosethemeansbywhichbrainchange occurs.

Thesecondrightofcognitivelibertyistherighttomentalintegrity.Inthemedical context,thisisdefinedastherighttomentalhealth.NoteWeissenbacher’sterm, integrity.66 Itconnotesanintegratedself,acenteraroundwhichthoughtsandbodilyfunctions areorientedandorganized.Canthebrainestablishintegrityonitsown?Or,doesthemind orientthebraininestablishingandmaintainingintegrity?

Athirdrightwithincognitivelibertyhastodowithpsychologicalcontinuity.67 Asa rightinthemedicalcontext,itprotectsonefrominterventionsthatothersdeembeneficial orinyourbestinterest(orsociety’sinterests).Byinvokingthisright,thepersonpreserves thecontinuityofone’sthoughts,emotions,preferences,andrelatedbehaviorsthrough timebyinsuringthatanychangesarenotduetounwantedexternalmodificationof neuralfunctioning.Psychologicalcontinuityisacomponenttothenarrativeself,the selfwithanautobiograpghy.

Morethanprotectingmentalstatesthemselves,thisrightprotectstheneuralfunctioningthatproducesthementalstates.Notewhatthisrightpresupposes:eachofusasan individuatedselfiscapableoffreelychoosingornotchoosingtointerferewithour brain’sfunctions.Itistheselfwhodecidestoaffectthebrain,notthebrainitself.

InWeissenbacher’sjudgment,suchrightstocognitivelibertyoverlap;buttakentogether theyprovidewell-roundedprotectionforone’spsychologicaldomain.Suchrightsprotect thepersonnotonlyfromharmbutalsofromunconsentedintrusion.Thisprotection ensuresgenuineinformedconsentwhilecurtailingabusesthatcanresultfrommodifying unwillingindividualsifonethinksitistheirorsociety’sbestinterest.

Today’sactivisttheologianwithaliberationagendashould findtwoitemsinWeissenbacher’spositionusefulinhisorherconceptualretrofit.First,theprotectionofcognitive libertymightbecomethe firstlineofdefenseagainstallthreatstohumanlibertyperceived bythepropheticpoliticaltheologian.

Second,whatispresupposedintheveryconceptofcognitivelibertyisthatthere existsahumanselfand,further,thatthisselforpersonisnotexhaustivelyreducible tothebrain.Thehumanselfmaybedependentonthematerialsubstrateofthebrain alongwiththerestofthebody,tobesure;butthemindincludesemergenttraitsor qualitiesbeyondthebrainwhichestablishanintegratedselfexpressedinlargepartas self-determination.

Thepublictheologianatthispointintimeneedsareliableanthropologythatincludesa scientificallyconsonantconceptofthehumanselforperson.Howmightwegoaboutthat construction?

8.ModelsoftheSelfinLightofthe HardProblem and ReallyHardProblem

Theproblemunderlyingtheproblemcognitivelibertyseekstoresolveissometimescalled the HardProblem orthe ExplanatoryGap.68 Agapopensupwhenoneattemptstoexplain exhaustively firstpersonsubjectiveexperienceintermsofthirdpersonobjectivescience. Thisisahardproblem,because

nomatterhowdeeplyweprobeintothephysicalstructureofneuronsandthechemical transactionswhichoccurwhenthey fire,nomatterhowmuchobjectiveinformationwe cometoacquire,westillseemtobeleftwithsomethingthatwecannotexplain,namely, whyandhowsuch-and-suchobjective,physicalchanges,whatevertheymightbe,generate so-and-sosubjectivefeeling,oranysubjectivefeelingatall.69

Wethinkofthisasahardproblembecausesubjectiveself-consciousnessresistsbeing reducedtoobjectiveexplanation.

Whatisexasperatingisthatneurocentristsprematurelyresolvethehardproblemby eliminatingthesubjectiveself.Suchfreedom-denialchallengestheagendaofanyactivist theologyfocusedonliberation.

Theneuroexistentialistsaddtothehardproblemasecondchallenge,the ReallyHard Problem. GreggCarussoandOwenFlanagandescribethereallyhardproblemas “the specialproblemforthoseofuslivingintheageofbrainscienceofmakingsenseofthe nature,meaning,andpurposeofourlivesgiventhatwearematerialbeingslivingina materialworld.”70 Today’sliberationandactivisttheologianscannotescapethisreally hardproblem.

Withthehardandreallyhardproblemsinview,towhatmodelofthesubjectiveself shouldtoday’stheologianturn?Justwhatkindofselfisworthdefending?Hereare five modelsoftheselfwhichIobserveatworkincurrentdiscussion.

8.1.SelfModelOne:EgoContinuity

ModelOne: EgoContinuity. Weknowegocontinuityinreligioustraditionasthe Soul. In his Meditations, MarcusAureliussays, “itisnotthebody,northepersonalitythatisthe trueself.Thetrueselfiseternal.Evenonthepointofdeathwecansaytoourselves, ‘ my trueselfisfree’.Icannotbecontained’ . ”71 Accordingtothedoctrineoftheimmortalsoul, theselfisstructuredbyapersistentself-awareness.ThetraditionalWesterndoctrineofthe immortalsoulreliesonegocontinuityinthislifeandthenext,despitewhathappenstothe physicalbody.Egocontinuityinthisformwouldlikelyrelyonsubstancedualismaswe finditinthePlatonicandCartesiantradition.

Beliefinasubstantialorimmortalsouldistinguishedfromthebodyisbrutallyrejected intoday’sscientific,philosophical,andeventheologicalcircles. “Nooneshouldtake seriouslytheCartesianmythoftheghostinthemachine,” exclaimCarusoandFlanagan.72 EvenPopeBenedictXVI,formerlyJosephCardinalRatzinger,concursthatthesoul shouldnotbethoughtofasanimmortalsubstance.

Thechallengetotraditionaltheologytodayliesinthenegationofanautonomous, ‘substantial’ soulwithabuilt-inimmortality,infavorofthatpositiveviewwhichregardsGod’ s decisionandactivityastherealfoundationofacontinuinghumanexistence.73

Anypromiseoflifebeyonddeathwouldentaildivineaction;itwouldnotbetheresultof animmortalsoul.

8.2.SelfModelTwo:ConfusedHigherSelf

ModelTwo:thehuman SelfasConfusedExpressionofaHigherSelf. NewAgeguru BarbaraMarxHubbardlistenstothevoiceofherhigherself.

Wemaycallthatpresencebymanydifferentnames–thevoiceoftheHigherSelf,theinner guide,theChrist.Ifwegivethatinnervoiceourfullattention,ifwerecognizeitasourdeep Self,thenamomentousevolutionarychangeoccurs.Graduallywe findthatwearenolonger alocalpersonalityseeingthedivine.Ratherwebecomeanincarnationofthedivine Icall thistheshiftfromegotoessence.74

Ratherthanthemerepersistenceofanimmortalsoulbeyonddeath,Hubbard’stemporal selfbecomesabsorbedintoahigherperhapseternalself.

Accordingtothedoctrineofthehigherself,ourindividualsoulisbutamanifestationof theover-soul,thespiritualrealitythatunitesallthings.PlatoandPlotinussoughtrecognitionoftheworldsoulintheindividualsoul.InAdvaita(non-dualism)Hinduism,the self(atman)recognizesitshigherunityanddissolutionintheAll(Brahman).We find thismodeloftheselfintheAmericanTranscendentalistsofthenineteenthcenturyand NewAgeSpiritualityinthelatetwentiethcentury.Thedoctrinesofthehigherselfand theworldsoularemetaphysicalconcepts.

