Technological Threats to Human Nature (Part 1)
Keith D. Stanglin
A version of this series of blog posts was given at the 2026 Harding Lectureship.
Before I consider technologies that threaten our human nature, let me briefly state my assumptions about human nature, that it can be diminished, and how. Anthropology is perhaps the central theological question of our day, and it is my primary concern in this series of posts. A properly theological anthropology is founded on the doctrine of human beings created in the image and likeness of God. Genesis 1-2 is the locus classicus. Psalm 8, the earliest commentary on Genesis 1-2, provides an apt summary: God has made man “a little lower than the gods.”
The creation stories imply several features of that image. We have intellect, will, affections, consciousness, conscience, powers of moral and spiritual activity, a sense of the divinity. We are made to co-reign with God over creation, to co-create and procreate, to be holy. We are made to be relational—in relationship with God, with each other, and with creation. The image of God (imago Dei) is the basis of universal human rights. And Jesus Christ is the true image of God, the image to which we are to be conformed.
Note the importance of telos, the goal or final cause of humanity, the purpose or end of creation. God made us to love and to be loved. “To glorify God and to enjoy him forever” (Westminster Shorter Catechism). To be as he made us to be—in his image and likeness—and therefore to be and do those things that are unique to the imago Dei (image of God), especially, holy love. Eternal communion and union with God is God’s intent for humanity. All this is the end for which we were created.
Given that the image of God is not a static reality but something dynamic to which we are to be conformed “from glory to glory” (2 Cor. 3:18), and that we can grow into the mature image of God, the fullness of Christ, then it suggests that the image of God also can be diminished in us, which is another way of saying, our humanity or human nature can be at risk. What are the main threats to our humanity today?
1) Sin. The Bible spells this out plainly. Romans 1 describes the spiral of sin and ignorance, which leads to more sin, and then more ignorance. Sin affects every part of the imago Dei. Irenaeus says that God created us to learn the lesson of good and evil. If, after acquiring the knowledge of good and evil, a person continues in the way of death, if he basically ignores the lesson to be learned, then “he unawares kills the human.” Impenitent sin destroys our human nature, diminishes the imago Dei.
2) A second threat is non-Christian anthropology and all its implications. Atheism’s central metaphysic—philosophical materialism or naturalism—claims that there is nothing more or other than matter in the universe, including human beings. Many are the implications of such a way of thinking. It boils down to: there’s no such thing as human nature.
These are threats to our humanity because they threaten to diminish the characteristics of the image of God in us.
3) I want to suggest a third threat: Certain technologies. Not all technologies are created equal. I’m not including all technologies. A spoon, that whiteboard in my office, and the like, are technologies. They could be used to harm someone, but you would have to be very creative to do so. The spoon and whiteboard have not become addictive. They have not isolated people or caused people to fall into depression or kill themselves. But today’s digital media and technology have done all those things.
The technologies that threaten our humanity are the ones that threaten those essential characteristics of the imago Dei. I submit for consideration: These are the technologies that we should be most concerned about. Especially when certain technologies are combined with one or both of the other identified threats. That is, 1) when technology is wielded by sinners for sin, including pride, the lust for power, the lust of the eyes, and the love of money. And 2) when technology is wielded by people who have no belief in human nature as such, who think humans are nothing more or other than mere matter to be manipulated and controlled, like so many other natural wonders and phenomena that we seek to master and utilize.
So, to be clear, if our telos is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, then the image of God in us is a reflection of that purpose, and the qualities we identified as aspects of that imago Dei are means to that end. As the image of God, we possess and are to use those qualities in God-glorifying ways—our God-given intellect and affections, our moral conscience, the sense of divinity, our capacity to procreate and co-create (that is, to work and produce), and to be in meaningful relationship. These aspects help us toward our ultimate telos. We glorify and enjoy God by means of our affections, our capacity to love, our attraction to the good, true, and beautiful, and so on.
Do digital technologies, overall, help develop these characteristics of God’s image in us, or do they diminish them? Think of the digital media or technologies you use most? Do they sharpen your intellect and make you wiser, or do they attenuate brain function? Do they help you cultivate the virtues of faith, hope, and love, prudence, temperance, courage, and justice, or do they instill doubt and despair, and increase hatred and anger, folly, and extremes? Do these technologies make you more creative and productive and want to work harder and pay more attention, or do they encourage laziness and outsourcing of our creative capacities? Do they encourage meaningful relationship and embodied, face-to-face connections, or do they enable isolation, distracting us from the people around us while multiplying our “friendships” that are a mile wide and an inch deep?
I think we know the answers to all of these questions.
If the image of God can be diminished in us, if our thoughts, words, and behaviors, influenced by our environment and circumstances, can chip away at what it means for us to be human, then we should be wary of the technologies that contribute to that process. They are threats, and should be regarded and treated as such. That doesn’t mean we can never use them. It means we should regard these technologies less like a spoon or a whiteboard (which is how we tend to embrace and use them—as if they are harmless) and more like a knife or a gun (very specific uses, but very harmful in the wrong hands and with no restraint). One should have some training, maybe a license. The stakes are too high for individuals to learn by trial and error.
