Search First Things

A Presbyterian pastor/ethicist named Mark Douglas has apparently claimed that transhumanism is consistent with Christian theology. Pshaw. They are theologically diametrically incompatible.  From the Toledo Blade story:

Theologically, one can find support in the Bible for transhumanism, he said, citing Scriptures that describe a future change or transformation. For example, I John 3:2 states that we “will be like him, for we will see him as he is.”…

In summarizing the theology of posthumanism, Mr. Douglas said Christianity is shaped by the belief that “God is doing something new to us, and that, therefore, we neither can nor need to transform ourselves.” Rather than naive optimism or nihilistic cynicism, Christians ought to practice “prophetic hope,” he said. “Believe in a better future because God is doing something.”

Good grief.  Christians certainly believe that they will indeed become a new (“glorified”) being–but not “post human,” and certainly not through human efforts.  And Rev. Douglas also seems to embrace a trend I see growing within some Christian circles, which expediently conflates what I want with that which supposedly God wants for me. 

But more fundamentally, transhumanism’s eschatology is incompatible with that of Christianity.  Transhumanism embraces materialism with white-knuckled fervor, believing that its “New Jerusalem” (if I may) will be wholly here, a human creation located in this ”place,” that is, in the current ”creation” as we know it now.  In contrast, Christian orthodoxy holds that the current reality will “pass away,” and in its place God will create something altogether new, a future reality that is different from the current corporeality, in which Christians will be raised physically but transformed–the same, yet different–and abide for eternity in the very presence of God, in whom most transhumanists disbelieve or find irrelevant– except perhaps, for wanting God’s job.

But the incompatibility is most vividly seen in the two theologies’ contrasting beliefs about suffering: The overarching purpose of transhumanism, its very point, is to avoid suffering–all suffering–whatever the cost and effort that project requires. In contrast, Christians see suffering altogether differently, although there is much confusion in the secular world over this. In Christian theology, suffering can be redemptive. That is not to say that Christians revel in suffering or want others to suffer.  To the contrary, it is a Christian obligation to alleviate and palliate the suffering of humanity whenever possible, that is, to take others’ suffering upon their own shoulders. But suffering can also be a trial to accept with humility and for which to give thanks because it can lead the sufferer and his/her caregivers directly into the unconditionally and eternally loving arms of God.

There is much more that could be said, but I will summarize: “Christian transhumanism” is an oxymoron.

Tweet

9

This page has been shared 9 times. View these Tweets.

  shareshare

Comments (210)

Internet Archive's Wayback Machine

Latest Show All

Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt.

See www.facebook.com robots.txt page. Learn more about robots.txt.

210 Comments

“Christian Transhumanism” is an Oxymoron – First Things (blog)
April 21st, 2012 | 12:29 pm
[...] “Christian Transhumanism” is an OxymoronFirst Things (blog)A Presbyterian pastor/ethicist named Mark Douglas has apparently claimed that transhumanism is consistent with Christian theology. Pshaw. They are theologically diametrically incompatible. From the Toledo Blade story: Theologically, … [...]
Cris Putnam
April 21st, 2012 | 1:37 pm
Amen Wesley! I have written much the same in the last year. A few ELCA Lutheran theologians are making similar inferences.
For a real hoot, check out the Mormon Transhumanist Association. Whereas it is an oxymoron in relation to biblical Christianity it’s perfectly coherent with Mormonism.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 6:41 pm
@Cris Putnam, does your appeal to ridicule exemplify the Christianity you advocate? The Christianity I advocate is somewhat more concerned with charity.

Jacqui Paulson Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 8:28 am
@Lincoln Cannon, Charity also does not think evil. I think part of the problem in the Christian Church is that the Church is too willing to overlook evil doctrine in order to ‘love’. Jesus didn’t do that. He spoke out against evil, corruption, injustice and false doctrine. Why would we be expected to do less?

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:15 am
@Jacqui Paulson, appeals to ridicule are not speaking out against evil. That aside, I understand that you consider persons like me to be apostate or worse. Do you understand that I consider Christian fundamentalism evil? Jesus spoke out against fundamentalism, particularly Jewish fundamentalism. Alive today, he would have spoken out against Christian fundamentalism, I suspect. Why should we be expected to do less?

Jacqui Paulson Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:39 am
@Lincoln Cannon, I agree that ridiculing somebody else’s belief is not in line with charity. However I am not sure that is what was meant. Assuming the worst about what somebody means is also not in line with charity. You made what appeared to be an assumption about the previous poster, which was why I posted. I may be wrong about their intention but you have definitely made an assumption about my beliefs. When did I suggest that you were apostate? If that is what I thought, I would not even bother posting a comment for fools are not worth correcting and so I did not assume you were a fool. I just felt you were a bit harsh. As for fundamentalism, either Christian or Jewish, I follow neither. I agree that Jesus spoke far more harshly to the religious zealot of his day than to the poor and the oppressed. I believe the church has simply transferred the mantle of the Pharisees from the Jewish faith to the Christian one. I also agree that we should speak out against religion. Following Jesus is not a religion but a lifestyle that is loving and actively involved in the world, assisting those with needs.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 9:44 pm
@Jacqui Paulson, it’s not clear to you that “for a real hoot” implies ridicule? Run a google search combining my name with Cris’ name, and you’ll find more examples. I’ve interacted enough with Cris that to have confidence that he intended ridicule.
You ask me to point out when you suggested that I’m apostate. From your previous message to me, I understood you to imply that I’m engaged in evil, corruption, injustice or false doctrine, thereby justifying speaking out against me. If that wasn’t your intention, I don’t understand why you wrote what you wrote.
I apologize for suggesting that you’re a fundamentalist. From your most recent message, it appears I was wrong. I should not have assumed that from your defense of Cris, and what I know about him.

Jacqui Paulson Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 2:35 am
@Lincoln Cannon, Lincoln, my reason for speaking up about your comment is that I felt it right for Chris to comment on something he believed to be evil or wrong. I thought he was just saying that it was funny to him. I did not take it as ridicule though I suppose it could be interpreted as such. I did not mean to imply that you were evil, corrupt, unjust or even believe false doctrine. I do not think evil is so easily determined just because we might disagree. Each of us must live our lives in the truth that the Lord reveals to us and we cannot change or accept another’s truth just to satisfy them. Even if you and I stood in complete disagreement on an issue, I would never assume that was a determination of your character or standing with God. Please forgive me, for causing you to think that I was attacking you or even that I was mocking you or Mormons in general. That was not my intention. I may not agree with the Mormon doctrine but that does not mean I do not admire my friends and colleagues who adhere to a Mormon faith.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:58 am
@Jacqui Paulson, thank you.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:27 am
@Lincoln Cannon,If by “FUNDAMENTALISM”, you’re principally speaking about “LEGALISM” and “HYPOCRISY”, then you’ve a valid point. Jesus most assuredly condemned them both as gross evil, {MATT.23}.
But, if by “fundamentalism” you’re referring to the conviction that the Scripture is inerrant, or that Jeremiah was absolutely correct that “…cursed is the man that trusteth in man, and maketh FLESH his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord” [Jer. 17:5]; well then, you’re sadly, either misled, or willingly ignorant, or, your heart has “departed from the Lord”.
Simply put, BEWARE fellow, lest you fall into worse darkness, and learn the validity of the WORD the hard way.
BTW, Jeremiah’s admonition CLEARLY debunks ANY Christian validity in TRANShumanism, [AFTER humans]. As does Jesus’s declaration: “It is the SPIRIT that quickeneth, {gives life}, the FLESH PROFITETH NOTHING, the WORDS I speak unto,they are spirit & they are life” Jn. 6:63.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:53 am
@Christian Gains, appeals to inerrancy are appeals to legalism, and there are plenty of Bible passages that support the idea that transfigured and resurrected persons will have bodies. You’ll find them if you care.