8.3.SelfModelThree:Delusion

ModelThree: Self-as-Delusion. Thisisthemodelelectedbybrain–mindidentitytheorists, neurocentrists,andeliminativematerialists.Onesciencewriterdescribesself-as-delusion thisway:

neuroscientistsincreasinglydescribeour behaviourastheresultofachainofcause andeffect,inwhichonephysicalbrainstateorpatternofneuralactivityinexorably leadstothenext,culminatinginaparticularactionordecision.Withlittlespace forfreechoiceinthischainofcausation,theconscious,deliberatingselfseemsto bea fiction.75

You’ re “nothingbutapackofneurons,” toutsgeneticistFrancisCrick.76 Theselfhereisa fiction.

Ifnoselfexists,thenfreedomunderstoodasself-determinationorself-sacrifice becomesadelusion.Atriskoflosswouldbeprecioustheologicaljewelssuchasthedistinctionbetweensinas amorsui (self-centeredloving)andthegracedlifeof Nächstenliebe (selflessneighborlove).

8.4.SelfModelFour:Story

ModelFour:the SelfasStoryorNarrative. “Mysenseofselfdependsuponmemoriesand continuedexperiencesofthoseinrelationtowhomIamdefined,” writesJohnPuddefoot. “Denymeaccesstothosememoriesandthoseothers,andmysenseofselfwouldquickly dissolve.”77

Accordingtothestorymodel,theselfisanevolvingsocialconstructionwhoseidentity isdefinedbyourhistoryorbiography.Forahistoricalorbiographicalselftodevelop,it requiresrelationship,asetofrelationshipsovertime.78 DoyoureallywanttoknowwhoI am?’ asksJenniferOuellette. “Letmetellyouastory.”79

One’slifestoryisnotsimplytoldbyothers;rather,it’sconstructedbyaselfwho choosestobeaselfandtherebyconstitutestheselfasaself.Claytonusesperson-as-awholeovertimetodescribetheselfasastory,asahistory.

Freedomexistsonlyif,whenIchoosetoperformacertainact,theselfIimagineastheidentityIamchoosing theselfIimagineasthe finalcauseofmyact becomes,inthatmoment, theselfthatchooses.80

Thestorymodelreliesonthe hermeneuticself asstory,narrative,orautobiography.The problemthehermeneuticselfattemptstoresolvearisesfromthreecompetingforces:(1) TheCartesiancogito,theindependentthinkingsubstantialselfofsubstancedualism;(2) theFreudianegothatcannottrustitselfbecauseit’sinthegripofunconsciousforcessuch astheidandsuperego;and(3)theneuroscientificbrainthateliminatestheselfbyreducingthemindtoneuronal firing. “Thenotionofahermeneticselfisaparadigmshiftfrom eithertheCartesiancogitoortheFreudianegointhatittakesneuroscienceseriouslyand seesconsciousnessas embodied,” reportsneuroscientistandtheologianMichaelWong; “thehermenetuicselfisa narrativeself.”81

Thestoryornarrativemodeldependslargelyontheroleoflanguageinself-reference. “Language,” writesMichaelFishbane,

channelsthe flowofasometimesinchoatereality,andcoordinatesthepatternsofsightto rhythmsofsound.Inthiswaythesubjectdevelopsasenseofself,bothinrelationshipto worldlythingsandtootherpersons.Insodoing,webuildalife-worldwithinthevastness … .Thenaturalworldwesoarrestandorderisthusharnessedto thecareoftheself. 82

Therefore,weneedphilosophicalhermeneuticstograsphowtheliguisticallyconstructedselffunctions.AccordingtothelatePaulRicoeur, itisthereforeplausibletoaffirmthefollowingassertions:a)knowledgeoftheselfisan interpretation;b)theinterpretationoftheself,inturn, findsnarrative,amongothersigns andsymbols,tobeaprivilegedmediation;c)thismediationborrowsfromhistoryas muchas fictionmakingthelifestorya fictivehistoryor,ifyouprefer,anhistorical fiction.83

Whenwecomparethethirdandfourthmodels,wenotethatfortheSelf-as-Delusion modeltheselfisa fictioninthesensethatitdoesnotexist,whereasfortheSelf-as-Narrativemodeltheselfisa fictioninthesensethatitisaconstruction.84

ItisinterestingtonotethatAndreaVestrucci,whenexplicatingLuther’sgraspofthe boundwillandfreewill,reliesonthestorymodel. “There is astory,” Vestrucciavers, andeachofourstoriesisembeddedindivinegrace. “Lifeisthefreedomofhaving meaningunderGod’sgraceastheunityandoriginofallstories.”85

8.5.SelfModelFive:ExperientialSelf

ModelFive:the SelfasExperientialDimension. Thisisthephenomenologicalunderstandingofthehumansubject.Here, “theselfisclaimedtopossessexperientialreality,istaken tobecloselylinkedtothe first-personperspective,andis,infact,identifiedwiththevery first-person givenness oftheexperientialphenomena,” accordingtoDanZahavi,who directstheCenterforSubjectivityResearchattheUniversityofCopenhagen.86

ZahavifollowsinthefootstepsofEdmundHusserlandMartinHeidegger,whereinthe selforegoisthatwhichunderstandsitselfpre-linguisticallyandpre-objectivelyas imbeddedintheworld.When consciousness-of intendsanobject,thisexperiencepresupposesasubjectiveegowhoisintendingthatobject.Consciousnessrequiresaselftobeconscious,accordingtothismodel.87

Fromthislistof fivemodels,Irecommendtheconstructivetheologiangivespecial attentiontomodelsfourand five.The fifth,theexperientialdimensionmodel,combines wellwiththefourth,thestoryornarrativemodel.Phenomenologically,thehumanself existsintuitively,indubitably,andunquestionablyatthelevelofpresupposition.This experientialselfgainsself-confidenceandcharacterthroughnarrativeformationaswell asthroughlinguisticself-reference.88

Brazilianliberationtheologian,thelateVitorWesthelle,couldbenefitfrommodelfour, thestoryornarrativeself.Westhellewantstoturnawayfrommeta-temporallineartime withitsuniversalhistory.Instead,hewantstoturntolocalspaceswithlocalstories.He wantsto “… focusattention … onlittlestoriesandthespacetheyoccupyineveryday life.”89 Marginalizedpeoplesalreadyhavetheirownstories,andthetheologiandignifies thosestoriesbyrecognizingandcelebratingthem.Perhapsthenarrativeselfistheself mostusefultopoliticaltheologiansdedicatedtoliberation.

PaulTillich’sdisciplescouldbenefitfrommodel five,thephenomenalself. “Aselfisnot athingthatmayormaynotexist;itisanoriginalphenomenonwhichlogicallyprecedesall questionsofexistence.”90 Bynomeansisthisaretreatintoindividualism.Theselfis alwaysperson-in-relationship. “Theselfwithoutaworldisempty;theworldwithouta selfisdead.”91

Thebasicchallengeisthis:domodelsfourand fivestandstablewhenshakenby neurocentristseismictremors?Ibelievetheydo.Bothmodelsareostensive,obvious, andfundamentaltoexperience.Ifitwerenotforthepriorexistenceofthesubjective selfoftheneuroscientist,wewouldnothavetheproductofbrainresearchtoponder. Perhapsit’sworthretrievingDescarteshere:Ithink,therefore,Iam(Cogitoergo sum).

