[extropy-chat] On co-opting religion for >human ends

[Samantha Atkins]

On Aug 9, 2005, at 2:17 AM, The Avantguardian wrote:

>
>
> --- Adrian Tymes <wingcat at pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Which really is a shame.  ID as a justification for
>> evolution, instead
>> of an "alternative" to evolution, could be furthered
>> for >H causes.  If
>> one believes that God used evolution to create
>> mankind, that suggests
>> that (responsibly) taking advantage of the universe
>> we've been
>> presented may in fact be God's will...including such
>> things as altering
>> ourselves to be longer-lived, more intelligent (more
>> capable of
>> perceiving God's wisdom?), et al.  Why fight the
>> Catholic church if we
>> could co-opt it?  (Or, failing that, most of the
>> Protestant churches.)
>> And that's just the Christian part of the world...
>>
>

I thought of doing that or something in part along such lines.  With  
further thought and self-examination I don't believe it is workable.   
Such claims of what is "God's will" merely stand among other  
radically different claims that have much tradition and huge inertia  
behind them.

Almost all the religions start with some premise of the specialness  
of humanity and their creation.   Unfortunately this says things  
about the nature of human beings that fly in the face of our  
knowledge of humans to date.  Pick you poison.  There is the view  
that "we are made in the image of God".   Interesting.  God is an  
evolved chimp roughly 99% genetically identical to same?  God is of  
quite limited intelligence and subject to a great deal of  
evolutionary programming and internal pressures?   God is off fragile  
constitution?    The New Age version that we are already perfect is  
even more laughably absurd.

All forms of dualism in and outside of religion claim we have some  
Mind or Soul part that somehow inhabits or controls the meat part.    
Increasingly the evidence is that the meat and the "programs" running  
on it is all there is.  Given a "soul"  then the clear high goal for  
life is whatever is best for the soul.  Many Abrahamic religions tend  
toward perfecting the soul in part through suffering or submission to  
God even claiming the suffering on earth is simply God's will.  This  
view is highly incompatible with transhumanism.  Many Eastern  
religions hold that the soul or its equivalent has life after life in  
this place of suffering until it releases all desires for anything  
here and finds some meditative bliss state and perfect intuitive  
understanding of everything.  Funny how all those bliss babies rarely  
discover anything that would end much of the actual physical  
suffering around them.   Os this perfect Knowing seems highly suspect  
and this bliss, sweet as I know from experience that it is, highly  
suspect.  There is nothing in such a meaning to life that makes much  
room for transhumanism.  Yes, you can bolt it on but the fundamental  
view of the religions is dualistic and other worldly generally  
speaking.  The basic core beliefs about the nature of human beings  
and our place in the world is not compatible with scientific  
understanding and is usually held as axiomatic.

Being one who is highly susceptible to mysticism, visions and so on,   
find the project personally extremely difficult.  It is all too easy  
to be sucked into quite enticing POVs that are severely out of  
balance with hard won understanding and the rudiments of rationality.

- samantha