Christian Gains Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 12:13 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, One of the central themes of Jesus’ theology was “The Holy Spirit’s” part in our relationship with Jesus. Now, (to the Spirit led” individual), “inerrancy” needn’t, [but CAN], = “legalism”.
The reality of actually being “LED” by the influence & “voice” of the Spirit moves one away from the judgementalism & arrogance of legalism, and into a GENUINELY humble mind set, where “Loving they neighbor AS they self” is the driving motivation for interactions with others…not finding fault & falsely judging them.
The Scriptures are INERRENTLY stating this, throughout, from Noah, thru Job, through the Psalms, through the Prophets, and throughout the N. Testament.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:18 pm
@Christian Gains, can the holy spirit lead someone away from trusting that the Bible is inerrant?

Cris Putnam Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 7:56 am
@Lincoln Cannon,
Lincoln, the problem with your appeal to charity is that it is embedded in a lie. You do not represent any sort of Christianity at all. Mormonism is not Christianity. It was created out of whole cloth by an occultic freemason in the 19th century and has been debunked by mountains of evidence. When I wrote for a real ‘hoot” I meant in the sense of a weird absurdity. Lincoln your beliefs are absurd and offensive. Its not really funny that so many people are being deceived. For anyone interested in reading Lincoln’s views exposed – I had an exchange with him that exposes his incoherence in all of its flagrant cognitive dissonance. http://www.logosapologia.org/?p=1674

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 9:24 am
Let’s not turn this into a denigration of someone’s religion. Thanks.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:22 pm
@Cris Putnam, I hope everyone will read our exchange. Too bad it’s as short as it is. Maybe you shouldn’t have blocked me.
For those interested, here are a couple more links, where I respond to Cris’ version of Christianity:
http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2011/02/response-to-cris-putnam-on-christian.html
http://lincoln.metacannon.net/2011/02/more-christian-fundamentalism-from-cris.html
Abelard Lindsey
April 21st, 2012 | 2:17 pm
Transhumanism is based on self-reliance. Why rely on someone else (god, etc.) to do something for you when you can do it yourself. In this context, Christianity can be considered a theological version of welfare. You rely on someone else to do something for you rather than to buck up and do it yourself.
Transhumanism might not be compatible with your version of Christianity. But it is certainly the logical extension of the American values of self-reliance and pioneering.
Suffering is useful if it results in productive accomplishment. Otherwise, it is worthless.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 7:16 pm
@Abelard Lindsey, Transhumanism is not inherently based on self-reliance. There are many communally-oriented Transhumanists, and there are Transhumanists who acknowledge their reliance on the opportunities presented to us, even the grace of God.

Abelard Lindsey Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 1:04 am
@Lincoln Cannon, Like Christianity, transhumanism comes in many flavors. I find the self-reliance, self-empowerment paradigm very attractive. Others may seek a sense of community. To each their own.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:33 am
@Lincoln Cannon, I’m quite certain that Karsweil{sp?} would vehemently disagree with you. The fact that people live communally, doesn’t speak to their basic Theology or belief system. And, (I’ve studied the basic thesis of Transhumanism, and it has NOTHING WHAT-SO-EVER to do with faith or belief or trust in the Creator, but is diemetrically opposed to HIS existence, or necessity.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:56 am
@Christian Gains, you’re incorrect. Here’s an example of why Transhumanism is compatible with faith in God, even if its faith in an understanding of God that you probably won’t like: http://www.new-god-argument.com

Authentic Bioethics Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 8:19 am
@Abelard Lindsey, THe principle of subsidarity suggests that individuals should do what they can. But God can do things that humans can never do without Him, such as share in His very life.
Moreover, transhumanism as it is currently manifested in the real world is not so much about self-reliance but about a vision of what human life can or should become, a vision shared by few but which would be eventually imposed upon us all.
Christianity recognizes a) that man is more than his body; b) that man’s true progress must include the spiritual; and c) that spiritual progress actually requires God’s help because man can actually only go so far spiritually on his own.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:21 am
@Authentic Bioethics, you’re engaging the same problematic assumptions that Wesley’s engaging, assuming a Christianity that is neither necessary nor obvious nor representative, yet calling it simply “Christianity”. You’re also using a straw man of Transhumanism, claiming it would impose a vision on us all, but that’s hardly essential to Transhumanism. Christianity does NOT monolithically recognize immaterialism, and it does NOT monolithically separate our ultimate capacities from those of God. I recognize your interpretation of Christianity is not mine. I don’t recognize your exclusive claim to Christianity. To the contrary, probably like you, I consider my Christianity to be a better reflection of Jesus’ and early Christians’ teachings than yours.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:52 am
@Lincoln Cannon, What YOU consider YOUR “Christianity” is, of course, your right, but it is NOT necessarily a correct supposition. I find it far better that one wait for others to define one’s obvious belief system. As to your declarations that Wesley “assumes a “Christianty” that is neither necessary, or obvious, or representative”, I cannot see your meaning, as I happen to know for a FACT that Wesley MOST ASSUREDLY believes the VERY opposite…the Christianity is VERY NECESSARY, [for true life], VERY obvious, [thus this disscussion], and VERY representative [thus the choices of Jesus to give him self a willful sacrifice that we might live]!
Also, the “strawman” analogy fails, as Kursweil has made it ABUNDANTLY clear that, THRANS-humanism WILL ultimately impact, effect, and challenge ALL of humankind.
You’d do well to go back and learn what your mentor ACTUALLY intends for you. You certainly do not seem to grasp his vision.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 9:55 pm
@Christian Gains, I don’t understand the first paragraph of your message.
Regarding Ray Kurzweil, please know he doesn’t explicitly identify as a Transhumanist, but rather as a Singularitarian. I don’t identify as a Singularitarian. The reasons for the differences may be interesting, but they’re beside the point for this thread.
What matters here is that Wesley has persisted for a long time in presenting straw men of Transhumanism. This is not the first time I’ve called this to his attention. Now, in the post that began this thread, he has extended his straw man to Christian Transhumanism, which doubles down on the straw man presentation. You’ve made it clear in your post that you don’t think Wesley is presenting a straw man of Christian Transhumanism, but you do that counter-factually in the face of clear evidence I’ve provided: the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and its members’ claims to both Christian and Transhumanist identities. An accurate presentation and criticism of Christian Transhumanism must account for the Mormon Transhumanist Association, or it’s a straw man. You don’t have to like that. You can ignore it. But no one should take you seriously unless you take the issue seriously enough to account for its real life manifestations and complexities.

