[ExI] CALL: H+ call for papers

[hkhenson]

At 05:45 PM 2/19/2009, you wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 11:15 PM, hkhenson wrote:
> > I wonder how a proposed paper, "Does successful transhumanism mean the end
> > of religions?" would go over.
> >
> > I could definitely make such a case.  Presumably successors who were at
> > least "weakly godlike" (to invoke Charles Stross) would have little use for
> > religion.
> >
> > Such a paper could get into the EP case (cases) why religion is a species
> > typical trait and why we might design it out if its root is in stone age
> > population control via war.
> >
>
>
>I doubt if they would accept a paper like that.
>They are the American Academy of Religion and are unlikely to support
>a paper that would mean the disbanding of their organisation. They say
>what they would really like in the Call.

The human race successfully navigating through the singularity 
doesn't mean study of religions would necessarily come to an end.  It 
could be an important hobby for post humans.  In any case, it's not immanent.

>Quote:
>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? We
>welcome more overtly philosophical critiques of posthuman discourse.
>------------------
>
>They want criticism of transhumanism, not criticism of religion.

I think I see the spin they want to put on transhumanism.  They want 
transhumanists to own up to being just another new religion, like 
(name deleted).  This would make them comfortable.  I think we could 
(perhaps tongue in cheek) fly with that.

"How does Transhumanism (Capital T indicating it is a religion) 
differ from conventional religions?"  Like other religions it has 
beliefs, particularly in "the rapture of the nerds," and saints such 
as Drexler, Merkle and Freitas, devils such as Smalley.  How it 
differs is that the technology to actually *do* things may be 
available in the not so distant future.  Hardly anyone in a 
conventional religion expect to be able to obtain elixir of wisdom, 
strength, beauty and long life at a drugstore.

Of course if it doesn't we could expect disillusionment such as the 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment   Then we could go 
into what conventional religions expect from their gods ending with a 
long quote from the episode in _Circus of Dr. Lao_ where the Great 
God Yottle takes a hand in the ceremony with lamentable results for 
some and salvation for others.

>Also, you can submit the proposal as a non-member, but you have to
>become a member in order to present the proposal or attend the
>meeting.
>So check the membership qualifications.
>The AAR is for teachers, scholars, and other professionals in the
>field of religion.
>(not anti-religion!).

Hmm.  It would seem to me that accepting a proposal means you could 
become a member, but what do I know?

Keith

PS.  I once suggested to the Templeton foundation that they resolve 
the question of Gods by setting up a serious of prizes like the 
X-prizes for teams who could demonstrate increasing god-like 
powerz.  It could either result in creating a god, or attract the 
attention of God himself (I am a jealous God).  Needless to say, they 
didn't take my advice.