Neuroscientistsandneuro-philosophers,itwouldseemtome,shouldtryto explainour dailyexperiencewithselfhoodandfreeaction,notexplainitaway 92

9.TheIndividualandCollectiveSelf

Theconceptofcognitivelibertyhelpsusretrofittheindividualselfneedingliberation.But, activistliberationisaimedprimarilythoughnotexclusivelyatthecollective,atmarginalizedgroupswithinthelargerbodypolitic.Canweassumethecollectiveselfisthesameas theindividualself?

No.AtleastaccordingtoReinholdNiebuhr.Niebuhrdroveasharpwedgebetweenthe individualselfandthecollectiveego.Concernedwithdistinctively Christianfreedom–freedom from self for lovingservicetowardtheneighbor–Niebuhrobservedthatsuch freedom-from-selfisamoralpossibilityfortheindividualbutnotforthegroup.No groupcantakenon-selfishaction. “Thepretensionsandclaimsofacollectiveorsocial selfexceedthoseoftheindividualego.Thegroupismorearrogant,hypocritical,self-centeredandmoreruthlessinthepursuitofitsendsthantheindividual.”93 Thegroupisnot simplytheindividualwritlarge.Thedynamicsofthecollectivedifferfromthedynamicsof theindividual.

Thisobservationregardingthecollectiveselfappliesequallytoboththeoppressiveclass andtheoppressedclass.Thejustnessofagroup’scausedoesnotaccruetothejustnessof thatgroup.TheChristiandoctrineofsinappliesuniversally,tobothoppressorsand victims.AccordingtoNiebuhr,thistruthisasobservableasitisdoctrinal.

Liketheliberationactivistsofourownera,eightdecadesagoNiebuhrstronglyadvocatedthrowingoff thepoweroftheoppressorsasanactofjusticeonbehalfofthevictims. Yet,healsoheldthatChristianrealismrequireshonestyregardingthemoralpropensities ofbothclasses.

Everyvictimofinjusticemakesthemistakeofsupposingthatthesinfromwhichhesuffersis apeculiarviceofhisoppressor.Thisistheself-righteousnessoftheweakindistinctiontothe self-righteousnessofthepowerful … itisavehicleofvindictivepassions … .Butthemistakes ofatoosimplesocialradicalismmustnotobscurethefactthatinagivenhistoricalsituation thepowerfulmanorclassisactuallymoreguiltyofinjusticeandpridethanthosewholack power. 94

WhataretheimplicationsofNiebuhr’scontrastbetweentheindividualandthecollectiveforretrofittingourconceptofliberation?First,wemustrecognizethatNiebuhris workingwithadifferentmodeloffreedom.ForNiebuhr,Christianfreedomconsistsof transcendingtheself,whereasinliberationthoughtfreedomconsistsofself-determination.Foractivistliberation,freedomconsistsofthecapabilitytomakechoicesaccording toone’svalues.Bothpoliticallibertyandcognitivelibertyprovidethecapabilityoropportunityforactualizingsuchfreechoice.Freechoiceconstitutestheself;itdoesnottranscendtheself.

Thisdistinctionmayrightlybeignoredbytheliberationtheorist,becausehisorher concernisprimarilywiththemarginalizedgrouporclass.Atthecollectivelevel,theliberationtheologiandoesnotmandatetheliberatedvictimtobehavealtruistically,tolove self-sacrificially.95 Theliberationtheologiandoesnotaskforwhatisdifficultifnotimpossible.Whattheliberationtheologianasksforisjusticeintheformofenhancedcapabilities oropportunitiesforamarginalizedgroup’sself-expression.Withintheliberatedgroupor class,individualsbecomefreeforself-determinationregardlessofthevaluestheypersonallyliftupforthemselves.

Bynomeansisthisanegationoftheliberationagenda.Itissimplyanattemptto specifythemodeloffreedomwhichmakestheconceptofjusticewithinliberation thoughtcoherent.Themodeloffreedompresupposedhereisthatofself-determination appliedtoboththeindividualandthevictimizedgrouporclass.Whatwehavetriedto showisthattheconceptoftheselfwithincognitivelibertycouldbeborrowedto enhancethecoherencyoftheliberationunderstandingofliberty.

10.TheSelfasHistoricalandEschatological

Ofthe fivemodelsoftheselflistedabove,thoseformulatingpublicpolicywillbeespecially attractedtomodel five,thephenomenologicalmodel.Thisisbecauseourfundamental humanexperienceisthatofaselfwhichviewstheworldfromtheself’sperspective beforeanyfurtheranalysiscanbeperformed.Theselfwhichdeliberates,decides,and takesactionispresupposedineveryunderstandingofthehumanperson.Thephenomenal selfmustbegrantedcognitivelibertyasaright.

Havingsaidthis,Ialsobelievethesystematictheologianwillbeattractedespeciallyto modelfour,thehistoricalmodel.Whoweareisconstructedoutofourlife’sstory,our history,ourdestiny.Itisourparticularhistorythatindividuatesusinrelationtoall thatsurroundsus. “Historyisthe principiumindividuationis,” writesWolfhart

Pannenberg. “Historyasaformativeprocessisthewaytothefuturetowhichtheindividualisdestined … .onlythroughanticipationofthis[God’s]futurecanhumanbeingspresentlyexistasthemselves.”96

Thepersonasselfistemporal,relational,developmental.Despitethesenseofautonomywefeel,theselfisnotitselfself-grounding.OnlyGodastheperson’sdestiny groundstheself.OnlyourrelationtoGodprovidesthepersonwithfullquiddity.And this finalidentityoressenceisprovidedbyGodonlyeschatologically,atthecompletion ofourhistoricalstory.

Whowearetodayisdefinednotonlybytheaccumulationofpastexperiencesbutalso byourfuturedestiny.Andbyourpresentanticipationofthatdestiny.Infact,God’seschatological finalizationofourpersonhoodretroactivelyinfluencesustodayasweanticipate it.Thewholestory,includingitseschatologicalconsummation,determineswhoweareas aperson,aself.

Eschatologicallyspeaking,wewerealreadyliberatedbythedeathandresurrectionof JesusChrist.Wewereredeemedfromdeath,transience,andsin.Wewillrealizethatliberationfullyonlyinourownresurrection,onlyinGod’snewcreation.97

ThisistheclaimoftheChristiantheologian.It’struthisnotdependentonwidespread culturalacceptance.Yet,itismateriallydecisivefortheologicalanthropology.

11.Conclusion

Thishasbeenanessayindignitariancounterpoliticsaddressedtomyactivistcolleagues thatcontinuethetraditionofliberationtheology.Yesterday’sliberationtheologiansand today’sactivisttheologianshavelargelyignoredthedialoguebetweenfaithandscience. Thismaybeduetotheself-appointedtaskofsciencetoformulateuniversallawsof nature,whichtendstodiscountthelocalnarrativesandhistoriesofmarginalized peoplesinspecificnon-Westerncontexts.Tosayitanotherway,themethodsofscience andthemethodsofactivisttheologydonotcoincide.