Authentic Bioethics Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Yeah, yeah, yeah, let’s all define terms however the heck we want, and claim to have a better definition than other people. Alright, fine. You define “transhumanism” to be what you want it to be and “Christianity” to be what you want it to be and then claim that’s what they really are. Go for it.
Of course when you do that, then anything you say is by definition true and no one can argue with you. It’s a great way of shutting up naysayers, huh?
But reality is not how you define it. Rather your definitions should reflect what really is. Oops. Unless you take it upon yourself to define “reality.” Then reality is whatever you want it to be.
Jesus is who you want him to be. He taught what you want to hear. Whatever you desire can be claimed to be consistent with that, and no one can argue with you. Transhumanism is whatever you imagine it to be, and anything anyone says to the contrary, even if based on what transhumansists have said, is a strawman.
Go for it.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:56 pm
@Authentic Bioethics, I’m neither a relativist nor an absolutist. Words have meaning to the extent we share them. I’m happy to work toward sharing. For practical and moral reasons, I’m not willing to adopt the definitions you’ve proposed.

pentamom Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 9:13 am
@Abelard Lindsey, “Transhumanism might not be compatible with your version of Christianity. But it is certainly the logical extension of the American values of self-reliance and pioneering. ”
Well, maybe, but what does that have to do with Christianity?
Christianity is characterized (though not wholly defined) by the belief that God became man that man might become like Him. Therefore, any idea that man’s destiny is to become something other than fundamentally human directly contradicts one of the essential tenets of Christianity.
Whatever else trans-humanism may be, it cannot be Christian if it separates redeemed man from being human, since Christ is human and the ultimate destiny of the Christian is to become in every way like Christ.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:25 pm
@pentamom, the Bible says God is not a man. Perhaps God is a posthuman? In any case, I share your trust that we should become Christ.

Christian Gains Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 12:25 pm
@Abelard Lindsey, Abelard, (if I’m not mistaken, you take your name from the founder of the University of Paris, correct?). He most assuredly would vehemently disagree with your view of life. He, (being a SUPERB teacher of Religion), KNEW, — from very personal experience — that ONLY God can “get it right”, and, if we’re humble & honest enough to cry out to Jesus, and trustingly obey His guidance, (through the spirit), we too will “get it right”.
But, if we, as Lucifer, (Isa.14: 12 – 14), contend:”I WILL do this, and I WILL do that”, instead of humbly beseeching the LORD’s will…well, we’ll find the results to be similar to Lucifer’s.
Kathleen Lundquist
April 21st, 2012 | 3:11 pm
I think Douglas is conflating “transhumanism” with the ancient Christian doctrine of theosis (e.g. I Peter, becoming “partakers of the divine nature”).
The question Douglas needs to ask himself is: From a classical Christian perspective, what is authentically ‘human’ about transhumanism? My answer: Not a lot. Modern transhumanism’s lack of belief in a knowable quantity of things which constitute human nature throws such a conflation completely out of whack.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 6:43 pm
@Kathleen Lundquist, change is authentically human. Evolution is authentically human. Flourishing in compassion and creativity beyond past capacities is authentically human. Transhumanism is authentic humanism, unfettered by the dogmatism of a static humanity.

Authentic Bioethics Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 3:03 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Genocide, totalitarianism, oppression, exploitation, selfishness, self-gratification, hedonism, gluttony, insensitivity to suffering, and indeed sadism — these are all authentically human, too. And they are the natural outcome of a radical individualism that brooks no authority higher than the self.
How on earth can any philosophy that wants to destroy and the human race and replace it with something it deems to be “better” — or “more evolved” or other euphemism you want — be an authentic humanism?
Humanism, in order to be authentic, must have man’s authentic good in view. And that good cannot be the eradication of the human species and its replacement by something else — something else envisioned to be “better” by people of questionable wisdom.
You seem to think transhumanism is about the individual. If so, you are deluded.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:04 pm
@Authentic Bioethics, I’ve already explicitly disagreed with the notion that Transhumanism is necessarily about individualism. That aside, I agree that there’s much in humanity that is not good or beautiful, and accordingly not all possible posthumanities should be considered equal. You suggest, as if it’s obvious, that the greatest good for humanity is remaining human. That’s not obvious, and I reject the idea. To the contrary, I submit that the greatest good for humanity is that toward which it has always aspired: compassion and creation beyond itself. The greatest good for the children of God is to mature into Godhood, putting off humanity and putting on posthumanity. You can question the wisdom of the aspiration, but you can do so only as a person of questionable wisdom, like the rest of us. You can appeal to the wisdom of God, and your familiarity with that wisdom, but you can do so only as a fallible person, like the rest of us.

Christian Gains Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 12:56 pm
@Kathleen Lundquist, I venture to state that humankind has NEVER, (nor ever will), “CREATED” anything.
We HAVE DISCOVERED many things, and methods of utilizing the creation, but we’ll NEVER (from nothing) create a living reality. (it’s quite interesting to me — and a bit of a mystery, of why), that the only two times God actually got physically involved in the creation, (not merely SPEAKING creation into physical existence), was with the creation of Adam & then, of Eve…all else was SPOKEN into existence. Quite the demonstration of both authority, and power!
The closest we come, in THIS lifetime, is in procreation…the result of sowing and conceiving.
Also, as to “partaking in the DIVINE NATURE”, I submit that we might likely be misinterpreting that phrase. “nature” is NOT necessarily equal to “BEING”. “Nature” is defined as:”essential character or constitution; distinguishing quality, or qualities, essence”.[Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 5th Edition]. Whereas “being” is defined as: “Existence, specif. conscious existence”. [ibid].
My sons can (and do, to a degree), have “my nature”, BUT, that does NOT make them me.
“partaking in the divine NATURE” does NOT make us GOD, it simply causes us to be more LIKE God in our motivations and reasonings, I believe.
Authentic Bioethics
April 21st, 2012 | 3:45 pm
The difference between materialist trans/post-humanism and Christian eschatology is an important part of my dissertation. Thanks for confirming that I’m on the right track.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 6:45 pm
@Authentic Bioethics, immaterialism and escapism were brought to Christianity during its reconciliation with Neoplatonism. Material heaven on Earth is quite compatible with Christianity, until one insists on a Neoplatonic interpretation.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:11 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Yes, Augustine DID infuse “Neoplatonism” into popular Christian theology, but immaterialism is recorded many, many times in Old & New Testament scripture.
Several of the most outstanding events are described in Daniel 10, verses 13 & 20, and in the “Transfiguration” events described in Matt.17: 1 through 8.
Then, there’s the events on the “plains of Mamre”, AND the destruction of Sodom, in Genesis 18 & 19. And, lastly, there’s the events described in Luke Chap.24, from Jesus’s resurrection & ascension, through His appearances both in the upper room, as well as on the road to Emmaus.
ALL of these, and MANY more, declaring the reality of the immaterial, (other dimensional) world…and…FINALLY there’s the Biblically unfaltering thematic of WHERE YAHWEY DWELLS…it’s OBVIOUSLY NOT an earthly dwelling.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:01 pm
@Christian Gains, where does immaterialism appear in the Bible? The examples you suggested do not necessitate immaterialism — for example, a spirit need not be immaterial, and not all Christians consider spirit to be immaterial. Consider whether you’re reading immaterialism into your examples. For the Old Testament, I don’t know of evidence to suggest humanity had even conceived of immaterialism prior to a few centuries BC. For the New, the concept was around, so it seems it would have been explicitly referenced if it were intended.

