Theology and Science

ISSN: 1474-6700 (Print) 1474-6719 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtas20

Playing God with Frankenstein

Ted Peters

To cite this article: Ted Peters (2018) Playing God with Frankenstein, Theology and Science,
16:2, 145-150, DOI: 10.1080/14746700.2018.1455264

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2018.1455264

Published online: 02 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 838

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtas20
THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE, 2018
VOL. 16, NO. 2, 145–150
https://doi.org/10.1080/14746700.2018.1455264

EDITORIAL

Playing God with Frankenstein

This year, 2018, marks the 200th anniversary of the first edition of Mary Shelley’s book, Fran-
kenstein, The Modern Prometheus. Because the novel resonates with the vibrations of the
ancient Greek myth, it still twangs our sensibilities even in our demythicized and scientized
modern world. “Frankenstein lives on,” writes Netherlands philosopher Henk van den Belt
in Science magazine.1
Whenever your ears pick up alarming words such as hubris, or playing god, or Frankenstein,
you know that the myth of Prometheus is being signaled. When “the masters of science sought
immortality and power,” warned Mary Shelley, an uncontrollably violent monster was threaten-
ing.2 Today’s Prometheus wears a white lab coat, sometimes experiments with living creatures,
and plans for the future (pro-mathein means to think ahead). Today’s threatening monsters
come in the form of environmental degradation, climate change, engineering tomatoes with
fish genes, genetically engineering the highly lethal H5N1 influenza, cloning Dolly the Sheep,
transplanting pig organs into humans, and global nuclear war. These worries are affectionately
known as Frankenfears. Are such fears realistic? Or, are they excessive, perhaps even paranoid?
My answer is this: even though there is no sacred nature to retaliate against science, concerns are
realistic when the risk of poor human judgment is not accompanied by foresight and cautionary
planning.

The Lessons of Prometheus and Frankenstein

Returning briefly to ancient Greek writers such as Hesiod and Aeschylus, the Titan Prometheus
did two things worth recalling. First, Prometheus created the human race, forming our ancestors
out of clay. Second, he stole fire from the sun and gave fire to us creatures living on an otherwise
dark and damp Earth. Prometheus’ gift of fire led to human advance in writing, mathematics,
agriculture, medicine, and science. But this theft violated the sanctity of the heavens overseen
by the Olympian god, Zeus. In anger, Zeus retaliated by chaining Prometheus to a rock. The
imprisoned Prometheus helplessly endured the indignity and pain of having an eagle, the
symbol of Zeus, daily eat his liver. For trespassing against the sanctity of the divine realm, Pro-
metheus was punished by the gods.
As the legacy of the ancient myth winds its way through the centuries of historical trans-
mission (Wirkungsgeschichte, Űberlieferungsgeschichte), we today associate Prometheus with
hubris, pride, overstepping our limits, crossing into forbidden territory, and violating the
sacred. The antidote to Promethean recklessness is humility, caution, and sound judgment.
Sometimes when we fear Promethean overreach, we put up an ethical stop sign that reads,
“Thou shalt not play god.”
Victor Frankenstein’s sin was to play god, to attempt to create life out of non-life. “Life and
death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of
light into our dark world. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many
happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.”3 The scientist in this story tried to
apotheosize himself by creating, like Prometheus did, his own living creature who would laud
him as divine. But, says author Shelley, this action violated what was sacred and the sacred,
like Zeus, retaliated by letting loose a monster on the world.
© 2018 Graduate Theological Union (CTNS Program)
146 T. PETERS

The monster and Victor Frankenstein argued over the imago Dei, the image of God
twice removed. The lonely creature confronted his maker. “Cursed creator! Why did you
form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust? God in pity made
man beautiful and alluring, after his own image; but my form is a filthy type of yours,
more horrid from its very resemblance. Satan had his companions, fellow-devils to
admire and encourage him; but I am solitary and detested.”4 Neither the creature would
have suffered loneliness nor the neighbors suffered havoc had Victor Frankenstein not
played god.
To accuse our scientists today of “playing god,” is to accuse them of violating the sacred.
But, what is sacred? No modern person believes in Zeus any more. So, Mount Olympus
cannot establish the sacred. What about the biblical God? This myth is not biblical.
Nothing in the Bible forbids scientific advance into the sacred. The commandment against
playing god is not biblical. So, what counts as the violated sacred? Here is the answer:
nature. In the modern world nature has replaced Zeus as the sacred. To violate nature is to
risk nature’s retaliation, to risk letting a monster loose on the world.