Evenso,onepublictheologian,theArchbishopofSweden,AntjeJackelén,strongly advocatestheologicalengagementwithnaturalscienceforthepublicgood. “Mutually criticalandself-criticalrelationshipbetweenfaithandscienceisfarmoreusefultohumanitythanconfrontation.”98

Thisisjustintimetorespondtoanearthquakeshakingliberation’stheoreticalfoundations.Activisttheologiansneedaseismicretrofit;theyneedtoconstructarobustdoctrineoffreedomthatisscientificallyconsonant,conceptuallycoherent,andsocially applicable.Relianceonnaiveté–oh,everyoneknowswhatfreedomis!–willnotwash. Mightengagementwithneuroscienceandcognitivelibertyhelpsecureliberationthinking?

Theintentionalconstructionofadoctrineoffreedommustavoidthetrapofassuming thatthedebateisbetweendeterminismandfreedom.Thisancientdebateismisleading, becausehumanfreedomisnotaformofindeterminism.Rather,freewillisaformof determinism,self-determinism.Whatfreedomaddstoexternaldeterminismisthesubjectiveself–theinnerhumanperson–asadeterminingagentaffectingtheworld. Freedomis bestdefinedasself-determinationthroughdeliberation,decision,andaction. Liberation,in turn,isbestdefinedasdecreasingoppressiveobstructionswhileincreasingopportunities (capabilities)whereinself-determinationcanbeactualized.Theliberatortreatsthepreviouslymarginalizedpersonwithdignity,andthatpersonrisesuptoclaimthatdignity.

Neurocentrismthreatensthisunderstandingofliberation,becauseitpresupposesbiologicaldeterminismalongwitheliminativematerialism.Accordingly,thebrain,andonly thebrain,isthedeterminer.Whatgetseliminatedistheself,thehumansubjectorthe humanpersonasadeterminer.But,inmyjudgment,theself–or,better,theperson–oughtnotbereducedtothebrain. “Selfhood[is]aconceptofthetotalpersonasan active,integratedsystem,” contendsthelateIanBarbourrightly.99 Itshouldbethetask oftheneuroscientistandtheneurophilosophertoexplainself-determination,not explainitaway.

Untilwegetneurophilosopherswhomwecantrust,wemustrelyonthecritiqueofneurocentrismofferedbythepublictheologianengagedindignitariancounterpolitics.Inthis article,Ihaverecommendedthatweconstructaliberationontologyguidedbyanethicof dignity-conferralthatpresupposestheself-as-story–thatis,theselfbelongingtoGod’ sgracioushistory–withinwhichhumanfreedom–freedomunderstoodasself-determination–is supportedbyeffortstomaintainandextendcognitiveliberty.

Aconceptualearthquakeistakingplaceasourculturetriestograsptheimplicationsof neurosciencealongwithartificialintelligence,intelligenceamplification,robotics,and visionsofthecomingposthumanspecies.Activistpoliticaltheologianscannotaffordto benaiveabouttheirassumptionsregardinghumannatureandprospectsforthefuture. Itistimetograsptheissuesofcognitivelibertyatstakeandweighinondebatesover theexistenceofhumandignityandfreedom.

Notes

1. “Actinsuchawaythatyoualwaystreathumanity,whetherinyourownpersonorinthe personofanyother,neversimplyasameans,butalwaysatthesametimeasanend.” ImmanuelKant, GroundworkoftheMetaphysicofMorals, tr.byH.J.Paton(NewYork:Harper, 1948),96.

2. “Theworryisthis:ifhumanchoicesareessentiallybrainevents,andifbraineventsaregovernedbythelawsofneurobiology,thenmustitnotbethecasethatallchoicesandallsubsequentbehavioraregovernedbythelawsofneurobiology?” NanceyMurphy, Bodiesand Souls,orSpiritedBodies? (Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006),103.

3. “PublicTheologyisthustheologicallyinformedpublicdiscourseaboutpublicissues, addressedtothechurch,synagogue,mosque,templeorotherreligiousbody,aswellasthe largerpublicorpublics,arguedinwaysthatcanbeevaluatedandjudgedbypubliclyavailable warrantsandcriteria.” KatieDayandSebastianKim, “Introduction,” in ACompanionto PublicTheology, eds.SebastianKimandKatieDay(LeidenandBoston:Brill,2017),1–21, at4.

4.Inhisleadthemearticleinthisissueof TheologyandScience, “RecalibratingtheLogicofFree WillwithMartinLuther,” AndreaVestruccipresentsthelogicoftheillusionistposition. Neurocentrismprovidesanexampleofthisposition:freewillisanillusion.Inhisarticleelsewhereinthisissueof TheologyandScience, “Theology,FreeWill,andtheSkepticalChallenge fromtheSciences,” AkuVisalarecognizesthreeskepticalchallengestotheology:eliminativism,determinism,andepiphenomenalism.Thethreatofeliminativismisthefocusofthe presenttreatment.

5.R.S.Sugirtharajah, ExploringPostcolonialBiblicalCriticism (Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,2012), 15.

6.GaymonBennett, “ThePoliticsofIntrinsicWorth:WhyBioethicsNeedsHumanDignity,” in HumanFlourishinginanAgeofGeneEditing, eds.ErikParensandJosephineJohnston (Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress,2019),228–246,at228.

7.Ibid.,241.

8.JamesW.Walters, “Introduction,” in What’swithFreeWill?EthicsandReligionAfterNeuroscience, eds.PhilipClaytonandJamesW.Walters(Eugene,OR:CascadeBooks,2020),1–8, at1.

9.PaulS.Chung, PostcolonialPublicTheology:Faith,ScientificRationality,andPropheticDialogue (Eugene,OR:CascadeBooks,2016),199.

10. “Feminist,criticalrace,queer,animal,environmental,andmanyothercriticaltheories alreadyhavebeguntoradicallyalterthewayweunderstandreligioustraditions,ourresponsibilitytohumanandearthothers,andourplacewithintherestofthenaturalworld.” WhitneyA.Bauman, “Athirdway:Developingaplanetaryspirituality,” Dialog 57:1 (2018),25–39,at38.

11.MichaelLerner, TheBeytTikkunLiberationPassoverSederHaggadah (2020); https://www. tikkun.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Beyt-Tikkun-Haggadah-2020.final_.pdf?eType= EmailBlastContent&eId=d24a7a88-d4a2-482d-83ab-3ecab79fdb31

12.HakJoonLee, “PublicTheology,” in ChristianPoliticalTheology, eds.CraigHoveyandElizabethPhillips(Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress,2015),44–65,at54,italics added.

13.Criticaltheoryshouldbefactoredinhere. “Criticaltheoryconfrontsthe ’badfacticity’ ofan unjustandthereforeirrationalworldwith ’betterpotentialities’ inherentinhistoryandsocial forms.” MarshaAileenHewitt, “CriticalTheory,” in TheBlackwellCompaniontoPolitical Theology, eds.PeterScottandWilliamT.Cavanaugh(Oxford:Blackwell,2004),455–470, at458.

14. “Theologyofliberationandpoliticaltheologyoriginatedatapproximatelythesametime,in theyears1964–1968,butincompletelydifferentcircumstances:liberationtheologyamong thepoorinLatinAmericaandpoliticaltheologyinthecontextofthecoldwarindivided Europe.” JűrgenMoltmann, “PoliticalTheologyandTheologyofLiberation,”in Liberating theFuture:God’sMammonandTheology, ed.JoergRieger(Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1998),60–80,at61.