Christian Gains Reply:
May 1st, 2012 at 11:20 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, HELLOOOOOO….PLEASE READ….not just react to your first comprehension of my first sentence! commooooon mannnnnn!!!!

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:15 pm
@Christian Gains, none of your examples necessarily entail immaterialism. You’re reading that into the text.

Authentic Bioethics Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 3:07 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Is that in the Bible somewhere? Or in the writings of the theologians of the first few centuries? Or is the Bible and the Patristic period already reflective of neoplatonic contamination? And if the last answer is Yes, then how on earth do you know what Christianity is in order to make your claims?

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:09 pm
@Authentic Bioethics, I see Neoplatonic influence in the gospel of John. I don’t see that influence in the earlier writings of Paul. In any case, when it comes to figuring out Christianity, I’m stuck in the same boat with you: study and prayer, according to whatever wisdom and inspiration I might have.

Christian Gains Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 1:04 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Now, FIRSTLY: The Gospel of John? REALLY!?!
PLEASE DO demonstrate THAT doctrine in THAT Gospel…I’m fairly familiar with it, so you won’t lose me…just, go right ahead as enlighten me.
SECONDLY: If you’d have said Paul, I MIGHT not be so incredulous — since he WAS AN HIGHLY LEARNED MAN, but John??? He was nothing MORE than “ignorant & unlearned” fisherman!? So, that’s a VERY BIG PROBLEM.
I REALLY DO want to see your gymnastics of pulling Platonian logic, out of Yohanan’s Gospel.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:26 pm
@Christian Gains, it’s unlikely that John the early disciple of Christ wrote the gospel named after him, and it’s clear the author of that gospel has some Neoplatonic education. I don’t agree with everything at this link, but it will give you some flavor: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/gospel_john.html
Lincoln Cannon
April 21st, 2012 | 4:51 pm
Wesley, whether Transhumanism and Christianity are compatible depends on your understanding of each. You regularly present straw man interpretations of Transhumanism, and you’ve here presented a narrow interpretation of Christianity. The Mormon Transhumanist Association illustrates that your understanding of Transhumanism and Christianity is incomplete.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 5:24 pm
I specifically said “orthodox” Christianity. You can call any belief “Christian.”

Abelard Lindsey Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 1:01 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Thanks for clarifying this. Orthodox Christianity is only one flavor of Christianity and likely not the most prevalent one at that. There are many flavors of Christianity. The Christian religion belongs to the Christians, for them to make of it as they choose. Some might choose your way, others (including most of those I know personally) see no reason to consider their religious belief and transhumanism to be mutually exclusive.

Daniel Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 5:29 pm
@Lincoln Cannon,
Phillipians 3:18-21
(18) For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ,
(19) whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.
(20) For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
(21) who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 7:05 pm
@Daniel, other Christians can quote scripture too …
Isaiah 65
17 ¶For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.
1 Corinthians 15
51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
2 Peter 3
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
Revelation 21
1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 7:32 pm
Yes, but Lincoln, the New Earth is, according to the Bible, God’s handiwork, not man’s. Which is why orthodox Christian and transhumanist theology are incompatible. Why does that simple statement of fact upset you? One can’t be a Christian Muslim either. Muslims would agree. An orthodox Christian won’t be a Latter Day Saint. The theology is different. That’s a value neutral fact.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 11:30 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, the Bible does not teach the New Earth is God’s handiwork in any exclusive way. To the contrary, the Bible clearly teaches that we are to participate in the work, to be one with Christ, to take the name of Christ, to have Christ in us, and to do the works of Christ. It’s not the Bible, but rather the interpretation with which you’ve been trained, that prevents you from seeing Transhumanism in the Bible. Why does it upset you that Christianity and Transhumanism are compatible? Theologies differ indeed, but you’re engaged in more than assessment of differences, Wesley. You’re engaged in ethical judgments based on straw man representations of Transhumanism and violently-privileged unnecessary interpretations of Christianity. That’s not a value neutral matter.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 11:46 pm
It doesn’t upset me at all that you see things differently than I do. But to make it compatible you have to resort to wholly heterodox interpretations. That’s fine, but it is incompatible with orthodoxy.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:04 am
@Wesley J. Smith, from some perspectives, you’re engaged in heterodox interpretation, and I’m engaged in orthodoxy. You aren’t approaching this matter in the value neutral manner you imagine.

Daniel Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 10:22 pm
@Lincoln Cannon,
You evidentlty missed this part even though you posted it. (notice the order and timing)
I Corinthians 15:52
In a moment, **in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:** for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
and you also completely missed or ignored this one…
II Peter 3:10-12
(10) But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, ***and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.***
(11) Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
(12) **Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?**
You are definitely picking and choosing and inserting only your own desires.
Again I quote…
Phillipians 3:18-21
(18) For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ,
(19) whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things.
(20) For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ;
(21) who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.
In the twinkling of an eye!
Not by humanistic bootstrap “theology”.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 11:35 pm
@Daniel, as you illustrate, I’m not the only picking and choosing here. The difference probably is that I’ll acknowledge I’m picking and choosing. There are portions of the Bible that are simply not worth picking, on moral grounds. You might think you give the Bible the last word, but that’s a choice YOU have made — not the Bible. That aside, for the passages you’ve referenced, the interpretations you’ve implied are neither obvious not necessary. I could offer others, arguably less of a stretch than yours, that are compatible with Transhumanism. Of course, that won’t make a difference here for either of us.

