[extropy-chat] Bad idea, was Transhumanism as Religion

[Bret Kulakovich]

Hi Samantha,

I can see this happening through a couple of different ways. For  
starters, the vast majority of religious adherents are not 100%  
enthusiastic maintainers of every aspect of their given observances.  
Certainly there are state-sponsored religions, and more and less  
religious parts of the planet, but let's start with the West as an  
example.

Many people hold ideas along side, and compatible with, their own  
religious beliefs. Many modern versions of certain religions have  
ideas piggy-backed onto them that are accessory. I have talked to  
many members of different groups that uphold their current belief  
framework, while applying some sort of hereditary framework. For  
instance, Christians that have Shaker/Quaker relations and therefore,  
certain habits and ethics, et cetera. A much-simplified example could  
also be the notion of guardian angels - something that is neither  
proper canon nor in the KJE bible.

So positive, humanity-affirming pro-scientific thoughts and  
meditative points could be woven into simple formats. If we could get  
the idea out, for example, that something is worth doing "for the  
good of our species" - then perhaps that could challenge the foothold  
of SUVs and Monday Night Football in todays Emo-cultured youth.

The Vatican has released recently statements affirming that evolution  
and Catholicism are compatible. Logically speaking, people who  
espouse that religion and science are separate and incompatible, are  
technically denigrating the greatness of god, by their own  
definition. Am I making sense? I am trying to be concise.

As far as "seriously expecting to work" - this is about setting  
proper horizons for Transhumanism to take hold, and then take place.  
"The stone is hard, the water patient." type horizons, as far as some  
parts of the world go.


Bret K.


On Feb 19, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Samantha Atkins wrote:

> Bret,
>
> How does that which will effectively "revalue all values" including
> the very nature and place of humanity manage to be compatible with
> the majority of religions that contain rigid value systems and
> dogmatic assertions about many aspects of reality and especially
> about the nature and place of humanity?  This rigidity and dogmatism
> is held by the adherents as being of the very essence of their
> religions.  Thus I don't see how you can seriously expect this to
> work.   Am I missing something?
>
> - samantha
>
> On Feb 19, 2006, at 12:38 PM, Bret Kulakovich wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Phew. It has been a heck of a week. Sorry not to chime in sooner -
>> Just to remark on the overall notion:
>>
>> ExI/Transhumanism in its current form is _compatible_ with almost all
>> religions.
>>
>> Once you make it a religion in and of itself, you are now competing
>> with these other groups. That is why eventually all cults fail. They
>> get too big, too threatening, and bottom out.
>>
>> Some of the most successful and fastest growing elements of human
>> culture, particularly in the past few decades, rode "on-top-of"
>> something else. For example, the web is "on-top-of" the internet. It
>> is more practical use-wise and compatible with all machines. That is
>> where we need to be. On-top-of, more practical than, and compatible
>> with, the majority of religions. A culture of inclusivity rather than
>> exclusivity will always win out. A Meta-religion at worst.
>>
>> Bret K.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat