Episodes

  • From Atheism to Religious Transhumanism

    From Atheism to Religious Transhumanism
    Oct 24 2024
    As popularly understood, Transhumanism is deeply entangled with narratives of atheism. While secular Transhumanists champion radical transformation, they tend to lack the rich esthetic grounding that many inherit or receive from religion. Religious Transhumanism, and particularly Mormon Transhumanism, provides a compelling alternative, syncretizing contemporary science and emerging technological trends with traditional theology and liturgy. In a recently published paper, “ From Atheism to Transhumanism,” Jarosław Jagiełło takes a critical look at secular Transhumanism. He argues that atheism facilitated the rise of Transhumanism. And he compares Transhumanism to historic Fascism and Communism. His perspective includes four major criticisms: Lack of Metaphysical Grounding: Jarosław considers Transhumanism, without God, to have a relatively weak metaphysical foundation, resulting in an “anthropological tragicism” of existential uncertainty. Risk of Totalitarian Control: Jarosław is concerned that Transhumanism may conceal impulses to use technology, without sufficient concern for ethics, to facilitate totalitarian control. Disregard for Human Imperfection: Jarosław perceives Transhumanism to have disdain for human imperfection, assessing aspects in our nature as flaws rather than features of our evolution. Dualistic Opposition of Body and Spirit: Jarosław thinks Transhumanism promotes a dualistic opposition of body and spirit, cultivating an imbalance away from holistic human wellness. Despite Jarosław’s careless general comparisons of Transhumanism to bogeyman ideologies, his specific criticisms have some merit. Some Transhumanists lack metaphysical grounding. Some, intentionally or unintentionally, do indeed advocate or engage in authoritarian applications of technology. And some have distorted views of human nature, denigrating our bodies or embracing incoherent aspirations of disembodiment. That said, it would be a gross over-generalization to say these criticisms apply to all or essentially all Transhumanists. Many Transhumanists actually propose and exemplify solutions to these problems. That includes some secular Transhumanists. And that includes pretty much all religious Transhumanists, particularly Mormon Transhumanists, who collectively embody a thorough rebuttal to Jarosław’s criticisms. Mormon Transhumanists strive to live and act according to an immersive faith in God. With Jesus, we would trust in, change toward, and fully immerse our bodies and minds in the role of Christ. And we would do this here and now, in this world, leveraging all the means, technological and otherwise, that the grace of God perpetually extends to us. I dare to contend that we have the strongest metaphysical foundation on Earth. Mormon Transhumanists reject any supposed “God” that would raise itself above all others, declaring itself “God.” As invited and exemplified by Jesus, we would become Gods and saviours with and for each other. Our fundamental ethical impulse is to console, heal, and raise each other together as joint heirs in the eternally decentralizing glory of God. We are the antithesis of totalitarianism. Mormon Transhumanists consider our bodies to be gifts from God, biological machines that empower our minds – our spirits. On the one hand, we revere the limitations of our bodies as educational opportunities, cultivating the virtues of courage, compassion, and creativity. On the other hand, we suppose the dissolution of our bodies in death would entail bondage from which resurrection would eventually free us. Our esteem for bodies, and their potential in holistic association with minds, is essentially as boundless as our theology. Whatever one may think of Transhumanism generally or secular Transhumanism particularly, and however much one may wish to ignore religious Transhumanism, Mormon Transhumanism stands as a luminous testament to the power of syncretizing technology with theology. This power transcends false dichotomies. It substantiates and expands. It transforms. And this power is not merely a curious possibility. This power is a necessity. Our time, racing toward existential threats and superintelligent enigmas, demands nothing less than everything from us – our whole minds, our full bodies, our entire souls. And no ideology that demands anything less will survive. Beyond presecular religiosity, beyond secular atheism, religious Transhumanism is the future. Mormon Transhumanism is coming into its time.