Authentic Bioethics Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 3:12 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Actually what Daniel illustrates, is that the new heaven and new earth that you cite are in fact God’s handiwork. And if man participates in their emergence, man cannot do it without God nor by technology. And at any rate, even with picking and choosing, you have not shown that man is or can be his own savior, or that man will or could bring about a new heaven and a new earth, without God’s help.
If God is involved, then man’s efforts are to be ordered to bringing about God’s plan.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:15 pm
@Authentic Bioethics, where does the Bible say humans cannot use technology to participate in the work of God? The Bible teaches me the opposite: faith without works is dead. Technology is a form of works. The Bible also teaches me that I should take the name of and become one with Christ, following the example of Jesus, and working to fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my own flesh for others. This isn’t a competition with Jesus, or seeking to displace God. Rather, this is about uniting with God and Christ in compassion and creation.

Christian Gains Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 1:16 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Here you go…”…I should take ‘the name’ of and be ‘one with’ Christ…”. Hmmm…this COULD be interpreted to mean physical oneness,OR that the writer’s exhorting to “be in unity WITH CHRIST”.
They are TWO VERY different meanings. But, the NEXT STATEMENT makes it CLEAR what the writer is referring to as to WHAT we should be doing: “…FLLOWING the EXAMPLE…”.
NOT BEING Christ, but being LIKE Him.
Just as a son can (and should), FOLLOW his Father’s GOOD examples…but NOT his bad ones. Nonetheless, the son is a wholly separate existent entity from his dad. Context is VERY SIGNIFICANT to proper interpretation of Scripture.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 2:21 pm
@Christian Gains, who’s claiming we should be physically one with Jesus? I’m certainly not. “Christ” is not Jesus’ last name. It is Greek for “messiah”, which means something like “anointed one”. We should be Christ. We should be messiahs, anointed to the special purpose of loving and serving others, participating in the work of God to bring about their immortality and eternal life.

holyterror Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 3:40 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Translation:
“I have had to tip my hand that I do not believe the Bible is a divinely-revealed document but rather an instrument for proving my own favorite ideas. And now I will vaguely suggest that I can indeed disprove your arguments, but demur, and then slip away.”

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:17 pm
@holyterror, I consider the Bible to be an inspired work, yet fallible like all inspired works and persons I’ve ever encountered, to the best of my fallible ability to judge. I’m not interested in seeing who can thump the Bible most loudly. If you’re sincerely interested in how I interpret a Bible passage, and if you persuade me that you’re sincere in the interest, I’d be happy to discuss it with you. Otherwise, no amount of proof texting will help either of us.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:20 pm
May I say how PLEASED I am with this discussion. It is interesting. Respectful. And fully frank and to the point. This is precisely what I was hoping for with this post. Thank you all!

Christian Gains Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:22 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Yes, other christians CAN quote, and, at the very same, misinterpret.
The glaring disconnect of trans-humanism, with Christianity, is the SUPERNATURAL, immaterial, spiritual NEW BIRTH, which, (in Christ’s theology) is ALL necessary for our salvation AND our entrance into HIS Kingdom.
Interpreting all of your quoted verses to support a man made entity, as being representative of GOD’S CREATION, is first and foremost, the biggest mistake Transhumanists make, theologically, and, secondly, is both ludicrous, and blasphemous.
Very closely akin to the reasoning for the Genesis 6 deluge & destruction.
I sense that benay elohim may be at work once again. I’m betting that you are in for FAR MUCH bigger a surprise than you might imagine.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:07 pm
@Christian Gains, neither Jesus nor the Bible requires supernaturalism or immaterialism. Jesus in the Bible invites us to be one in Christ, with Christ in us, doing the works of Christ. What does Christ do? Christ consoles and heals, to the point of raising the dead and renewing the world. That is also the work we’re called to do, so far as I can tell from reading the Bible.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:40 am
@Lincoln Cannon, #1] Where is Jesus right now? #2] Who has HE assigned to “scientifically, in a lab, spawn a “Lab-being” that is labeled “TRANS HUMAN” — where exactly do you find THAT commission in Jesus’s theology? And, #3] This blog is not centered on what JESUS does, it’s centered on what HUMANKIND is attempting to do. BTW, Gen.6: 1-13 is a VERY GOOD record of how that first attempt went.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:28 pm
@Christian Gains, I don’t know where Jesus is. I know where Christ should be, in you and me and all of us, including and exemplified by Jesus. Jesus invited us to do the works we read about him doing in the Bible. What did Jesus do? He healed and resurrected. Science and technology are means of healing and, I suspect, resurrecting.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 12:20 am
He also forgave sins, which Christians believe was the point. The other things were signs, not purpose.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, we too should forgive each other for our sins against each other. Which is easier, to heal or to forgive? Transhumanism is not merely about enhancing our physical abilities. To the contrary, if there’s an emphasis it’s on enhancing our mental abilities, which should include compassion.
Bret Lythgoe
April 21st, 2012 | 6:11 pm
Clearly the notion that we humans can transform ourselves into something “beyond” humanity, is incoherent, but the idea that suffering should be eliminated seems very reasonable to me. If some magic person was able to wave a wand and totally eliminate all human and animal suffering, I would have to say he should wave away. I find it troubling when some people seem to assert that suffering somehow has intrinsic value in helping us get closer to God. It’s true, that suffering can help people be more empathetic, and sympathetic to the suffering of others. But this presupposes that suffering is an evil to be avoided.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 7:07 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, from a biological perspective, it’s not at all incoherent that humanity could transform itself beyond the characteristics of the human species. As the author of the article in question observed, we will go extinct or evolve, and our evolution will be intentional or not. We will not remain forever as we are.

Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 10:32 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, I see what you’re saying, but biological evolution takes a very long time: humans, at least according to the latest empirical evidence and the extrapolations derived from this evidence in the biological sciences, have been in the current species form, for about one hundred thousand years. It seems doubtful that, at least in any particular person’s lifetime, we will evolve into a different species. Moreover, Aristotle’s distinction, between essential properties, and accidential properties, seems relevant here. That is, if the essential property, of humanity changes, do we lose our personal identities? If we have a substantial property, that makes us human, we can change, of course. But to borrow from Aristotle, we can only change our accidential properties, without ceasing to be who we are. If we change our substantial,or essential properties, to become posthuman, how can we claim to be the same beings?
I agree with you that we must change, but as Aristotle said, something, the essential part of a thing must remain the same, or else we have something totally different. What would be the connection between the human, and posthuman?
If I become posthuman, I cannot be the same being that I was before, since my essential property (humanity) has changed. But there needs to be continuity, to connect the human and posthuman beings.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 11:38 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, we need not assume humanity to be our essential property. We can perpetuate identity otherwise.

Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 5:12 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, The problem that I see is this: if we loose our humanity, to become something else, how do we maintain the continuity of personal identity? That is, person A is human. the humanity is the essence of who she is. If she becomes something else, a “posthuman”, how can we say that she’s the same person after this transition as she was before?