Playing God with the Human Genome

The myth of Prometheus in its Frankenstein form belongs to the rhetoric surrounding genetic
research, especially genetic engineering for enhancement.5 Here is how Michal Sandel writing
in the Atlantic Monthly alerts us to the threat of unregulated genetic enhancement.
I do not think the main problem with enhancement and genetic engineering is that they
undermine effort and erode human agency. The deeper danger is that they represent a
kind of hyperagency—a Promethean aspiration to remake nature, including human
nature, to serve our purposes and satisfy our desires … .And what the drive to mastery
misses and may even destroy is an appreciation of the gifted character of human powers
and achievements.6
Rather than alter nature through science and technology, argues Sandel, we should pause to
accept the gifted character of our existence.
In contrast, note how Lee Silver justifies playing god with the human genome.
If one believes that God has indeed granted this responsibility to humans, then it would seem
that we have at least a prima facie moral obligation to alter our genetic makeup for thera-
peutic ends. Such acts in this latter view, then, would not be improper acts of “playing
God”; rather, they represent the rightful taking up of our responsibility for the goods of
life and health.7
In short, employing gene editing for the purpose of enhancing human health—enhancing
human capacities too?—does not violate the sacred and should not be condemned as
“playing god.”8
Sandel fears playing god, while Silver welcomes it. What is at stake, according to Leon Kass,
former chair of the U.S. President’s Council on Bioethics, is our existential acceptance of our
given nature. Rather than play god, we should accept what it means to be human, he argues.
Death is part of what makes us human beings natural.
The inevitability of aging, and with it the specter of dying, has always haunted human life;
and the desire to overcome age, and even to defy death, has long been a human dream
… .Our subjection to death—and our awareness of this fact—is central to what makes us
human (mortals) rather than divine, and it makes us fearful and weak and constrained.9
 THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE 147

Rather than flail and fail at prolonging life or even eliminating death, advises Kass with con-
siderable pastoral sensitivity, we are more likely to experience contentment and fulfillment by
appreciating the gift of life as we have inherited it. In short, put up a stop sign to prevent new
Frankensteins from playing god.