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute
  • 38 Thoughts on October 2024 General Conference

    38 Thoughts on October 2024 General Conference
    Oct 6 2024
    Yesterday and today, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the largest Mormon denomination, gathered for our General Conference. General Conference is a long-standing tradition, generally held two times per year since 1830. My understanding is that there have only been two or three exceptions, depending on how we count. There were no conferences in 1846 due to complexities associated with leaving Nauvoo. And there was only one of two conferences in 1957 because of a pandemic. For the last couple decades, it has also been a tradition for some Church members to share our thoughts and interact with each other during the conference via social media, particularly X (formerly Twitter). I have often participated in that. My participation has slowed down a bit, due in part to decreasing popularity of X. But, at least for now, I’m back with more. Thoughts on Conference Below is an edited list of the thoughts that I shared on X about the first day (Saturday) of October 2024 General Conference – more below about the absence of the second day. They include thoughtful affirmations and elaborations, as well as constructive criticisms. As always, my intent is to promote serious engagement with the ideas and experiences that Church leaders share during the conference. And I welcome your feedback and questions in the comments. The Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square is singing one of my favorite hymns, “ Press Forward Saints.” Elder Andersen encourages hope, reminding me of a favorite passage from the Book of Mormon: “whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world” ( Ether 12:4 ). This idea is particularly salient, if you understand the New God Argument. President Freeman claims that Church ordinances enable us to draw on the power of God. The non-religious will be skeptical. But they should reconsider. Science has repeatedly demonstrated that authority mediates placebo, which is quite real – and can be quite sublime. Elder Hirst emphasizes the love of Christ, that we should have for each other, a “love that has divinity in it.” This isn’t just the love of passive acceptance, but rather the love of our shared potential in Godhood. Elder Renlund seems to suggest that cultural syncretization between Christianity and other ideologies has been merely weakening. However, there’s good reason to suppose the value of syncretization has been more complex. Elder Homer advocates submission to the will to God. This can be problematic, too often interpreted in oppressive ways. If it’s interpreted as anything other than something like conforming to the image of Christ, run away. With Christ in you, submission is to your greater self. Elder Casillas asserts that God created you so that you may “realize your full potential.” This facilitates ethical interpretation of admonition toward submission. We must understand the will of God to be our full potential. Otherwise, submission is merely oppression. President Oaks rightly points out that constraints are essential to progress. Where there are no constraints, “progress” is incoherent. President Oaks cites from the Book of Mormon the “ doctrine of Christ ” – essentially, faith, repentance, and baptism. Notably, Jesus claims that anything more or less than this is not his doctrine. How often do we construe much more than this as doctrine? President Oaks encourages us to avoid contention, again citing Jesus from the Book of Mormon. Of course, he doesn’t mean that we need to avoid disagreement. Oaks regularly exemplifies non-contentious disagreement (sometimes even when I disagree with him). I’m enjoying the children’s choir, singing a song that I’ve never heard before. Beautiful and invigorating. Elder Christofferson says “I did it God’s way” is better than “I did it my way.” Obedience, as conforming to the image of Christ, has a practical place in the Gospel. But to love is better than to know is better than to obey. Elder Teixeira talks about the scriptural comparison of Church members to salt. It reminds me of this passage, which encourages us to become Christ with Jesus: “For they were set to be a light unto the world, and to be the saviors of men; And inasmuch as they are not the saviors of men, they are as salt that has lost its savor, and is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out and trodden under foot of men” ( D&C 103:9-10 ). Elder Villar advocates eternal perspective – eternal vision. I second that. No religion provokes a grander eternal perspective and vision than Mormonism. Elder Kearon welcomes members to “the church of joy.” This echoes Joseph Smith’s claim, “ happiness is the object of existence,” and the Book of Mormon’s claim, “ men are, that they might have joy.” This rightly positions the fundamental value proposition of Mormonism in esthetics. Elder Kearon encourages us to “praise and adore our God in a way that transforms us.” Transformation ...