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:09 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, personhood is at least one level of abstraction above human-hood.

Christian Gains Reply:
May 2nd, 2012 at 1:45 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, to venture an answer to your question: “what would be the connection…”; As you correctly infer: Something of the original MUST remain, or you have something wholly different.
Now, Christianity — the BIBLE — teaches that Yahwey “…breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and MAN BECAME A LINING SOUL”…that is GOD doing what we will NEVER be able to do…and then there’s the “sacrificial lamb of God”, again, doing what MANKIND CAN NEVER DO…paying the WHOLE price for our Salvation.
AGAIN, GOD doing what mankind can NEVER DO. BOTH, making the sacrifice, AS WELL AS RECEIVING the value of that sacrifice, as sufficient payment!
And, lastly, there’s humankind’s soul & spirit. Without which we are NOT human.
Since science CANNOT “breath the breath of life” into a being they created, (from a substance they created from nothing, but simply spoke it into existence), then WHATEVER we MAKE from created substance will NOT be a “God created reality” nor “filled with the Holy Spirit of life. Therefore, the original has been TRANS-FORMED into something NOT human. And, as Genesis 6: 1 – 5 clearly depicts, THAT WON’T go well.

holyterror Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 7:52 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, It might seem reasonable, Bret, but it is incompatible with Christian theology. Suffering is part of the world and cannot be redeemed by human beings.
Even our Messiah did not choose to perfect the unjust, harsh and dangerous conditions of this fallen world. Surprising everyone, He instead offered us a way to transform our hearts.
In light of that, how would we claim that through “great effort” — specifically, non-spiritual efforts — we will change the broken world completely into something else?

Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 10:36 pm
@holyterror, But why couldn’t it be, since Christ died for us? That is, since Christ reformed humanity, why could we not,in principle, eliminate all suffering, if we realize that Christ’s work is what enables us to it? Of course, it would be profoundly niave for one to believe that, in practice, the elimination of all suffering would easily take place. No, it would be profoundly difficult, to say the least. But there’s no a priori reason to reject its possibility.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 11:40 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, the only sure way to eliminate suffering is to eliminate life. Along those lines, ironically, many Christians use “eternal life” as a euphemism for death.

Dave "Dblade" Dutcher Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:39 am
@Lincoln Cannon, Eternal life is not the way to eliminate it. What is hell, if not eternal life? Given an unredeemed eternity we take our sins with us. C.S. Lewis and the book the Great Divorce is a good allegory of that.
It’s to be changed and redeemed, and that’s something that can only be done through the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s odd to think otherwise: even secular transhumanist science fiction show the massive downsides of how technology changes us over time, even if immortal.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:25 am
@Dave “Dblade” Dutcher, I don’t share your soteriology. Redemption, so far as I’m concerned, comes from a never ending process of reconciliation: the Eternal Atonement of Christ, in which we are invited to participate as exemplified by Jesus.

Dave "Dblade" Dutcher Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 8:04 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, But that reconciliation even needs to be due to a change in the spiritual nature of man. Transhumanism is useless to accomplish this, because it is not a physical condition to be changed.
Making men able to live 200 years or survive at Mars levels of atmospheric pressure will not change man in the image of God one iota, nor change their relationship with them, any more than increasing life standards to 70+ years form 30-40 has now.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:02 pm
@Dave “Dblade” Dutcher, I agree that the physical changes enabled by technology should be accompanied with spiritual changes, particularly those advocated by the Gospel of Christ. That’s why I’m a Mormon Transhumanist rather than, say, an anti-religious Transhumanist.

Dave "Dblade" Dutcher Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:34 am
@Bret Lythgoe, Suffering is not sin. That’s more of a Buddhist ideal, to prevent all suffering.
The problem of sin is that even if no one suffers from the act, it still separates us from God. This is why Christians tend to harp on things secular people can’t get. Why is fornication bad, for example? Many times it harms no one at all.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:26 am
@Dave “Dblade” Dutcher, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. A sin that harms no one is no sin.

Dave "Dblade" Dutcher Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:55 pm
@Lincoln Cannon,
That isn’t what I said. The lack of suffering doesn’t mean an action is not a sin. All sin harms a person’s relationship with God, but not all sin causes suffering.
Modern ideas of fornication, for example. If done with informed consent, the amount of suffering from the act itself is minimal. there may be suffering in the abstract and long term, but immediate harm is absent.
if you remove physical suffering you do not remove sin.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:12 pm
@Dave “Dblade” Dutcher, I agree our assessment of harm should account for both the breadth and depth of time and space. Of course, that makes it incredibly complex, beyond human capacity to discern with anything except a faith and hope that we have enough wisdom and inspiration to make the better decision.

holyterror Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 6:10 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, Your question occured to me, too, as I was getting ready to post that first comment. I think it is a reasonable and persuasive one. Certainly someone like Teilhard de Chardin thought something like that: that Jesus’s presence on the earth has brought the possibility that we can attain some kind of perfected world here.
Here is why, at least on the surface, I reject the argument that Jesus’ life, death and resurrection were meant to bring about a perfected *material* world *in addition to* or even, more importantly (as in most Transhumanist ideas, it seems to me) than the spiritual one:
The main reason that seems obvious is that Jesus’ life was completely focused on the spiritual life, and his references to the material world were minimal. If the main focus was on the perfection of the material world then it would be more obvious, it seems to me.
There are a lot of arguments one can make against that thought, too, so we can talk more about it.
I did want to add that Transhumanism’s focus on the perfection of material conditions –even if the end goal is to advance spiritually — cannot, as yet, be accomplished without disregarding some of the inherent qualities of human-ness, or promoting the material goals over the spiritual ones, at least in the short term. For example, the existence of a separate and divinely-granted soul *has to* be changed or else there can be no justification for a download of “a person” into something else that is materially different from the body in which we were created.