Synthetic Biology and the Transhumanist Impulse

Synthetic biology—rearranging existing genomes or even creating life from pre-biotic chem-
istry—looks a bit like Shelley’s Frankenstein shocking his inanimate monster to life. “Synthetic
biology,” observes Henk van den Belt, “shifts or blurs the boundaries between matter and
information, life and non-life, nature and artifact, organic and inorganic, Creator and creature,
the evolved and the designed … researchers are quickly accused of playing God or of treading
in Frankenstein’s footsteps.”10
Does the notorious Craig Venter, Promethean champion of human genomics and synthetic
life, show trepidation? Not a tinge. Venter is known for, among other triumphs, Frankencell, a
cell he created with the smallest possible number of essential genes. Here is Venter’s assess-
ment of Mary Shelley.
I think she’s [Mary Shelley] had more influence with that one book than most authors in
history … .It affects a lot of people’s thinking and fear because it represents this fundamental
“You don’t mess with Mother Nature and you don’t mess with life because God will strike
you down” … .Obviously, I don’t buy into that theme.11
Like Venter, transhumanists are not intimidated by the proscription against playing god. The
transhumanists among us plan to employ genetic engineering along with digital enhancement
of human intelligence to advance human evolution to its next stage, to a posthuman species.
“Current humanity need not be the endpoint of evolution,” claims Nick Bostrom at Oxford.12
Prometheus and Frankenstein should simply get out of the way when the transhumanist
marches by.
From Prometheus to Frankenstein, the myth of punishment for challenge to the Gods derives
always from the same cause: the stoical acceptance of human limitations deemed impossible
to overcome—and the cowardly fear of the unknown … .Let us reject irrational hubraphobia
and seek to improve our minds and bodies in any way we can.13
No stop sign ethics here.
The transhumanist confidence in the advance of technology draws upon a utopian vision, a
vision of future human fulfillment or even posthuman fulfillment in a kingdom where rational
intelligence has transcended its previous biological imprisonment. The information pattern
which is our mind will be transferred from biological brains to computer substrates or even
the cloud, escaping the vicissitudes of bodily disease, deterioration, and death. We will
become Homo cyberneticus. Not only as individuals but also as a social community and
even as a cosmic community we will experience ecstatic human flourishing, the abundant
life which previous religious visionaries could only dream of. “Let us cast aside cowardice
and seize the torch of Prometheus with both hands.”14
Such Prometheanism may be excessive, unrealistic, overly ambitious. This brand of
transhumanism seems to cast wisdom and caution to the wind. Most transhumanists, in
contrast, are quite willing to program caution into their projections. AI (Artificial Intelli-
gence) and IA (Intelligence Amplification) provide an example. One could imagine a scen-
ario where intelligent robots might organize to wipe out the human race that created them.
Robots could simply raise the temperature by 100 degrees or lower it by the same amount.
148 T. PETERS

As post-biotic machines, they would survive unaffected, while we biological creatures would
perish. Future planners must exercise foresight and take preventive measures in advance, so
that this scenario cannot play out. Such caution by no means warrants putting up a stop
sign to prevent progress, however. “I think Frankenstein illustrates the point beautifully,”
remarks Max Tegmak at MIT and co-founder of a think tank, the Future of Life Institute
(FLI).15
If the transhumanist utopia is unrealistic, this should breed caution rather than fear of the
sacred. The Precautionary Principle (PP) aids us here.
When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary
measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established
scientifically. In this context the proponent of the process or product, rather than the public,
should bear the burden of proof.16
On the frontier of gene editing, for example, the burden of proof belongs to the researchers.
The PP provides a mandate that looks like this: proceed, but do not yet place any human
beings in peril.17

Conclusion
We should note that, in the secularization of the ancient Promethean myth, nature has
replaced Zeus as the determiner of what is sacred. Whether Zeus or nature, many
believe that the mandate of this myth is to restrain human scientific or technological
intervention from trespassing into the domain of the sacred. That sacred for modern civi-
lization is nature. Trespassing nature’s sacred domain will result in retaliation, in mon-
strous violence, we are warned. So goes the logic of the commandment, “Thou shalt not
play god.”
We should note also that the Promethean myth and its Frankenfear interpretation are
pagan, not biblical. There is no biblical counterpart to Zeus who sets the sacred off with a
no-trespassing sign. In Scripture, the creator God alone is the holy one, not the creation.
Nothing in creation is holy, sacred, or off-limits to human presence. At least this is the case
for Protestants, according to theologian Ingolf Dalferth.
In the Protestant understanding of Christian faith, there is no theologically relevant distinc-
tion between sacred and profane, religious and non-religious, holy and secular, and clergy
and laity. Rather, everything in the world is to be judged in the light of the decisive difference
between God and the world, creator and creation, the one who is and everything else that
might not have been. No area of life and thought is intrinsically more “sacred” or “religious”
than any other.18
According to this theological judgment, there is no warrant for putting up a stop sign to
protect nature from science.
With nothing in the created order that is off-limits, we can calm Frankenfear, at least
calm dread in the form of fearing the sacred. If nature retaliates against the human race,
it will be due to poor human judgment. It will not be due to something sacred being
violated.
In sum, Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein tells our generation to embrace caution, prudence, and
sound judgment. The novel tells us to monitor and care for the products of our innovation well
into the future, to anticipate problems and to avoid harms. Once we create a new technology,
we should not turn our backs on it and leave it alone.
 THEOLOGY AND SCIENCE 149