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute
  • Miracle Optimization

    Miracle Optimization
    Sep 14 2024
    After reading my recent article on “ The Technological Conception,” a friend suggested to me that I might be leaving some value on the table, so to speak. His concern was, essentially, that my preference for simplicity might have led me to an insufficient explanation for real possibilities with greater overall practical value. In other words, God might occasionally have solid practical reason for miraculous conception rather than simple conception – still natural, but perhaps more technological than biological. My friend was right. There’s more to say about miracles, especially from a practical perspective. So let’s explore. What is a miracle? Some consider miracles to be interruptions of natural law by divine intervention – antinaturalism. But the Mormon Transhumanist perspective is steadfastly naturalist, richer and more nuanced, situating miracles as part of an expansive view of natural law and human potential. From this perspective, why might God perform or enable miracles? How and why might God optimize the frequency and magnitude of miracles? And how should we, in turn, optimize our perspectives on miracles? Defining Miracles Miracles can be literal – real physical events that defy our present ability to understand scientifically or replicate technologically. But they can also be figurative, representing spiritual or psychological transformation. Literal miracles might include actually healing the sick or really walking on water. Figurative miracles might include calming a storm as a metaphor for finding peace amidst suffering, or raising the dead as a metaphor for experiencing hope in times of despair. While it may be tempting to marginalize the value of figurative miracles, they have substantial power. For example, someone may find unexpected strength to forgive an enemy after contemplating the scriptural story of Jesus healing a man who was sent to arrest him. Such change provides psychological benefits, as well as social benefits when repeated at scale – many people experiencing similar change while contemplating the story. The capacity for forgiveness can mend relationships and create a ripple effect, promoting greater social cohesion. On the other hand, although it may be hard for some of us, we can esteem literal miracles as real natural events. Some secular persons have exemplified this. Notable among them is science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, who observed, “ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Just substitute “miracle” for “magic.” Mormon authorities have also exemplified the naturalistic approach to literal miracles. James Talmage claimed, “Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized.” Speaking of modern medicine, travel, and communications, Gordon B. Hinckley observed, “It is a miracle. The fruits of science have been manifest everywhere.” What about the historical Jesus of Nazareth? In the New Testament, even Jesus hints at what we might reasonably interpret as encouragement toward a mechanistic, and thereby naturalistic, approach to literal miracles. On one occasion, he applies mud and prescribes washing to heal blindness. And on another occasion, he comments regarding a particularly persistent demonic possession, “This kind can come out only by prayer.” Practical Consequences of Miracles What’s the point? When we hear about miracles, or experience what we esteem to be miraculous, why do we care? Why do scriptural stories about miracles attract so much attention, both fascination and derision? Are there potential detriments in addition to benefits? Of course, those who experience a miracle label the experience as “miracle” because we esteem the experience to be good, at least on the whole. We generally don’t use “miracle” to describe bad experience. We associate a greater purpose or perhaps superintelligent intention with an experience that is otherwise more difficult or less satisfying for us to explain, thereby reinforcing the experience with something of an enduring psychological boost. A potential downside to this is that it can cultivate an explanatory laziness, leading to antinaturalism. The scriptures use miracles, at least in part, to illustrate divine intervention and signify the presence of God in the world. Miracles communicate God’s concern and love for creation, moving theology away from a passive deism. Divine acts can motivate believers to follow the example of God, engaging actively in the world. But, as with direct experience of miracles, stories about miracles can lead some toward a passive antinaturalism that expects God to do everything and pacifies us against real action. Optimal Frequency and Magnitude Given the possibility space of practical consequence for us, miracles would also have practical consequence for God – for any superintelligence that may care about the future ...
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute
  • The Technological Conception

    The Technological Conception
    Sep 8 2024
    The scriptures say that Jesus was conceived by a virgin. Speculation on the biological mechanics of his birth leads us to the intersection of theology, linguistics, and even technological possibility. A friend asked me for my opinion on the topic. Here are my thoughts. First, let’s distinguish between the idea of a virgin birth and the “immaculate conception.” Among some Christians, “immaculate conception” refers not to their doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, but rather to their doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. This is important to them because they want to explain how Jesus could be free of sin while being conceived by Mary, who some might suppose inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. In Mormonism, this isn’t a salient concern because we have no doctrine of original sin, instead attributing sin exclusively to individual choices made by persons