Bret Lythgoe Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 8:31 pm
@holyterror, you make some good points. But one of the things that’s inherent in Christianity, is the importance of the physical world. The latter is good, because God made it. We will have ressurrected bodies, not just spirits. One of the things that I’ve liked about Mormonism (I was raised Mormon, and most of my family is Mormon, although I’ve come to disbelieve in Mormonism, I have great respect for the Mormon Church) is it’s view that, not only are humans resurrected, but all animals are as well.
I don’t know that we can seperate the spiritual from the material. One can perfect the material world, here on earth, and at the same time, be perfecting things spiritually.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 12:59 pm
@Bret Lythgoe, This thread is losing value folks…FIRSTLY: “the importance of the physical world” is a VERY SECONDARY factor.
“For the invisible things of HIM (the creator), from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being UNDERSTOOD BY THE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, even HIS eternal power and Godhead, so that they, (my note to this part}: who refuse to credit HIM, either with authority or existence) are without excuse”.
SECONDLY: Note that it is the INVISIBLE THINGS of GOD that are to be UNDERSTOOD by the physical things. The greater is interpreted by the lesser.
This is the ESSENTIAL LESSON in Jn. 3:3 – 8 & 6:63.
IT IS THE INVISIBLE THINGS THAT ARE MADE, that are the essential elements of both our being enabled to see & enter Yahwey’s KINGDOM, as well as, for us to have life!
And, our life here on Earth, is a learning process.
If we choose to learn about Jesus, The Father & the holy spirit, and their KINGDOM, then the earth was created for that very purpose, and “the things that are seen” tech us about the ” invisible things”.
Also, understanding Jesus’ theology [generally referred to as his "WORDS"], is essential to being able to understand what the Earth’s physical appearances and processes are demonstrating.
Also, nowhere in the creation, (especially not through human pro-creation), is a TRANS-HUMAN reality demonstrated by the Earth’s physical reality.
TRANS-HUMANISM is wholly, (and Kursweil would be the first to say this), a human philosophical theory, and scientific project.
Actually, the “new birth” that the Messiah refers Nicodemus to, IS the “seperating of the spiritual from the physical: “Therefore, if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature, old things are passed away, behold, all things are become new”.
This is not MAN creating a NEW man, this is MAN, yielding to Christ Jesus, and JESUS making that man a NEW creature. And, note it say “creature”.
Now, the bottom line problem ANY Christian SHOULD have with TRANSHUMANISM, is the UTTER LACK of the “HAND OF GOD” doing the changing…and the unfaltering credit given to the cursed “arm of the flesh” by TRANS-HUMANISTS.
Man making a lab human!
Jeremiah 17:5 “Cursed is man, that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm”.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:32 pm
@Christian Gains, blessed be posthumanity, that trusts in and changes toward posthumanity, that makes posthumanity her strength.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:13 pm
@holyterror, some Christians (notably Mormons) already consider the spirit to be material. I consider the spirit to be information, which can exist only in a material substrate, of course.
Lincoln Cannon
April 21st, 2012 | 6:36 pm
Wesley, “orthodox” is prejudiced. Are you talking about Greek Orthodox? Russian Orthodox? How about what Mormons consider orthodox? You’re perpetuating a symbolic violence perpetrated by the American radical right, Christian fundamentalists. Your “Christian” is not objectively more meaningful by tagging it with “orthodox”.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 6:48 pm
No. That would be with a capital O. Descriptives have to have meaning. I would define orthodox Christianity as, at minimum, accepting the truth of the Nicene Creed. Thus, as just one example, one might call themselves Christian if they did not believe in the literal resurection, but they would not be orthodox Christian,

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 6:52 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, did Jesus accept the truth of the Nicene creed? Was he Christian? How about the authors of the Bible? Did they accept the truth of the Nicene creed? Were they Christian?

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 6:56 pm
My, we are defensive. The Nicene Creed was agreed upon by the orignial Church as the tenet of the faith. Not all Christians believe that today. But I think it is required to be orthodox Christian. We have to be able to define our terms, or they mean nothing. Transhumanism, which seeks a material New Jerusalem is in irreconcilable conflict with orthodox Christianity. I don’t see how that can be disputed.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 7:13 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, the Nicene Creed was agreed upon by a church, which claimed to be the original church. That claim is controversial, of course. I agree that we need to understand terms in order to communicate, but the understanding of terms you’re advocating is a symbolic violence to persons like me. Consider how our language has perpetuated forms of racism and sexism throughout history. The same happens in religion, particularly exemplified by this question of Christian identity.
… and Wesley, why should I not respond to the narrow prejudice you’ve articulated? As I’ve shared with you before, I like you and respect much that you do. I don’t intend my responses here as personal attacks. I intend them to be memorable, perhaps provoking additional consideration before you repeat another straw man of Transhumanism or a marginalization of Christians who do not share your dogma.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Oh please.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 11:42 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, please what? Do I give you the impression I’m less than serious? Of course, those engaged in the violence have been saying the equivalent of “oh please” for millennia. Maybe I’m too impatient to expect more here and now?

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 21st, 2012 at 11:53 pm
I think you are very serious. I respect you a lot. My comment was aimed at the ridiculous notion that I am aiming symbolic violence against you.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:15 am
@Wesley J. Smith, for the most part, I don’t think you’re doing it intentionally (and therefore not aiming, per se), which is why I feel it’s particularly worth pointing out. I don’t think you’re sufficiently considering how persons from diverse religious traditions (or non-religious ideologies, for that matter) actually understand these matters, and so you do them an injustice, even if unintentional. If you want to persuade persons who are not already persuaded of your position, you will do it best by presenting weaknesses in real life Transhumanism, and the real life ways in which some Christians are Transhumanists.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:11 am
This is post modernism. I claim that transhumanism is antithetical to orthodox Christianity. That is a descriptive. But if everything is Christianity, no matter the actual tenets of the belief, then we can’t really discuss anything, nor can we if someone is offended by descriptives. And because someone says that something is “Christian,” that doesn’t mean it is. Historically, these terms have had meanings.
Transhumanism is also antithetical to Buddhism. Example: Buddhism sees the material as an illusion and the point of life is to reach a point of illumination at which point one loses his or her individual identity and becomes one with all. Transhumanism sees materialism as all there is, and for the relatively few who might not, the point isn’t illumination, but post humanity and radical individuality. Yet, because transhumanism is generally non theistic, like Buddhism, some transhumanists like James Hughes, claim to be Buddhist. But the tenets are mirror opposites!
If everything means anything we want, nothing means anything at all.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:44 am
@Wesley J. Smith, you’re generalizing my arguments beyond recognition. I haven’t suggested that everything is Christian. I’ve suggested you’re facilely imposing your definition of “Christian” on me despite my appeals to reasoned explanations of why your definition is insufficient and oppressive.
Have you studied early Christian history, Wesley? It’s hardly obvious that the persons who violently ensured sovereignty of dogmas such as the Nicene Creed were any more legitimately Christian than their antagonists. How about middle ages Christianity? The violence continued, and you’re now privileging the victors, as if their torturous crusades and witch hunts legitimize their yet evolving assessment of Christianity. Again, what of modern Christianity? Are you aware of the cultural rape that our Christian nation imposed on my people, the Mormons, under threat of aggression from the US Army?
You say it’s post-modernism as if that bogey man should scare away further critical assessment of the ideological colonization you’re engaging. I’m hardly using “Christianity” in nonsensical ways. While you may not agree with my Christianity, it’s hardly unreasonable to consent to my claim to the identity. I consider myself a disciple of Jesus Christ, as presented in the Bible. Given that, it’s not difficult to see why I would consider myself a Christian.
I’ll not extensively engage your claim that Buddhism and Transhumanism are incompatible except to say that it’s your assessments of the two that are incompatible. They are quite compatible in the real lives of real Buddhist Transhumanists. You should consider that. When your criticisms reflect real life, instead of straw men, they will be more persuasive.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Well, good grief Lincoln. Do you consider yourself an “orthodox” Christian? If not, how have I so done? If so, how does your belief in transhumanism fit with orthodox Christian dogma?
And again with the Buddhism point. That religion has a dogma. One is the illusion of what we call material reality. You can’t drop that believ and truly be Buddhist! Transhumanists believe the mirror opposite. Some can call themselves Buddhist, but that doesn’t make it so.
Just as I could call myself Mormon if I wanted to, but I reject the Book of Mormoni and don’t believe Joseph Smith had an encounter with an angel. That disqualifies me from being a Latter Day Saint, wouldn’t you say?

