Playing God and the Ethics of Divine Names – Qaiser Shahzad
The notion of “playing God” frequently comes to the fore in discussions of bioethics, especially in religious contexts. The phrase has always been analyzed and discussed from Christian and secular standpoints.
Two interpretations exist in the literature.
The first takes “God” seriously and “playing” playfully. It argues that this concept does not state a principle but rather invokes a perspective on the world.
The second takes both terms playfully.
In the Islamic intellectual tradition, the Sufi concept of “adopting divine character traits” provides a legitimate paradigm for “playing God.” This paradigm is interesting because here we take both terms—”God” and “playing”—seriously. It is significant for the development of biomedical ethics in contemporary Islamic societies, as it can open new vistas for viewing biotechnological developments.
Inspiration and Context
The inspiration for the present work comes from an article by Professor Allen Verhey that he contributed to the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy’s special issue devoted to “playing God.”
Professor Verhey took his position against the Report of the President’s Commission on Splicing Life.
The authors of that report understood the phrase “playing God” in a manner that took both terms playfully. They maintained, on the one hand, that the formula had nothing to do with God and, on the other, that there was nothing very playful about it either.
They asserted that it rather expresses a sense of awe in the face of the latest human achievements in these fields. Hence, when somebody responds to a new invention or technology by referring to it as “playing God,” he or she, according to this opinion, is only expressing an emotion and is not implying that some ethical principle has been violated.
Criticizing this position, Professor Verhey took the word “God” seriously and “playing” playfully.