15. Justicerequirestheliberationtheologiantogiveattentiontothevictimsofinjustice,tothose sinnedagainst. “Itistimeforthechurchtothinkaboutasalvificpathforthesinned-against. Todoso,weneedtounderstandthepainofthewounded,listeningtotheiragoniesand studyingbiblical,historical,andtheologicalmessagesfortheirsalvation,” in TheOther SideofSin:WoundednessfromthePerspectiveoftheSinned-Against,eds.AndrewSung ParkandSusanL.Nelson(Albany,NY:SUNY,2001),2.

16.GustavoGutiérrez, “LiberationTheologyandtheFutureofthePoor,” in Liberatingthe Future:God’sMammonandTheology, ed.JoergRieger(Minneapolis:FortressPress, 1998),96–123,at115,Gutiérrez’sitalics. “Thereisfreedom from (awidevarietyofrealor imagined)constraints,butalsoafreedom for or to. Thelatterisvariouslydescribed:to pursuethegood,toactforreasons,fordevelopmentofone’scharacter,topursueincreasingly sophisticatedunderstandingofthegood.” NanceyMurphyandWarrenBrown, DidMy NeuronsMakeMeDoIt? (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2010),267.Freedomismore thanlibertyfromexternalconstraints.Freedomincludesthecapabilityofchangingone’ s owncharacterovertimeinthepursuitofvirtue. “Freewillweinterpretasamatterofan agent’scapacity,asadynamicsystem,toredesignherowncharacterthroughmanyinstances ofresponsibleaction.” Ibid.,12–13.

17.Moltmann, “PoliticalTheologyandTheologyofLiberation,” 71.

18.JohannesB.Metz, TheologyoftheWorld, tr.,WilliamGlen-Doepel(NewYork:Herderand Herder,1969),107. “PoliticaltheologyisdominatedbyandevenassumedtobeChristian discourse.Atleast,itwas.” JulieClague, “PoliticalTheologiesTenYearsafter9/11,” Political Theology 12:5(October2011),645–659,at646.

19.VincentW.Lloyd, TheProblemwithGrace:ReconfiguringPoliticalTheology (Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress,2011),12.

20.PaulKahn, PoliticalTheology:FourNewChaptersontheConceptofSovereignty (NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress,2011),25,myemphasis.

21.N.T.Wright, EvilandtheJusticeofGod (London:SPCK,2006),96.

22.TedPeters, “PublicTheology:ItsPastoral,Apologetic,Scientific,Political,andProphetic Tasks,” InternationalJournalofPublicTheology 12:2(2018); https://brill.com/abstract/ journals/ijpt/12/1/ijpt.12.issue-1.xml

23.Chung, PostcolonialPublicTheology, 1.

24.DayandKim,"Introduction,"2;see:SebastianKim, TheologyinthePublicSphere (London: SCMPress,2011).

25.ElsewhereIhavedelineatedfourconceptsoffreedomrelevanttothisdiscussion:(1) liberty or politicalfreedom,thatis,independencefromexternalconstraintorcoercion;(2) freewill or naturalfreedom,thatis,self-determinationorthepowertochoosebetweenalternatives;(3) moralfreedom, virtue,orChristianfreedom,thatis,thecapacitytochoosethegoodofGod, virtue,ortheneighboroverone’sselfishinclinations;and(4) futurefreedom,thatis,creative initiativesthatinfluencethecourseoffutureevents.TedPeters, PlayingGod?GeneticDeterminismandHumanFreedom (LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2nded.,2003)17–20.

26.GaymonBennett, TechniciansofHumanDignity:Bodies,Souls,andtheMakingofIntrinsic Worth (NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress,2016),x.

27.DanielDennett, BreakingtheSpell (NewYork:Viking,2006),107.Closelyrelatedtothequestionoftheself’sexistenceisthequestionofconsciousness.Manyanalyticalphilosophers denytheexistenceofhumanconsciousnessalongwith qualia (qualia aremeaningfulsubjectiveexperiences).Theyfurtherdenythatconsciousnesswith qualia canbeasubjectstudied scientifically.ChristofKochattheAllenInstituteforBrainScienceinSeattle,incontrast, expectssciencetoadvanceonthisfrontier. “Ultimatelywhatweneedisasatisfyingscientific theoryofconsciousnessthatpredictsunderwhichconditionsanyparticularphysical system--whetheritisacomplexcircuitofneuronsorsilicontransistors–hasexperiences. ChristofKoch, “WhatisConsciousness?” Nature 557:7704(10May2018),S9-S12,atS11.

28.ThomasMetzinger, TheScienceoftheMindandtheMythoftheSelf (NewYork:BasicBooks, 2009),8.NeurotheologianssuchasNanceyMurphyandWarrenS.Browndisagree."Mental eventsarenotreducibletobrainevents … mentaleventsareconstitutedinactionloopsin whichbrainprocessesareinterlockedwithenvironmentalcontext,withthehistoryofthe outcomeofpreviousactionloopsplayingaprimarycausalrole."MurphyandBrown, Did MyNeuronsMakeMeDoIt?,209.

29.SallySatelandScottO.Lilienfeld, “LosingOurMindsintheAgeofBrainScience,” Skeptical Inquirer 37:6:30–35(November/December2013),35.

30.Neurocentricdeterminismisnotbasedonempiricalconclusions.Rather,itisbasedonretrogradephysics,onthepre-quantumworldviewofNewton. “Contemporaryneuroscience and philosophyofmind largely continuetobasetheirquesttounderstandhumanconsciousness ontheinadequatenineteenthcenturymechanicalconceptualizationofreality,whichcontrarytostandardquantummechanics,leavesourconsciousnesscompletelyoutofthe causaldynamics.” HenryP.Stapp, QuantumTheoryandFreeWill:HowMentalIntentions TranslateintoBodilyActions (Heidelberg:Springer,2017),63.

31.EugeneG.D’AquiliandAndrewB.Newberg, “ConsciousnessandtheMachine,” Zygon 31:2 (June1996),235–252,at239.

32.MaryEliseLowe, “Gay,Lesbian,andQueerTheologies:Origins,Contributions,andChallenges,” Dialog 48:1(2009),49–61:53. http://www.scribd.com/doc/65653651/Gay-Lesbianand-Queer-Theologies-Origins-Contributions-and-Challenges .

33.Thetaskofthehermeneuticalphilosopheristoconjoinmeaningful firstpersondiscourse withmeaning-evaculatedthirdpersonscientificdiscourse.FrenchneuroscientistJeanPierreChangeuxmovessilentlyfrommethodologicalreductionismtoontologicalreductionism,toeliminativematerialism. “MannolongerhasneedforSpirit:itisenoughforhimtobe NeuronalMan.” Jean-PierreChangeux, NeuronalMan:TheBiologyofMind, tr.Laurence Gary(Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress,1985),169.PhilosopherPaulRicoeurresponds byproposingathirddiscourse,onethatbridgessciencewiththeologicalanthropology. “The Changeux-Ricoeurdialogueidentifiesavalid ’thirddiscourse’ intermsofputtingdifferent discoursesofscienceandphilosophytogetherwithoutcommittingtheerrorsofsubstance dualism,eliminativereductionismand ’semanticamalgamation’ (oxymoronformulation)

ofthesubjectiveandtheobjectiveexperience.” MichaelT.H.Wong, RicoeurandtheThird DiscourseofthePerson (Lanham,MD:LexingtonBooks,2019),xxii.