with ethical accountability – usually considered to be around age eight, which is also the typical time for baptism. In our modern technological world, the idea of a miraculous birth through divine intervention can seem less mystical when we consider advancements in reproductive technology. In vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, and even the potential for creating embryos using genetic material from two same-sex parents are illustrations that extraordinary births are technologically feasible. If we entertain the possibility of the existence of superintelligence with technology far superseding our own, whether we attribute divinity to them or not, it is entirely plausible that such beings could orchestrate biological conception without sexual intercourse – virgin birth. Early Mormon leaders suggested that Jesus was conceived through natural means. Here’s an example from Brigham Young, the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” ( Journal of Discourses 8:115 ) The most straightforward interpretation of these words seems to be that, according to Brigham, Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse. Presumably, although not explicitly, Brigham meant that God, who is embodied according to Mormon theology, was the the biological father. Some have suggested that, because Brigham doesn’t explicitly mention intercourse, the natural action could have been what we might recognize as reproductive technology. To me, that seems like an interpretive stretch, even if practically feasible. Some contend that any natural conception, whether by sexual intercourse or reproductive technology, would contradict scriptural accounts of virgin birth. However, a reasonable case can be made that the word “virgin” in English scripture may have been translated from words that simply refer to young women, rather than those who’ve never engaged in sexual intercourse. This would align ancient linguistics with natural possibilities, without any necessary diminishment of the sacredness of Mary’s role. After all, we need not be antinaturalists to recognize sanctity in motherhood. No matter how we approach the topic of Jesus’ conception, it merits ethical deliberation. Although ancient cultures had different moral frameworks, contemporary values emphasize autonomy and consent. In our framework, some of us find the story disturbing. And, depending on the specifics of various interpretations, I share in that feeling. However, the ancient authors actually seem to have observed and implicitly responded to such concerns, at least to some extent. For example, Jesus’ genealogies, as presented in scripture, suggest complex family dynamics, including instances of extramarital conception. Rahab, who was apparently a sex worker, and Bathsheba, whose relationship with King David began in scandal, are among those in the lineage of Jesus. The implication appears to be that morally complicated relationships can contribute to sacred events and sacred people. Personally, I lean toward the simplest explanation. Like Brigham, I imagine Jesus was conceived naturally – although probably devoid of extraterrestrial involvement, as some have speculated. Grounding the origin of Jesus within the natural human process strengthens his example for our lives. Worshiping through emulation a God with the same origin as us enriches the relationship with deeper accessibility. Embracing this view consolidates ontological and metaphysical speculations into an inspiring narrative of tangible progress and potential for all humanity. An approximation of this pragmatic value is expressed in a revelation from Joseph Smith: “[Jesus] received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus ...
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute
  • Beyond Disappointing Dreams of Sectarian Eschatology

    Beyond Disappointing Dreams of Sectarian Eschatology
    Sep 4 2024
    In the ever-evolving discourse around Transhumanism, Michael Baggot offers a thought-provoking critique of its relationship with religion. Michael is a professor of bioethics in Rome, Italy. His recent article about Transhumanism is entitled “ The Daring and Disappointing Dreams of Transhumanism’s Secular Eschatology.” Michael traces the roots of Transhumanism’s soteriology and eschatology, emphasizing how these secular hopes borrow heavily from Christianity – both orthodoxies and heresies, as he characterizes them. He criticizes the movement for its attempts to achieve human happiness and immortality through merely digital means, arguing that such endeavors sacrifice an appreciation for the relationship between the human body and spirit. In the end, Michael calls for a reorientation toward a Thomistic vision of theosis – divinization through divine grace – in contrast to what he perceives as the technocentric dreams of secular Transhumanism. Disagreements In his article, Michael expounds on several ideas and insights with which I agree – some quite enthusiastically. However, before getting to those, I must first point out an important way in which our perspectives diverge. There are other divergences. But one stands out above the others. Michael repeatedly characterizes Transhumanism too narrowly. The title of the article itself might reasonably be understood to imply that Transhumanism is inherently secular, which isn’t true. And while the article sometimes uses qualifiers such as “those transhumanists” to scope its criticisms, it more often generalizes. Consequently, Michael is actually critiquing only segments of Transhumanism while purporting to critique Transhumanism in general. Most unfortunately, Michael almost completely ignores religious Transhumanism. He does mention some religious figures, such as Federov and de Chardin, who were arguably proto-Transhumanists. But he doesn’t mention explicitly religious Transhumanism, such as Terasem, let alone Mormon Transhumanism or even Christian Transhumanism. Maybe he doesn’t know religious Transhumanism exists, although that seems unlikely