Are Humans Simply Machines?

Further considerations on man versus non-man:

The other day I wrote a piece asking whether humans are simply animals, end of story. As a Christian I of course argued that humans are much more than mere animals. Knowing that people are made in God’s image, the biblical theist takes a radically different stance on this issue than the materialists and the atheists. See that piece here: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2026/08/28/are-humans-simply-animals/

But another challenge still must be dealt with. In this age of AI, transhumanism, and various new technologies, we must also answer the claim made by some that we are really just machines. For centuries now those pushing philosophical naturalism and determinism and anti-supernaturalism have insisted that humans are nothing but – nothing but animals, or nothing but soulless machines.

Thus somewhat earlier works looked at all this in depth, including various volumes by the British physicist and Christian Donald MacKay:
–Brains, Machines and Persons. Eerdmans, 1980.
–The Clockwork Image. IVP, 1974.
– Information, Mechanism, and Meaning. MIT Press, 1969.

Indeed, some years ago I posted a piece on anthropology and what it means to be human. While I need to post an updated version of that bibliography, it does give you a feel for the sorts of volumes we might want to consult: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2020/02/17/biblical-anthropology-a-readers-guide/  

But now we must add the rise of the transhumanists and those singing the praises of all things AI. It means we have another whole battlefront that needs to be faced. Plenty of books now exist that seek to challenge this worldview. In a recent article I listed 63 important volumes that warn about where we are headed with all this: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2026/08/29/the-threat-of-transhumanism-ai-and-the-new-digital-technologies/  

Let me mention and quote from just four of them:

Kingsnorth, Paul, Against the Machine: On the Unmaking of Humanity. Thesis, 2025.

You are a citizen of the 2020s. Device in hand, earbuds in, you wander the lanes of a strange world. You can make a trip to the shops without talking to another human being, but you cannot walk through a city without being filmed. You cannot walk on a beach without being filmed, for there are satellites now, so many satellites. You are never far from a screen, you cannot afford to be, and why would you want to? The screen gives. The screen has abolished time, distance, boredom, longing. Is anything you see on it real? But then, what is ‘reality’? Who decides? Do you find this notion oppressive, restricting? Then redefine it. Make anything real. Make everything new. Make yourself what you want to be. The app is available to download.

 

Robot bodies will soon fight wars, robot brushes make art, robot minds write sentences like this one. Babies will emerge from artificial wombs, their mothers finally freed to work and consume and play in order that they may be fully liberated. ‘Mother’ is such a problematic word; like ‘home’, like ‘body’, like ‘God.’ Soon the farmers will be gone and the food will be made, not grown, and it will be boundless and formless, like your culture, like your very being. There is no form now. Everything is fluid, it flows and rolls on and through. The past is dead and at the same time was never real. There is nothing to tether you. All the chains are broken.

 

There are codes to scan in order to access things which only yesterday you never knew you needed. Soon you will need to scan the codes to do anything at all. Soon your children will be taught STEM by an AI and they will laugh at its jokes. The algorithm will know them better than you do. Soon a number will determine if you are on a list of the Good People. Soon all the good things will be universal, accessible to all, through the power of the network. Progress, growth, kindness, openness, information. So much information… (pp. 298-299)

Marks, Robert, Non-Computable You: What You Do That Artificial Intelligence Never Will. Discovery Institute, 2022.

When discussing artificial intelligence, it’s crucial to define intelligence. … [C]omputers can store oceans of facts and correlations; but intelligence requires more than facts. True intelligence requires a host of analytic skills. It requires understanding; the ability to recognize humor, subtleties of meaning, and symbolism; and the ability to recognize and disentangle ambiguities. It requires creativity. Artificial intelligence has done many remarkable things, some of which we’ll discuss in this book. AI has largely replaced travel agents, tollbooth attendants, and mapmakers. But will AI ever replace attorneys, physicians, military strategists, and design engineers, among others?