34.StanislasDahaene, ConsciousnessandtheBrain:DecipheringHowtheBrainCodesOur Thoughts (NewYork:Viking,2014),47.

35.Ibid.,161.

36.AnnM.GraybielandKyleS.Smith, “GoodHabits,BadHabits,” ScientificAmerican 310:6 (June2014),38–43,at40.

37.PhilipClayton, “Neuroscience,theHumanPerson,andGod,” BridgingScienceandReligion, eds.,TedPeters,GaymonBennett,KangPheeSeng(London:SCMPress,2002),107–120,at 108. “Theemergentistanthropology … resultswiththenotionofhumanpersonsas psychosomatic entities.Humansarebothbodyandmind,inthesensethatwemanifestbothbiologicalandmentalcausalfeatures,andbothinaninterconnectedmanner.” Philip Clayton, MindandEmergence:FromQuantumtoConsciousness (Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,2004),143.

38.MurphyandBrown, DidMyNeuronsMakeMeDoIt? 196–204. “Theissueisnotwhether neurobiologicalprocessesarethemselvesdeterminate,butwhetherneurobiological reductionism istrue.” Murphy, BodiesandSouls, 106.

39.Ibid.,117. “Downwardcausationmeansthateventsatasuperveninglevelcaninfluenceoutcomesattherootmostlevel.” PeterU.Tse, “TwoTypesofLibertarianFreeWillAreRealized intheHumanBrain,” Neuroexistentialism, 162–190,at177.

40.PatriciaS.Churchland, Brain-Wise:StudiesinNeurophilosophy (Cambridge,MA:MITPress, 2002),124.

41.SallieMcFague, SpeakinginParables:AStudyinMetaphorandTheology (Minneapolis:FortressPress,1975),3.

42.StephenCasper, “Neuroscienceneedssomenewideas,” Nature 580:7801(2April2020),23–24,at23.

43.Ibid.

44.FrancisCrick, TheAstonishingHypothesis:TheScientificSearchfortheSoul (NewYork: Scribner’s,1994),3.

45.Casper, “Neuroscienceneedssomenewideas,” 24.

46. AmartyaSen, TheIdeaofJustice (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2009),232.

47.Ibid.,231.Capabilitiesmayincludesubjectiveself-esteemrightalongwithobjectiveopportunities. “SooneaspectoftheworkofDeafLiberationTheologyintheChristianChurchhas beenthisfocusontryingtoencourageandgrowandsupportdeafpeopleintoleadership withinthechurch sometimesastrainedandlicensedministers,butothertimessimply bringingdeafpeopletothefrontoftheirownchurches(bothsignlanguageusingchurches, andhearingchurcheswithinterpretedservices)asmuchaspossible,enablingandempoweringparticipationanddecisionmakingbydeafpeopleatmanydifferentlevels .the importanceofdeafteachersasrolemodelsfordeafchildrenindevelopingtheirconfidence, esteem,prideinbeingdeaf,socialandculturalcapitalandstrategiesfordealingwithanonsigningworldandgenerallypreparingthemforadulthoodandprovidinganopportunityto increasesocialjusticethroughdeafadultswiththeconfidencetoaskforitandworkforit.” HannahLewis, “DeafLiberationTheologyandSocialJustice,” Religions 8:10(24October 2017),1–11,at10.; http://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/8/10/232.

48.HelenSlessarev-Jamir, PropheticActivism:ProgressiveReligiousMovementsinContemporary America (NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress,2011),91.

49.JamesH.Cone, ABlackTheologyofLiberation (PhiladelphiaandNewYork:J.B.Lippincott, 1970),173.Freedomis “thepotentialtomakedecisionsinthefaceofambiguoussituations.” M.ShawnCopeland,DwightN.Hopkins,CharlesT.Mathewes,JoyAnnMcDougall,Ian A.McFarland,andMicheleSaracino, “HumanBeing,” in ConstructiveTheology, eds. SereneJonesandPaulLakeland(Minneapolis:FortressPress,205),77–116,at79.

50.Tse, “TwoTypesofLibertarianFreeWillAreRealizedintheHumanBrain,” 189.

51.InthisarticleIusetheterms self and person almostinterchangeably.Itmightbebesttorely solelyon person, becausethisconnotesthewholeofwhoapersonis.MurphyandBrown

"insistthattheagentorchooseristhewholeperson,neitheraselforsoulnorsomebitof neuraltissueinsidethebrain.MurphyandBrown, DidMyNeuronsMakeMeDoIt?,271. But,becausetheterm self-determination isirreplaceable,Ifrequentlyusebothofthese termstomakemypoint.By self Irefertothewhole person.

52.IanG.Barbour, “Neuroscience,ArtificialIntelligence,andHumanNature:Theologicaland PhilosophicalReflections,” Zygon 34:3(September1999),361–398,at362and383.

53.HerbertMarcuse, “Studie űberAutoritätundFamilie,” in Studien űberAutoritätundFamilie: ForschungsberichteausdemInstitutfűrSozialforschung,ed.MaxHorkheimer(Paris:Alcan, 1936),136–228; AStudyonAuthority, tr.,JorisDeBres(London:Verso,2008).ThistranslationfromtheGermanbyOswaldBayer, “Marcuse’sCritiqueofLuther’sConceptof freedom,” LutheranQuarterly 32:2(Summer2018),173–204,at192.

54.LadislasOrsy,S.J., “TheDivineDignityofHumanPersonsin Dignitashumanae, ” Theological Studies 75:1(2014),8–22,at17.

55.BernardMcGinn, “TheHumanPersonasImageofGod:WesternChristianity,” in Christian Spirituality:OriginstotheTwelfthCentury, eds.BernardMcGinn,JohnMeyendorff,andJean Leclercq(NewYork:Crossroad,1985),321.

56.MartinLuther, “TheFreedomofaChristian,” in Luther’sWorks,AmericanEdition,Vols.1–30,editedbyJaroslavPelikan(St.Louis:ConcordiaPublishingCompany,1955–1967);Vols. 31–55,editedbyHelmutT.Lehmann(Minneapolis:FortressPress,1955–1986),31:366.

57.Bayer, “Marcuse’sCritiqueofLuther’ s Conceptoffreedom,” LutheranQuarterly 32:2 (Summer2018),173–204,at194. “Thesoulshouldbeunderstoodas thetotalityofmy self,asitlivesinthedurationofrememberingandexpectationinthecountenanceofthe eternalGod.” OswaldBayer, “TheSoulasAnswer,” LutheranQuarterly 33:4(Winter 2019),399–412,at406. “Thelifeoffaithisnotsomethingtowhichwecome,” according toLuther; “butratherthatwhichcomestous;itisagiftoftheHolySpirit,notamatter ofhumaneffort.ThroughthisgifthumanbeingsloveGod ‘willingly’ ” IanA.McFarland, “SinandtheLimitsofTheology:AReflectiononConversationwithJulianofNorwich andMartinLuther,” InternationalJournalofSystematicTheology 22:2(April2020),147–168,at159.

58.Inhisarticle, “RecalibratingtheLogicofFreeWillwithMartinLuther,Vestruccimakesit clearthat,forLuther,Godisthetrulyfreeone,becauseGodaloneis ase, aselfunto itself.ThisisBarth’spositionaswell.

