[ExI] CALL: H+ call for papers

[Fred C. Moulton]

On Thu, 2009-02-19 at 00:17 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:

> About as useful as a "dialogue" between transhumanists and 
> astrologers, creation "scientists" or Scientologists.
> 
> The point I was making was much more focused than that, though, which 
> is that the analyses and aspirations of >H-ism don't spring from 
> religion but from the human condition, from human hope and 
> intelligence, just as the determination to learn how to fly didn't 
> come from hubristically copying angels or demons but from looking at 
> birds (also the source of angels, to the extent that these mythic 
> beings are supposed to fly--which is really popular sentimental 
> mythology rather than theology, but hey). Similarly, the reason 
> planes are cruciform has nothing to do with Jesus on the cross and 
> everything to do with (a) bird wings, (b) lifting surfaces, and (c) 
> in any case they don't if they're helicopters. But I can imagine 
> these theoreductionists blathering on as if that's a major and 
> meaningful source of inspiration.
> 

Eloquently expressed, Damien, eloquently expressed.

However I would like to add a few words which may help clarify the
issue.  I am sure that everyone is already aware of the distinction I am
about to make but I hope that by making it explicit it will facilitate
the dialog.  As I look at the original post and the comments by John and
Damien I noticed a shifting and sometimes blurry of two different ideas:
- religion as a human activity which can be the subject of scholarly
study
- religion (at least traditional religions) as a set of beliefs which
stand at the same level as transhumanism in terms of knowledge,
credibility and similar factors; i.e. that the claims of religion are
valid

I bring this up since it is possible to perform a dispassionate and
scholarly examination of the human activity known as religion in a
psychological/sociological/anthropological mode and at the same time be
a non-believer in the religion being studied or any religion for that
matter.  But a problem arises when the scholarly endeavor is subverted
to become a way to inject and bolster religious views.  I do not know
the people putting on this conference so I am not accusing them of
anything; I am just being cautious.  It is in this context that I had a
bit of a funny feeling when I saw the following in the original post:
"We particularly welcome papers that identify and critically evaluate
the implicit religious beliefs underlying key transhumanist claims and
assumptions. For example, what are the operative notions of
anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology that are at play in the
transhumanist quest for enhancement, including extreme longevity?"

I would be a little bit less nervous if they had instead said that they
were interested in the "psychological/sociological/anthropological"
aspects of transhumanism rather than the "religious" aspects.  Then it
would have been clear and unambiguous. 

A big difference between traditional religions and transhumanism is that
traditional religions typically are based on faith and transhumanism is
not.  The transhumanist can take a critical scientific rational stance
where a person following faith can not.  That is a fundamental
difference.  Science, reason and an open inquiry into all questions are
some of the banners of transhumanism.   By its very nature faith is
different.  Anyone who does not understand this distinction might want
to read The Retreat to Commitment by W. W. Bartley; or read the very
fine summary about Pan Critical Rationalism that Max wrote several years
ago.

Note: Some may have noticed that I used some terms such as "typically"
and "traditional religions".  The reason is that there is not uniform
agreement on the exact definition of the term religion.  For example
some meditation practices get classified as religion by some and not by
others.  It should be noted that Sam Harris ran into this buzz saw when
he discussed meditation practices in his book The End Of Faith. 

Fred