[extropy-chat] "Religious" transhumanism

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
> > As for the two "divided Americas" (as described by
> John Edwards in
> > this article - the article is not all that well
> written, but has a
> few
> > good points), it just seems as if the gap gets
> wider (as science and
> > technology marches forward), and "reasoning" with
> those on the
> > evangelicals' side doesn't seem to work at all.
> 
> Because you walk in mocking what they believe. You
> then use terms that
> are outside their reference set.
> 
> Roman Catholicism became the dominant religion in
> Europe because it
> took some core philosophy and repackaged it in the
> religious framework
> of the major groups they came across: first the
> Roman sun worshippers.
> 
> The principles of individual liberty became dominant
> here because they
> were packaged as an 'enlightenment', which is a
> spiritual referent, not
> a scientific one. Rationalists earned tolerance and
> comity by
> presenting themselves as their own protestant sect
> of Unitarianism.
> 
> Every attempt that is made to repackage
> transhumanism in a religious
> context is mocked.

...not *quite* every attempt.  But almost.

I've managed to score the occasional success with the
religious, by preaching on the evidence of what God
gave us.  "If God meant for us to figure out His
powers, He would have given us the ability to do so.
Oh, wait - He did!"

Any major invention or discovery, such as flight or
genetics, can be claimed to have had divine
inspiration.  Part of His plan...but for what?  How
about to guide us towards being His companions?  Our
powers and abilities seem to grow closer to what would
have been considered supernatural everyday.  So does
humanity's collective wisdom, despite certain notable
instances of lack of wisdom.

If you take it as faith that mankind is meant to
become a race of gods, then the Singularity (or, at
least, certain forms of it) seems but a step along
that path.  This includes evolving ethics and morals:
accept all thy neighbors, save those that seek to harm
others.  (Thus, gay marriage is simply a non-issue.
But people who commit violence against others knowing
no reason other than claiming "God's will" are, in
fact, acting against God's will.  Catholics,
Protestants, Muslims - it doesn't matter: to fight in
God's name alone, as opposed to fighting for peace or
some other part of the divine wisdom, is to blaspheme
God, no matter how much you may worship.)

Some may seek to hold to tradition for tradition's
sake, but it is mankind's power to learn and change,
not to fossilize.  God provides, via evolution, the
slow mechanism that the beasts of the wild need to
adapt to changing circumstance, but we are blessed
with the ability to change ourselves - which we are
clearly meant to use.  Witness the largely
self-inflicted suffering of that portion of humanity
which refuses to adapt, not just the physical
technologies, but also the social wisdom that has
been invented: democracies works much better than
dictatorships, as can be seen by taking an honest look
at the current examples of both.  (The CIA World
Factbook, among other sources, can give stats to back
this up.  Who needs revealed wisdom as translated, and
possibly mistranslated, from our ancestors?  People
write books, but God writes our modern day-to-day
reality that even dispassionate, neutral observers
observe.)

This even works with agnosticism or atheism: just
preface it all with "If God exists".  If not, then
these same things need no divine blessing (given the
lack of a divine), and are merely paths to the
empowerment of all humanity, giving us the ability to
master the universe we happen to find ourselves in -
which is surely the next best thing to divine purpose.
(This is the version that I personally believe, but I
am willing to admit my morals are justified even if
there is a God, as described above.)

How's that for a start?