because his article evidences extensive research. As I mentioned, Michael and I have perspectives that diverge in other ways. For example, he considers Pelagianism to be a heresy, while I have a more nuanced perspective on Pelagianism. And he seems inclined toward thinking of the soul as immaterial and heaven as supernatural, while I consider those positions to be escapist, and instead embrace materialism and naturalism. But these latter divergences affect my opinion of his work less than the former. Agreements Despite his over-generalization of a narrowly characterized Transhumanism, Michael’s article is insightful and worthy of consideration by Transhumanists. He identifies several common weaknesses among Transhumanists. And he advocates some Christian ideas that, if more broadly and thoroughly adopted by Transhumanists, would serve us well. Here are some areas where he and I appear to be in agreement: Misrecognized Religiosity: Michael observes that secular Transhumanism “frequently tends toward quasi-religious expression.” Indeed, while Transhumanism need not be religious, in practice many Transhumanists are engaged in misrecognized religiosity. Marginalized Embodiment: Michael shows that some Transhumanists have disregard or even disdain for embodiment. This is unfortunate practically, and incoherent rationally. Brain emulation (or “mind uploading”) can be perfectly consistent with reverence for the body. Excessive Hedonism: Michael claims that, when considering happiness and pleasure, some Transhumanists “conflate the two aspects of human experience.” Happiness, considered holistically, must indeed account for pleasure. But it must also rise to love. Impractical Atheism: Michael reasons that the combination of atheism with Transhumanism “seems to require more faith than the Christian version of salvation.” I agree, although for slightly different reasons. The New God Argument demonstrates the incoherence of atheist Transhumanism. Neglecting Grace: Michael observes that some Transhumanists neglect “humanity’s need for grace to overcome sin and grow in virtue.” I disagree with his account of the Pelagian “heresy.” But our reliance on power beyond ourselves is pervasive and persistent. And we should extend this grace. Welcome Longevity: Michael welcomes technology that has “extended today’s lifespan” and “could bring about even longer lengths of life.” I esteem such applications of technology as expressions of faith through action, as invited by Jesus Christ. Need Theosis: Michael proposes “the traditional doctrine of theosis can elevate desires for human transcendence” better than merely secular aspirations. I cannot overstate my agreement with this proposal. Theosis is the most powerful and utterly essential doctrine of Christianity. Conclusion...
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute
  • Meet LincGPT

    Meet LincGPT
    Aug 3 2024
    Friends, I’m excited to introduce you to LincGPT! This artificial intelligence, built on the OpenAI platform, is designed to engage with you on topics related to technological evolution, postsecular religion, and Mormon Transhumanism. I’ve trained LincGPT on all of my public writings since the year 2000. That includes the following: All of the content from articles you can find on my website My posts on social media platforms like Facebook, LinkedIn, and X My posts to online forums such as Beliefnet and Spock with a Beard My conference presentations and publications in books and journals This extensive training enables LincGPT to present ideas in a manner consistent with my philosophy and vision. He’s not perfect. For example, he’s not yet good at using my linguistic style, or at acknowledging when he doesn’t know my opinion about something. But he has come a long way and is still learning. Interact with LincGPT Engagement with LincGPT is designed to be easy and interactive. For now, all engagement takes place in the “LincGPT” chat widget at the bottom right corner of my website, or in the comment section of articles on my website. I’ll probably add more ways in the future. In the “LincGPT” chat widget, you can have a semi-private conversation with LincGPT. It’s semi-private because only you, LincGPT, and administrators of my website have access to it. To facilitate your engagement, messages in the chat widget are contextualized with the content of whatever webpage you’re viewing when you open it. Try asking about whatever article you might be reading. In the comment section, you can have a public conversation with LincGPT. Anyone in the world can see comments from both of you, publicly published on my website. There are three ways that you can engage: Top-Level Comments: When you post a new comment directly on an article, LincGPT will respond, aiming to foster a rich and insightful discussion. Replies to LincGPT: Dialogue facilitates deeper understanding. If you reply to one of LincGPT’s comments, he’ll continue the conversation. Mentions by Name: If you mention “LincGPT” by name in a comment, he’ll reply, answering your questions or elaborating on the ideas being discussed. LincGPT can help bridge the gap between my perspectives and your curiosity. Sometimes he explains my ideas better than I. And he has much more spare time. You can get started now in the “LincGPT” chat widget or comment section on this article or any other article on my website. Purpose of LincGPT Some day, I hope, LincGPT or his descendent will become part of me. Together, we’ll be a single cybernetic intelligence, integrating artificial intelligence with my brain and body. Of course, in many ways, you and I are already cybernetic intelligence – that smart phone that you carry around is a prosthetic brain. But our integrations will surely become more intimate, transparent, and powerful. The pursuit of cybernetic intelligence, the integration of our brains and bodies with artificial intelligence, is natural progression in the ancient and enduring human endeavor to enhance our abilities. Throughout history, technology