Playing God' and Invoking a

¶ … Playing God' and Invoking a Perspective" In his article "Playing God' and Invoking a Perspective," Allen Verhey examines not just the advisability of humans "playing God," but the essential meaning of the term itself. He opens his argument rather convincingly by demonstrating that there are several often contradictory ways in which this term can be understood. He cites Edmund Erde as saying that the term is meaningless unless it refers to a "single moral principle" (Verhey, 287) Verhey does not directly refute this claim of Erde's, though it is certainly refutable.

The concept of playing God is generally understood as changing the laws of nature (or God's will, depending on one's religious proclivities), and therefore does not need to refer to one single moral principle. However, Verhey's insistence that a clearer concept of the term's meaning is welcome and most useful.

Verhey clarifies his position further -- and further distances himself from Erde's statements, as well -- by saying "I hope to indicate that the phrase does not so much state a principle as invoke a perspective on the world...we must be attentive not only to specific moral problems...but also to the perspective from which we examine and evaluate these new powers and problems" (Verhey, 287).

With the quick rise in technologies, especially genetic engineering -- including cloning and stem cell research -- the issues of "playing God" are even more essential today than they were a generation or two ago. Verhey is suggesting that not only do these technological and social advancements require careful consideration, but also that the way we think about these things necessarily requires consideration as well.

Without such a self-examination, we would have no way of knowing how these changes have already begun to shape the way we think, and this could lead to subjective or erroneous conclusions about technology and the problems associated with playing God. Examining our perspective is essential before examining morality.

The first perspective from which Verhey examines the issue of playing God is based jointly on the fallout of Copernicus' discovery and description of the heliocentric solar system -- the fact that the Earth and other planets revolve around the sun -- and a Presidential Commission in 1982 that examined people's thoughts and attitudes towards "playing God." Before Copernicus made his discovery -- and for some time afterward -- it was believed that the Earth was at the center of the universe.

This was a religious belief even more than it was a scientific one, though early astronomical observations seemed to uphold this belief as well. The Presidential Commission uncovered similar beliefs concerning playing God as those that occurred during Copernicus' time (though not, thankfully, the same disbelief of a heliocentric solar system). These beliefs are a mixture of awe at human's capabilities mingled with a fear of unknown consequences (Verhey, 288).

Verhey goes on to detail how throughout the history of human thought and examination of the world around us, these fears have also been present. He cites no less an illustrious figure as Sir Francis Bacon as maintaining that knowledge must go hand in hand with wisdom if it is to be useful and properly applied to the world. There are other more pragmatic issues with the concept of playing God.

Chief among these is the question of whether or not God even exists, and if there is any overriding moral imperative on human behavior at all. Yet even those who question God's existence -- or at least his nature and attitude -- often warn against "playing God" themselves. Ramsey provides the prime example of this in Verhey's essay; for him, the term "playing God" referred more to an attitude or outlook on life that was becoming too typical of western society, a perspective where man was the ultimate creator.

The problem with this view, though Verhey does not explicitly state it, is that it implies that humans have the right to do whatever they are capable of doing. This does not mean that any individual has the right to do whatever they would like to any other individual, but rather that humanity as a whole can make its own decisions without impunity, which robs humanity of their dignity (Ramsey, qtd. In Verhey, 292).

Thisties directly back to Verhey's thesis that "the fundamental perspective from which we interpret our responsibilities is critically important to seeing what those responsibilities are" (Verhey, 292). Even without surety of a God or other overriding moral imperative, the perspective that neither of these things does or even can exist is a dangerous one.

In this sense, the concept of "playing God" actually refers to a perspective -- a healthy one, according to the author (and with which it is difficult to disagree) of caution and hesitancy in performing all the we as a species are capable of. That is, the mere usage of the phrase "playing God" reflects a belief in a greater responsibility that we bear to the world, and such an attitude cannot be but a decent check on advancement.

Verhey takes a much more definitive stance regarding his next perspective on what it means to play God. He reflects on what it would mean to "playfully cast ourselves in the role of the creator," speaking explicitly about a Judeo-Christian view of God, and even referring specifically to the stories of the Bible (Verhey, 293). With this view in mind, Verhey insists that "human beings are created and called to exercise dominion over the world" (Verhey, 293). He therefore concludes that human creativity can extend to its full reaches without worry.

This argument is more than a little disingenuous, and not only for its use of a very selective dogma and its feigned ignorance of the broader social meaning of "playing God" which Verhey has already demonstrated knowledge and a very thorough understanding of earlier in the essay. These, it is true, are the major flaws of his argument in this passage, but one could even stoop to his level to question his reasoning. Man is called into creation in Genesis; shortly after, God forbids Adam and Eve to eat.