59.Godisfreetousehisfreedomtosurrenderhimself,nottohisownfreedom,buttohishuman creatureinneed …“freidazu,sich,ohnesichihrerzubegeben,ihrernundochauchdazuzu bedienen,sichinjeneGemeinschaftzubegeben.” KarlBarth, DiekirchlicheDogmatikII/1.Die LehrevonGott.ErsterHalbband (Zürich:EvangelischerVerlag,1940),341.Barth’scategoricalaffirmationofdivinefreedomrepudiatesatrendintheologythatsuggestsGod’sgracious loveexpresseshisowninnernecessity,thatGodisaprisonerofhisowndivinecompassion. LikeJohnCalvin,Barthnevercompromisesdivinesovereignty,evenindivineself-surrender.

60.RogerHaight, “SinandGrace,” SystematicTheology:RomanCatholicPerspectives, eds., FrancisSchüsslerFiorenzaandJohnP.Galvin(Minneapolis:Fortress,2nded.,2011), 375–430,at422.

61.Isitreasonabletothinkofimmanentdignityasrelational?AccordingtophilosopherJürgen Habermas, “humandignity is,inastrictmoralandlegalsense,connectedwiththisrelationalsymmetry.Itisnotapropertylikeintelligenceorblueeyes,thatonemight ‘ possess ’ by nature;itratherindicatesthekindof ‘inviolability’ whichcomestohaveasignificanceonlyin interpersonalrelationsofmutualrespect,intheegalitariandealingsamongpersons.” Jürgen Habermas, TheFutureofHumanNature(Cambridge,UKandMalden,MA:Blackwell, Polity,2003),33.

62.BirgittaWeinhardtattheInstitutfürEvangelischeTheologieinKarlsruheplacesthequestion offreewill(Willensfreiheit)withinthedebatebetweenindeterminismanddeterminism. Quantumphysics,atleastaccordingtotheCopenhageninterpretation,isindeterministic. Neuroscience,however,isdeterministic.Atheologicalanthropologythataffirmshuman freewilliscompatiblewithphysicsbutnotneuroscience.Yet,Weinhardtwantsafuture

freedom;shewantstoaffirmourcapacitytoinfluencethecourseofeventsinanotherwise openfuture. “DerillibertareIndeterminismusistgutgeeignet,alsphilosophischplausibles Welt-undMenschenbildaucheineBezugstheoriefürdiesystematischeTheologiezu bilden.” BirgettaA.Weinhardt, DasModelldesillibertarenIndeterminismus:Lebensführung jenseitsvonWillensfreiheitundFatalismus (Gőttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2018), 320.

63.AlanWeissenbacher, “DefendingCognitiveLibertyinanAgeofMoralEngineering,” TheologyandScience 16:3(August2018),288–299.

64.Wouldaliedetectorconnectedtoasuspect’sbrainconstituteaviolationofcognitiveliberty? "’Freedomofthought’ asdescribedbythecourtsseemstoreferstrictlytotheunfetteredexerciseofthoughtwithoutfearofexternalinterferenceorpunishment.Sincetheostensiblegoal ofdeceptiondetectiontechnologyistodeterminewhatanindividualhas done,andtheUS legalsystemisnotstructurallyorientedtowardpunishingindividualsfortheirthoughts alone … itdoesnotseemthatthisparticularsenseofcognitivelibertyisdirectlyviolated bythecurrentdevelopmentsinneuroscience .Whileacquisitionofneurologicalevidence cannotyetbelikenedtoa ’search’ ofanindividual’sthoughts,thecapabilitytoperformsucha searchiswaxingintotherealmofpossibility andthecourthasdonelittletoconcretely definetheprivatesphereasitrelatestoneuro-cognitiveliberty.CalvinJ.KraftandJames Giordano, “IntegratingBrainScienceandLaw:NeuroscientificEvidenceandLegalPerspectivesonProtectingIndividualLiberties,” FrontiersinNeuroscience 11(8November2017) https://doaj.org/article/7b5f9817a5e646308da86c33df7922f9

65.JanC.Bublitz, “MyMindIsMine!?CognitiveLibertyasaLegalConcept,” in Cognitive Enhancement:AnInterdisciplinaryPerspective,eds.ElisabethHildtandA.G.Franke (NewYork:Springer,2013),309–328. “Weurgethatharmtomindshouldnotbetreated astantamounttoharmtobrain … Instead,thelawshoulddefinethekindsofmental phenomenaworthyofprotectionbytheirmentalpropertiesandintroducestandaloneprovisionspenalizinginterferenceswithmentalintegrityratherthanexpandingtheprotectionof bodilyintegritytomentalintegrity.” JanBublitzandReinhardMerkel, “CrimesAgainst Minds:OnMentalManipulations,HarmsandaHumanRighttoMentalSelf-Determination,” CriminalLawandPhilosophy 8(2014),51–77,at57.

66.Weissenbacher, “DefendingCognitiveLiberty,” 295–296.

67. Ibid.,296–297.

68.ForthenuancesoftheHardProblem,seethedebatein NovaetVetera. BasC.vonFraasen, “HowCanWeUnderstandTranscendenceoftheEgo?” NovaetVetera, EnglishEdition,17:2 (Spring2019),373–389;andTedPeters, “TheTranscendenceoftheSelfinLightoftheHard Problem:AResponsetoBasvanFraassen,” NovaetVetera, EnglishEdition,17:2(2019), 391–400.

69.MichaelTye, “Qualia,” StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy (2015); https://plato.stanford. edu/entries/qualia/ (accessed6/28/2017).

70.OwenFlanaganandGreggD.Caruso, “Neuroexistentialism:Third-WaveExistentialism,” in Neuroexistentialism:Meaning,Morals,andPurposeintheAgeofNeuroscience, eds.Gregg D.CarusoandOwenFlanagan(Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress,2018),1–22,at9.

71.MarcusAureliusandGregoryHays,tr. Meditations. (NewYork:ModernLibrary,2002), book2.

72.FlanaganandCarusso, “Neuroexistentialism,” 2.

73.JohannAuerandJosephRatzinger, Eschatology:DeathandEternalLife:DogmaticTheology 9, tr.MichaelWaldstein(Wachington,DC:TheCatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,1988), 1450.

74.BarbaraMarxHubbard, “BringingGodHome,” HealingourPlanet;HealingOurSelves, ed. DawsonChurchandGeralynGendreau(SantaRosa,CA:EliteBooks,2005),9–18:10–11. God,closertomethanIamtomyself,mightcountasmyhigherself. “ButThouwert moreinwardtome,thanmymostinwardpart;andhigherthanmyhighest(Tuautem erasinteriorintimomeoetsuperiorsummomeo).” Augustine, Confessions, III:6:34.

75.DanJones, “TheFreeWillDelusion,” NewScientist 210:2808:32–35(16April2011),32.

76.FrancisCrick, TheAstonishingHypothesis:TheScientificSearchfortheSoul (NewYork: Scribner’s,1994),3.

77.JohnPuddefoot, “TheLastParochialism?ArtificialLife,IntelligenceandMind:SomeTheologicalIssues,” God,Life,IntelligenceandtheUniverse, eds.TerenceJ.Kelly,SJandHilary D.Regan(Adelaide:AustralianTheologicalForum,2002),111–140,at133.

