the assurance that our sacrifices are worth it - and so argue that, delusion or not, religion will survive because "people need it." So I decided to assign something crazily new, part of William Sims Bainbridge's Across the Secular Abyss (2007).Bainbridge once argued (along with Rodney Stark) that religion, while false, will never disappear (though it keeps changing form), because human beings inevitably need supernatural "compensators" for the injustices and disappointments of life - especially the arbitrariness of death. But in this new book, Bainbridge recants: science and new technology now offer compensators enough. In particular, technology will soon offer immortality and drive religion out of business (which is why he imagines religious persecution of scientists in the near future). It's a trippy thesis, but an intriguing one. In any case, it brings the science/religion question up to date, up to a present where technology already extends lives, mitigates suffering, alters personalities, etc. I stumbled on this book of Bainbridge's while preparing for my talk on the future of the philosophy of religion last Spring, and decided it would add excitement - danger, even - to the Theorizing Religion class. I think I succeeded in this!
It also gave me an excuse to invite C, one of our senior religious studies majors, to address the class about the subject of his senior work, transhumanism. Transhumanism is a movement of scientists and body modifiers which Bainbridge mentions. C brought along
The Transhumanist Declaration
(1) Humanity will be radically changed by technology in the future. We foresee the feasibility of redesigning the human condition, including such parameters as the inevitability of aging, limitations on human and artificial intellects, unchosen psychology, suffering, and our confinement to the planet earth.
(2) Systematic research should be put into understanding these coming developments and their long-term consequences.
(3) Transhumanists think that by being generally open and embracing of new technology we have a better chance of turning it to our advantage than if we try to ban or prohibit it.
(4) Transhumanists advocate the moral right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives. We seek personal growth beyond our current biological limitations.
(5) In planning for the future, it is mandatory to take into account the prospect of dramatic progress in technological capabilities. It would be tragic if the potential benefits failed to materialize because of technophobia and unnecessary prohibitions. On the other hand, it would also be tragic if intelligent life went extinct because of some disaster or war involving advanced technologies.
(6) We need to create forums where people can rationally debate what needs to be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
(7) Transhumanism advocates the well- being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism. Transhumanism does not support any particular party, politician or political platform.
The following persons contributed to the original crafting of this document: Doug Bailey, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita More, Eugene Leitl, Berrie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, Doug Baily Jr., den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding, Nick Bostrom
The Declaration was modified and re-adopted by vote of Humanity Plus membership on March 4, 2002, and December 1, 2002.
(2) Systematic research should be put into understanding these coming developments and their long-term consequences.
(3) Transhumanists think that by being generally open and embracing of new technology we have a better chance of turning it to our advantage than if we try to ban or prohibit it.
(4) Transhumanists advocate the moral right for those who so wish to use technology to extend their mental and physical (including reproductive) capacities and to improve their control over their own lives. We seek personal growth beyond our current biological limitations.
(5) In planning for the future, it is mandatory to take into account the prospect of dramatic progress in technological capabilities. It would be tragic if the potential benefits failed to materialize because of technophobia and unnecessary prohibitions. On the other hand, it would also be tragic if intelligent life went extinct because of some disaster or war involving advanced technologies.
(6) We need to create forums where people can rationally debate what needs to be done, and a social order where responsible decisions can be implemented.
(7) Transhumanism advocates the well- being of all sentience (whether in artificial intellects, humans, posthumans, or non- human animals) and encompasses many principles of modern humanism. Transhumanism does not support any particular party, politician or political platform.
The following persons contributed to the original crafting of this document: Doug Bailey, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita More, Eugene Leitl, Berrie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, Doug Baily Jr., den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding, Nick Bostrom
The Declaration was modified and re-adopted by vote of Humanity Plus membership on March 4, 2002, and December 1, 2002.
It generated discussion, but most of it was either dismissive and defensive (human consciousness can't be extended, etc.), or strangely practical (what's possible now, how much does it cost?), so I came to its passionate defense. Echoing what I'd said on behalf of Freud on Monday ("Religion's false, everyone knows its false, the question is whether you are mature enough to you admit it or not") I said "The transformation of human nature by technology has begun already, everyone knows it, the question is whether you are mature enough to admit it or not." For Freud I was just playing a part, but for transhumanism it felt like I actually meant it.
Perhaps I do. Transhumanism poses deep and importand questions, and questions germane for religious studies as I understand it. My working defense of religious studies as the field which reminds us that there is no consensus on the real is being extended by my experience with the Secularism class to the claim that there is no consensus on the human: hello transhumanism! My religious ethics class (which I teach again in the Spring after a hiatus of too many years) starts with the claim that religious ethics goes beyond secular ethics in asking what the limits of the moral community are - not just human beings but the dead, ancestors, the unborn, animals, deities, lands, powers?
Transhumanism's exciting (and, yes, dangerous) for reminding us that the limits of the human aren't defined, and are getting less clear with every passing year. I'm looking forward to learning more about it as C writes his senior work on it - and while I'm at it, I should thank him for introducing me to it in the first place.