As a society, we have a very unhealthy relationship to digital technology. We are trained to be technophiles. Which means, among other things, that we ignore or minimize the negatives. In Neil Postman’s judgment, to embrace technologies with no questions asked is a “form of stupidity.”
In the past, we experienced technological change in the manner of sleep-walkers. Our unspoken slogan has been “technology über alles,” and we have been willing to shape our lives to fit the requirements of technology, not the requirements of culture. This is a form of stupidity, especially in an age of vast technological change. We need to proceed with our eyes wide open so that we many use technology rather than be used by it.
Instead, we need to remember something our society has forgotten—every technology has a downside. As Neil Postman says, every technology undoes something, and what it undoes might be a good thing.
Going a bit further, I have surveyed ancient stories of technology and found three recurring themes worth considering (all three of which can be found in Postman). 1) Technology always comes with negative consequences, 2) the inventors and the people closest to the technology have the hardest time seeing or foreseeing those negative effects, and 3) they and the people in charge have incentive to ignore or suppress those results, for they have the most to gain or lose. (“Social media’s not harmful,” said all the social media companies.) For this reason, Technopoly is mostly a top-down enterprise.
These truths are all evident in the advent of Artificial Intelligence (AI). On April 16, 2025, a Quinnipiac Poll reported that, in their “day-to-day life,” 44% of Americans “think AI will do more harm than good, while 38% think AI will do more good than harm.” (18% didn’t offer an opinion.) In the same month, Pew Research released its results on how Americans view AI, the general public vis-à-vis “AI experts.” Only 17% of the general population of American adults think that the impact of AI on the U.S. over the next 20 years will be “positive.” But when so-called “AI experts” were asked, 56% think the impact of AI will be positive.
First, this tells us that the gut instinct of the general population is suspicion of AI. Second, as noted, the experts and those closest to a technology have almost always underestimated its negative effects. It is no different with the AI experts. The evaluation of technology should not be left to the innovators, inventors, and corporate executives who stand to profit most. It should be a question for the moral philosopher and, after that, for the people whose lives it will change.
So let’s talk about Artificial Intelligence. I am not primarily talking about AI in STEM and business applications. I am unqualified to comment on the usefulness and negative consequences of AI, say, in medical imaging and diagnosis, or with spreadsheets and number crunching. I suppose it could be an overall good in such areas, though that’s debatable, given the cumulative negative effects of the entire package.
For our purposes, when I say AI, I mean especially Large Language Models—what most people mean by AI; generative AI chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and others. They produce text, but also images, audio, and videos. What are we to make of this AI and its common use? I offer the following evaluation in the second half of 2026—four years after its public release in 2022, many months after AI has become ubiquitous, used by, it seems, everyone tasked with producing content involving words, text, images, audio, and video. Shall we use it?
Let me frame the question a little more personally: Shall I use it? Much of what I do on a daily basis is what AI can also do. I spend the majority of my work hours producing content: planning Bible classes, writing sermons, writing lectures, writing articles, writing blog posts, writing emails and letters, editing everything that goes out from CCS, not to mention producing videos (writing, filming, editing, and finding music and images) and a podcast. I am told that AI can help with all this or just do it all. I hear of individuals, all the time, who use AI for each of the activities I just mentioned. And it’s tempting. Do you know how hard it is simply to compose this series of posts? (Some of you readers may.) It takes hours, based on years, the product of a lifetime of reflection.
So, shall I use AI?
I shall not use it. I have not touched the stuff in these four years, nor shall I touch it. Now, I understand that some AI use verges on the involuntary. Google searches, Gmail summaries, and so on, all allege to use AI now. I mean, I do not intentionally download or summon AI to do anything for me. Let me tell you why. And IF my personal reasons are unpersuasive to you, or my situation does not fit yours, that’s fine. I do not judge those who use it to crunch numbers on spreadsheets or to proofread their writing. I know that some people are more or less forced to use it in their jobs. But, if your situation bears any similarity to mine, then I hope that what I say will stir your own thoughts about this important topic and help you think twice about your own engagement with AI, in your work, in your leisure, and in the church.
First, let me suggest what is not one of my reasons, though it’s one we hear often. “It doesn’t work very well.” That may be a good reason not to use it now. It’s stupid. It hallucinates. “AI slop.” And so on. But it will keep getting better. If it doesn’t already, it will do much of what you do, as well as you do it.
What are some of the negative consequences of using AI? Think about it, and stay tuned for Part 2.
The Journal of Christian Studies volume 5, issue 1, "Artificial Intelligence and the Church," is now available through Amazon as a stand-alone published book. If you're not yet a subscriber to JCS, why not? Subscribe here. And if you'd like to get gift copies of this important issue for friends with this fun (and perhaps thought provoking) cover, order from Amazon today!