 

The answer is no. And the reason is that as impressive as artificial intelligence is—and make no mistake, it is fantastically impressive—it doesn’t hold a candle to human intelligence. It doesn’t hold a candle to you. And it never will. How do we know? The answer can be stated in a single four-syllable word that needs unpacking before we can contemplate the non-computable you. That word is algorithm. If not expressible as an algorithm, a task is not computable. (pp. 16-17)

He goes on to say this:

Humans can behave and respond non-algorithmically. You do so every day. For example, you perform a non-algorithmic task when you bite into a lemon. The lemon juice squirts onto your tongue and you wince at the sour flavor. Now, consider this: Can you fully convey your experience to a man who was born with no sense of taste or smell? No. You cannot. The goal is not a description of the lemon-biting experience, but its duplication. The lemon’s chemicals and the mechanics of the bite can be described to the man, but the true experience of the lemon taste and aroma cannot be conveyed to someone without the necessary senses. If biting into a lemon cannot be explained to a man without all his functioning senses, it certainly can’t be duplicated in an experiential way by AI using computer software. Like the man born with no sense of taste or smell, machines do not possess qualia—experientially sensory perceptions such as pain, taste, and smell. Qualia are a simple example of the many human attributes that escape algorithmic description. If you can’t formulate an algorithm explaining your lemon-biting experience, you can’t write software to duplicate the experience in the computer….

 

There are other human characteristics that cannot be duplicated by AI. Emotions such as love, compassion, empathy, sadness, and happiness cannot be duplicated. Nor can traits such as understanding, creativity, sentience, and consciousness. Or can they? Extreme AI champions argue that qualia, and indeed all human traits, will someday be duplicated by AI. They insist that while we’re not there yet, the current development of AI indicates we will be there soon. These proponents are appealing to the Software of the Gaps, a secular cousin of the God of the Gaps. Machine intelligence, they claim, will someday have the proper code to duplicate all human attributes. Impersonate, perhaps. But experience, no.

 

AI will never be creative or have understanding. Machines may mimic certain other human traits but will never duplicate them. AI can be programmed only to simulate love, compassion, and understanding. (pp. 18-19)

And again:

Computers are a tool. A bulldozer moves dirt more efficiently than a shovel. Calculators multiply faster than me. And I am unable to outrun the simple scooter. Bulldozers, calculators, and scooters are tools. Computers are likewise but a tool. Like any tool, computers amplify human abilities.

 

As we have seen in this book, AI can be written to mimic many human traits, but there are some human characteristics outside the reach of AI. Emotions that make us human will never be duplicated by a machine. These include compassion, love, empathy, elation, sadness, fear, anger, disgust, pleasure, pride, excitement, embarrassment, regret, jealousy, grief, hope, and faith. Properly defined, creativity, sentience, and understanding are also on the list. These and other non-algorithmic traits are evidence of non-computable you.

 

Non-computable you are fearfully and wonderfully made. (pp. 353-354)

Trepp, Simon Christian, Servants of the Machine: AI and the Abdication of Human Responsibility. Quaternity, 2026.

Freedom is not neat. Agency is not optimal. Responsibility is heavy. It demands time, doubt, and sometimes conflict. Abdication is easy. Agency is hard. It is far more comfortable to say, “I was just following the algorithm” than to say, “I chose this, and I stand behind it.”

 

The modern world is built to make that discomfort feel unnecessary. It offers us endless ways to avoid being the one who decides.

 

But the discomfort is the price of a morally meaningful life. A decision that could not have been otherwise, because the system ordained it, carries no moral weight. A decision in which a person struggled, weighed values, and took a stance becomes part of their moral story. It may be wrong. It is still human. It can be owned. It can be repaired. It can be answered for.

 

A machine cannot do that. A machine cannot feel remorse. A machine cannot atone. A machine cannot be reconciled with. A machine cannot stand in front of another person and say, without abstraction, “I did this”.

 

Only a person can. (p. 109)

Wiley, C. R., Manmade: Saint Anthony’s Guide to Surviving the AI Apocalypse. Canon Press, 2026.

This book was written with the modest goal of preserving your humanity. I don’t think that I can help you keep your job or preserve your privacy. The techno-logical Singularity is here, the second is already gone, and the first is questionable. Artificial intelligence, robots, nanotech, biotech, and who knows what else are developing rapidly, and the effects are pervasive. Anything I say regarding these things will likely be out of date by the time this book is published. But remaining human—that’s something we can all strive for. It’s also something I know a little about, enough to fill a short book anyway. Unlike last year’s bright new thing, what I have to say might have some shelf life and be worth reading years from now.

 

Assuming people still read, that is. Maybe what I have to say will find its way into whatever replaces reading. But if reading goes obsolete, I’m unsure why anyone would bother looking into what I have to say. The battle will already have been lost. Perhaps this book will help keep reading alive though, and keep a few humans around. If so, you might be part of the reason why. Here’s hoping. (pp. 1-2)

[1733 words]