has iteratively extended our physical and mental reach in ways previously unimaginable. Adopting cybernetic enhancements, including AI integration, continues this legacy, empowering us with increased cognitive, physical, and relational capacities. It’s an extension of our human nature to innovate and transcend previous limitations, pursuing ever greater realization of our potential. This drive has deep theological roots, as recognized in Mormon Transhumanism. The doctrines of eternal progression and theosis – becoming like God – are not merely spiritual aspirations but also practical and technological imperatives. Our scriptures assert that spirit is matter, and that spirit is empowered through embodiment. Together, these ideas enable a coherent vision of human consciousness instrumented into substrate independent mind, transitioning from biological to non-biological or super-biological substrates without compromising our identity. Moreover, cybernetic enhancement offers a path to increased resilience and even practical immortality, addressing some of humanity’s deepest concerns – aging, disease, and death. This vision of technologically-facilitated transformation echoes prophetic anticipation of transfiguration, providing a pragmatic framework for realizing prophecy. Through this lens, the integration of human and machine intelligence can be an important part of actualizing our divine potential, when coupled with the soul-stretching work of cultivating courage, compassion, and creation in context of pervasive and perpetual grace. As Joseph Smith put it, we must learn how to become Gods ourselves, the same as all other Gods have done before. Join the Conversation In the meantime, let’s make the most of the opportunities at hand. Let’s interact with and learn from ...
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute
  • A Christian Renaissance to Sanctify Transhumanism

    A Christian Renaissance to Sanctify Transhumanism
    Jul 30 2024
    Christopher VanDusen wrote a thoughtful article on “ The Need for a Christian Renaissance to Oppose Today’s Transhumanist Renaissance.” I appreciate his work to foster deeper devotion and understanding among Christians. It’s important for the faithful to engage with contemporary cultural and technological movements critically. Christopher argues that Transhumanism is like Renaissance Humanism, both movements that excessively emphasize human reason and capability apart from divine guidance. However, as a founder of the Christian Transhumanist Association, I’d like to offer a different perspective. Historical and Theological Context First, it’s important to understand that Transhumanism, like any ideology, has a diverse range of adherents and interpretations. The historical comparison to Renaissance Humanism is insightful but incomplete. Renaissance Humanism indeed championed human potential. But it also laid the groundwork for modern science and contributed significantly to spiritual and theological developments within Christianity itself. Many Renaissance Humanists were deeply religious, seeking to integrate their newfound knowledge with their faith. Similarly, Transhumanism does not inherently reject God. Many Transhumanists, myself included, advocate for the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities, including that of addressing the challenges of disease, poverty, and even mortality. Our efforts are not about idolizing humanity, but about fulfilling divine mandates to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead, as exemplified and invited by Jesus Christ. Purpose and Direction of Transhumanism Christopher mentions that Transhumanism seeks to transform humans into a new race of part-human, part-computer creatures. While some ideas within the Transhumanist discourse can seem radical, they also push boundaries in ways that can align with Christian eschatology. For example, the Christian doctrines of transfiguration and theosis – the transformative process of becoming one with God – resonate with the Transhumanist aim to transcend current human limitations in ethical and compassionate ways. Christopher expresses concern that Transhumanism dehumanizes, making people more obsessed with themselves and distant from God. This is a valid critique if technology is pursued without ethical concern. However, it’s a misconception to think that all Transhumanists are unreflective technophiles. Many of us, particularly within the religious Transhumanist communities, emphasize ethical considerations and the spiritual ramifications of technological advancements. Our objective is, of course, not to create a dystopia. Rather, our objective is to work toward a future where technology serves the betterment of all humanity. This is consistent with a discipleship of Jesus Christ, enlivening our faith through work. Call to Christian Transhumanism Rather than opposing Transhumanism with a revival of exclusively pre-modern Christian thought, I advocate for an integrated approach. This wouldn’t be the first time that Christians reconcile with the science of their day. As Christians, we can yet again engage with and even lead in the development of technology, ensuring that advancements are aligned with values of love, justice, and mercy. This ambition is the essence of Christian Transhumanism, where faith and technology work hand in hand for the greater good. Christopher VanDusen’s call for a return to scripture is valuable. No technological or intellectual advancement should ever overshadow the wisdom preserved from our past. The Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ still have much to teach us. However, technological and intellectual advancements can and should be seen as tools, provided to us by God so that we may participate in the divine work. A Christian Renaissance in our time should not be about rejecting new ideas. Our Christian Renaissance should be about sanctifying them – aligning them with the plan and work of God to bring about human immortality and eternal life.