78. “Thedevelopmentofasenseofselfreliesontheregulating,reliable,andfeltpresenceofthe other.” SerbernF.Fisher, NeurofeedbackintheTreatmentofDevelopmentalTrauma: CalmingtheFear-DrivenBrain (NewYork:W.W.Norton,2014),21.Thatothercouldbe God. “Becomingaselfnevertakesplacethroughmyagencyalone,norcanitevertake placewithoutme.IbecomethroughmyrelationshiptotheThou:asIbecomeI,Isay Thou.” MartinBuber, IandThou, tr.RonaldGregorSmith(NewYork:CharlesScribner’ s Sons,2nded,1958),11.Finally,anydoctrineoftheselfmustincludeperson-in-relationship.

79.Jennifer,Ouellette, Me,Myself,andWhy:SearchingfortheScienceofSelf.(NewYork: Penguin,2014),282.

80.PhilipClayton, “Science,Ethics,andFreeWill:WhyNeuroscienceDoesn’tGroundFreedom, andWhatWeMightResolvetoDoaboutIt,” What’swithFreeWill?,166–183,at177.

81.MichaelT.H.Wong, RicoeurandtheThirdDiscourseofthePerson (Lanham,MD:Lexington Books,2019),92.

82.MichaelFishbane, SacredAttunement:AJewishTheology (Chicago:UniversityofChicago Press,2008),17,author’sitalics.

83.PaulRicoeur, “NarrativeIdentity,” PhilosophyToday 35(1991),73–80.Gradually,Ricoeur’ s viewsadvancedfromnarrativeidentitytothereflexivestructureoflanguage,whereintheself seesitselfasitseestheother.Theselfseesitselfasaself,astheobjectofitsownself-reflective consciousness.PaulRicoeur, OneselfasAnother (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1992).Thissecondviewcomesclosertothephenomenalselfmodel,theSelfasExperiential Dimension.

84.Oneneurocentristphilosopherbiologizesnarrativeinterpretation. “Let’sfaceit.Wearebig animalswithbrainsthatcarryouteverysingleactionautomaticallyandoutsideourabilityto describehowitworks .Now,herecomesthegoodnews.Wehumanshavesomething calledthe interpreter locatedinourleftbrain,thatweavesastoryaboutwhywefeeland actthewaywedo.Thatbecomesournarrative.” MichaelS.Gazzaniga, “OnDeterminism andHumanResponsibility,” Neuroexistentialism,223–234,at223.Noselfexists,according toGazzaniga,butwecantellastoryaboutit.Gazzanigahasverballyshiftedagencyfrom whatweexperienceastheselftoapartofthebraincolorfullynamedthe interpreter;but hehasexplainednothingneurologicallyorphilosophically.Unlessonecanexplaintheinterpretingfunctionoftheleftsideofthebrain,thisamountstonothingmorethanmovingthe peafromoneshelltoanother.

85.AndreaVestrucci, TheologyasFreedom (Tübingen:MorhSiebeck,2019),296.

86.DanZahavi, SubjectivityandSelfhood:InvestigatingtheFirst-PersonPerspective (Cambridge, MA:MITPress,2008),106.

87.Thephenomenalselfshouldbethoughtofintermsoftheecology(⍰kologie)oftheentire body(Leib),accordingtoLünebergtheologianMarkusMühling,notmerelythebrain (Gehirn). “DerLeibmussdaherverstandenwerdenalsdasMediumderPersonalität.” MarkusMühling, Resonanzen:Neurobiologie,EvolutionundTheologie (Gőttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2016),78.

88.See:Hans-GeorgGadamer, TruthandMethod, tr.,JoelWeinsheimerandDonald G.Marshall(NewYork:Continuum,2nded.,1994),PartIII.

89.VitorWesthelle, EschatologyandSpace:TheLostDimensioninTheologyPastandPresent (NewYork:Palgrave,Macmillan, 2012),119.See:TedPeters, “BeatitudinalEschatology: InSpaceorTime?” Churrasco:ATheologicalFeastinHonorofVitorWesthelle, eds.Mary Philip,JohnArthurNunes,andCharlesM.Collier(Eugene,OR:PickwickPublications, 2013),29–37.

90.PaulTillich, SystematicTheology (3Volumes:Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1951–1963),1:169.

91.Ibid.,1:171.

92. “Ourthesisisthatwhilehumanreasonablenessandresponsibilitymaybeexplained(partially)bythecognitiveneurosciences,theycannotbeexplainedaway.” Murphyand Brown, DidMyNeuronsMakeMeDoIt?,2–3.

93.ReinholdNiebuhr, TheNatureandDestinyofMan, GiffordLectures(2Volumes:NewYork, Scribners,1941),1:208.

94.Ibid.,1:226.IfAI(ArtificialIntelligence)technologycontinuestoadvanceassomeforecastit will,activisttheologianswillneedtoincorporateAIculturesintotheirworldview. “Thereisno inprincipleobstaclethatIcanseetodevelopingcumulativeculture.Cultureisnomoremysteriousthanintelligence(perhapsitislessmysterious):ifintelligencecanbeinstantiatedby machines(andthereisnocompellingreasontothinkthatitcannotbe),theycaninstantiate culturetoo.Sodespitemydoubtsaboutthereachofintelligence,IdonotdoubtthatAIscan achieveintellectualmasteryequaltoourown.” NeilLevy, “TheEarthling’sSecretWeapon: CumulativeCultureandtheSingularity,” Science,ReligionandCulture 3:1(2016),19–30,at 25–26,Levy’sitalics; file:///C:/Users/Ted/Downloads/1468597863SRC_3_1_19-30%20 (3).pdf.CanweforecastthatrobotculturewouldexhibitthegroupselfishnessNiebuhrhas identified?

95.TheselfisinvitedbyGodtotranscenditselfeitherbyinvokingvirtueorbyservingtheneeds oftheneighborattheexpenseoftheself.SincetheLutheranReformation,thishascometobe knownas Christian freedom.Itstillobtainstoday. “Formantobecreatedintheimageof Godmeansthatheisfree.Nevertheless,heisnotfreeinhimself[ansich]butfreeforthe other freeforworshipoftheCreatorandfreeforotherpeople.” RodneyD.Holder, “ModernScienceandtheInterpretationofGenesis:CanWeLearnfromDietrichBonhoeffer?” TheologyandScience 6:2(2008),21–231,at218.Liberationinthepolitical,economic, andculturalsenseisaimednotat Christian freedombutratheratfreedomofthewill,atselfdetermination.

96.WolfhartPannenberg, AnthropologyinTheologicalPerspective, tr.,MatthewJ.O’Connell (Louisville:WestminsterJohnKnox,1985),527.

97.See:TedPeters, “Liberation,Law,andProlepticDignity,” LutheranTheologyandSecular Law:TheWorkoftheModernState, eds.RonDutyandMarieFailinger(London:Routledge, 2018),89–100;andTedPeters, “Dignity,” in EncyclopediaofScience,Technology,andEthics, ed.byCarlMitcham,(NewYork:Macmillan,Thomson,Gale,2005),2:528–530.

98. AntjeJackelén, GodisGreater:TheologyfortheWorld (Minneapolis:FortressPress,2020), 96.

99.IanG.Barbour, IssuesinScienceandReligion (NewYork:PrenticeHallandHarper,1966), 312.

DisclosureStatement

Nopotentialconflictofinterestwasreportedbytheauthor(s).

Notesoncontributor

TedPetersisco-editorof TheologyandScience. Visithiswebsite:TedsTimelyTake.com.