Having sharply distinguished between the pagan myth and the biblical God, nevertheless,
we should also see how these two traditions share something in common. There is wisdom in
the Promethean myth that is shared with Scripture. Proverbs 16:18: “Pride goes before destruc-
tion, and a haughty spirit before a fall.” Pride, hubris, overstepping, hasty innovation, and a
reckless conquering spirit risk creating a monster we will regret.

Notes
1. Henk van den Belt, “Frankenstein Lives On,” Science 359:6372 (January 12, 2018), 137.
2. Mary Shelley, Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus (New York: Pocket Books, 1818, 2004),
43.
3. Ibid., 51.
4. Ibid., 154.
5. For an extensive discussion see: Ted Peters, Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human
Freedom (London: Routledge, 2nd ed., 2003), and Ted Peters, “Should CRISPR Scientists Play
God?” Religions 8:61 (2017) doi:10.3390/rel18040061.
6. Michael J. Sandel, “What’s Wrong with Designer Children, Bionic Athletes, and Genetic
Engineering?” The Atlantic Monthly (April 2004), 5.
7. Lee M. Silver, “The Biotechnology of Culture Clash,” Science and Theology News 6:10 (June
2006), 10.
8. The Frankenstein version of the Promethean myth has arisen in respect to the use of
CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing.

There is no interest in an internationally binding treaty or convention among all of the

necessary Parties … .We have little choice but to trust CRISPR-Cas9 users and to know
that the catastrophic, doomsday scenarios that occur in the imaginations of science
fiction authors are so unlikely that they are nearly impossible.
Adam Gross, “Dr. Frankenstein, Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love CRISPR-
Cas9,” Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science & Technology 56:4 (Summer 2016), 413–
447; AN 119465505 (accessed October 20, 2017).
9. President’s Council on Bioethics, Beyond Therapy (2003). https://bioethicsarchive.
georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/beyondtherapy/fulldoc.html (accessed October 31, 2016).
10. Henk van den Belt, “Playing God in Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Synthetic Biology and the
Meaning of Life,” NanoEthics 3:3 (December 2009), 257–268, at 259.
11. Cited by Jon Cohen, “How a Horror Story Haunts Science,” Science 359:6372 (January 12,
2018), 148–151, at 150.
12. Nick Bostrom, “Transhumanist Values,” http://www.nickbostrom.com/ (accessed October 7,
2015).
13. Simon Young, Designer Evolution: A Transhumanist Manifesto (Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books, 2006), 50.
14. Ibid., 40.
15. Cited by Kai Kupferschmidt, “Taming the Monsters of Tomorrow,” Science 359:6372
(January 12, 2018), 152–155, at 152.
16. Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, 1998. http://www.gdrc.org/u-gov/
precaution-3.html (accessed December 15, 2016).
17. This is where I come down with two feet in the current discussion of CRISPR/Cas 9 gene
editing.

Ultimately, the issues are whether the beneficial uses of genome editing are adequately
safe and acceptable, whether regulatory oversight appropriately balances realistic risk
assessment with achievement of the anticipated benefits, and whether there are any
other factors that point towards promoting or impeding its use.
150 T. PETERS

Dana Carroll and Alta Charo, “The Societal Opportunity and Challenges of Genome
Editing,” Genome Biology 16 (2015), 242. doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0812-0; http://
godandhumangenetics-slc2017.org/sites/rms.clphost.com/files/carrollcharo_genomebiol_
2015.pdf (accessed September 30, 2017).
18. Ingolf U. Dalferth, “Post-secular Society: Christianity and the Dialectics of the Secular,”
Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78:2 (June 2010), 317–345, 338.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Ted Peters
Co-editor of Theology and Science
tedfpeters@gmail.com