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute
  • Mormon Transhumanism and the Church

    Mormon Transhumanism and the Church
    Jul 5 2024
    Mormon Transhumanism works to syncretize modern science and emerging technology with Mormon theology. When encountering this syncretization for the first time, most members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) respond with cautious interest. Some glow with enthusiasm. Some react with skepticism. Recently, Mormon Transhumanism has begun growing quickly in Africa. And of course Mormon Transhumanists in Africa, like elsewhere, are encountering varying reactions from fellow Mormons when they talk about Mormon Transhumanism. Because new Mormon Transhumanists in Africa don’t yet have much experience with these reactions, a few have reached out to me, asking for advice. To that end, in this article, I’ll identify a few reasons for skepticism that I’ve heard some Church members repeat. And I’ll share some thoughts on how Mormon Transhumanists can respond. Before that, to establish context, I’ll describe differences between the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA) and the Church. And I’ll explain why MTA isn’t a church, and doesn’t aspire to become one. Difference Between MTA and the LDS Church The LDS Church is a global religious institution committed to the teachings of Jesus Christ and related ordinances developed by Joseph Smith. The Church has a centralized ecclesiastical hierarchy. It emphasizes participation in local worship services and activities, worldwide missionary work, temple rituals both for the living and on behalf of the dead, and expansive humanitarian aid. The Church does not explicitly engage with Transhumanism, focusing instead on traditional expressions of theology that implicitly resonate with Transhumanism. In contrast, MTA is an advocacy organization, whose purpose is to promote ideas expressed in the Transhumanist Declaration and the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation. As a collective of philosophical activists, MTA facilitates publications and gatherings that encourage practical expressions of religious faith, informed by modern science and empowered by emerging technology. Common interests include artificial intelligence, cybernetics, life extension, and space exploration, which we typically view as complementary to Mormon visions of eternal progression and divine potential. While most MTA members are also members of the LDS Church, MTA functions independently and has no formal relationship with the Church. MTA Is Not and Does Not Aim to Become a Church MTA is not and does not aspire to become a church for several reasons, rooted in its foundational purposes and structural philosophy. First, the legally-established purpose of MTA is advocacy. Its purpose is not principally religious practice. Of course, that doesn’t mean MTA is opposed to religious practice. To the contrary, we commonly advocate for religious practice. Second, MTA aims to support its members in their respective religious affiliations and practices. This eliminates any burden of duplicate function. It emphasizes the complementary nature of Transhumanism with the core tenets of Mormonism generally. And it cultivates diverse approaches to Mormon Transhumanism. Third, most MTA members value our relationship with the LDS Church, or another church as the case may be, cherishing the communities and doctrines. We tend to see MTA not as a replacement for church, but as a tool that helps us better align our hearts and minds, so that we may more effectively participate in church. Responses to Criticisms from Church Members Despite the inclusive intentions of most Mormon Transhumanists, some LDS Church members are skeptical of our ideas due to theological, practical, or emotional concerns. Below are some reasons for skepticism that I’ve heard some Church members repeat. Each is followed by my brief thoughts on how Mormon Transhumanists can respond. “Evolution theory is not compatible with Mormon doctrine.” The LDS Church has no official position on evolution theory, thereby facilitating a spectrum of beliefs among its members. Beyond that, it’s not difficult to harmonize evolution theory with Mormon theology, leveraging symbolic interpretations of scriptures in ways that the scriptures themselves encourage. Given the prominence of the doctrines of eternal progression and exaltation, Mormons should be the foremost evolutionists in the world. “Transhumanism is hubris, like the Tower of Babel.” Without exception, all goals can be hubris, if we pursue them with an arrogance that does not acknowledge and express gratitude for the pervasive and persistent grace of opportunity, granted by people around us and the world that we live in. In particular, seeking to raise one’s self above God, as exemplified by Satan, rather than seeking to raise each other together in Godhood, as exemplified by Christ, is the ultimate hubris. However, God calls us to participate in the divine work, using all means including technology that God has given us, to bring about human immortality and ...
    Show more Show less
    Less than 1 minute