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:40 pm
SPARKVARK: A comment from you was in Spam and it accidentally got snuffed. Please repost. Thanks.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:29 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Lincoln, first: You’ve clearly & pointedly stated that you do not consider the Bible as Divinely given, or, the Divine word of God.
That immediately tells me that we’re wasting our time trying to bring you to realize just how in conflict with Yehuah’s theology, TRANS-HUMANISM is.
Because you reject Messiah’s divinity, (therefore HIS credibility), and authority… [check Romans 1:20], we have no common ground of respect or reason.
So, I’m done here. You have a life of choices to live, as do I, and I choose to live, trusting God the Father, Jesus His Son, and the power and guidance of the holy spirit, through the Bible & their personal input. I utterly reject the notion that Christianity should have ANY thing to do with the TRANS-HUMANIST movement or philosophy.
I can absolutely prove that it is a cursed thing to “play God” — Hitler found that out, Openhiemer found that out…and Japan is now learning that lesson, all learned the hard way…sad.
Because

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:36 pm
@Christian Gains, please read my words more carefully. To the contrary of your mischaracterization, I consider the Bible to be the word of God, fallibly recorded and fallibly interpreted.
I do reject worship of any being that would raise itself above all else that is worshipped, declaring itself God. I worship, through emulation, any being that would raise us together as joint heirs in the glory of God. The former I call Satan, and the latter I call Christ, as exemplified by Jesus.
We cannot become Christ without trusting in (faith) and changing toward (repentance) Christ, which is compassionate and creative posthumanity: the new man, the Father, the Gods of Eternity.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 12:17 am
So Christ is not Jesus exclusively, since if Jesus “exemplified” Christ, there can be others. Sorry, not Christian as that term has been traditionally understood. Nor transhumanist, since man is his own savior.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, the Bible teaches that Jesus is not exclusively Christ. For example, Paul taught that he was filling up that which was behind of the afflictions of Christ in his own flesh for the church, and he taught that the great mystery hid from ages is Christ in you.
You’re creating an unnecessary dichotomy when you insist on a distinction between humanity as saviors and Jesus as savior. We are called to be one in Christ, to be each other’s savior, loving and forgiving, following Jesus’ example and imitating his sacrifice. We are the children of God, maturing to Godhood, learning as do all children to perform the works of their parents.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:37 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, While I certainly fully understand your meaning, wouldn’t simply accepting Jesus’s own stated theology be more definitive of “orthodox”? I’m not challenging, I’m asking as a student…isn’t Jesus the arbiter of what truly is, and what is not orthodox?
Or, let me put my question another way: “orthodox” vs “Orthodox” (it seems to me), is very similar, (if not, in fact identical), to the core problem, and apostate reality that Jesus pointed to in HIS Matt. 23 repudiation of the Pharisees “doctrines” of men, and traditions.
Isn’t it? Thanks, BTW, for this blog! Very inspiring!

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Well, the post isn’t about which “version” of Christianity is the right or best version.
Short version of Church history, of which I am not an expert. There was originally one church. That church through a few hundred years, adopted what would be considered canonical scripture, worked out dogma, etc. It did this through ecumenical councils, that is, the bishops all meeting and deciding as the leaders who walked in the shoes of the Apostles these many and varied issues. The Church had a schism in around 1094, primarily over Papal Authority demanded by the Bishop of Rome. After that, there were two churches (plus the Copts and a few others, but that is too detailed for this reply). The Catholic Church later had its own schisms, known as the Reformation. One big difference between Protestants and Catholic/Orthodox is sola scriptura, that is the former believe that onlyt the words of the Bible can be used to determine meaning, while the latter two add in Apostolic and Church Tradition, which must not conflict with Scripture, the meaning of which is mediated through the Church. They claim that sola has led to a form of anarchy since everyone can use any words in the Bible to stand for anything, as the pastor did that I quoted in the post.
But boiled down, orthodox Christianity–while having many differences within that subset–accepts certain dogmas, e.g. the empty tomb, the Trinity, and an eschatology of a Second Coming and a New Jerusalem, etc.. Some Christians reject those dogmas. For example, some Episcopalians don’t even believe in God. Bishop Spong comes to mind, and yet, he is a retired Bishop in good standing of the ECA. But clearly, Spong is not an orthodox Christian, as I am sure he would attest with great enthusiasm. It is a descriptive.
Transhumanism is certainly not consistent with orthodox Christianity. That is a descriptive.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:28 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, I’m a Christian, and “orthodox”, when applied directly to “Christianity” with an intention of contrast to me, suggests that I’m not the right kind of Christian. That’s what “orthodox” means: right doctrine. It’s an attack, without any appeal to a justification for the attack. If instead you want to appeal to a specific Christian church of which I’m not a member, I’ll happily agree to that. I’m not Greek Orthodox, for example. Likewise, you’re not a member of the LDS Church. Do you have grounds for calling yourself a Mormon? You tell me. I tell you I have grounds for calling myself a Christian: I revere Christ as God, as taught and exemplified by Jesus in the Bible.
Regarding early Christian history, it’s not clear that there was a church in the modern sense of the term until a long time after Jesus’ death. It’s also not clear that there was ever one church. The victors destroyed much of the evidence for the diversity of early Christian thought, but we still have enough to know the history is not as simple as many would like to think in order to establish their authority claims.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Really, Lincoln. I know what orthodoxy means, but I am not attacking you at all. So anything that claims to be Christian is “Christian,” and we can’t discuss these differences at all. Fine for you. But not for me. Beliefs matter and they have to be accurately identified to be discussed. Orthodox Christianity has a dogma. Latter Day Saints has a dogma. Transhumanism has a dogma, and you don’t share some of it either because it is mosty pure materialist, and you aren’t. You are a heterodox transhumanist! But these beliefs are different. So is Buddhism. So is Islam. So is atheism. No getting around it. Call it “traditional” Christianity if it makes you feel better. But the only one attacking you is you.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 11:15 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, of course we can discuss the differences. I’m not advocating that we ignore them. I’m advocating that we discuss them in ways that do not obfuscate the differences to the benefit of those who’ve been historically privileged. On moral grounds, I reject the legitimacy of Orthodox Christianity, as you’ve used it here. It’s not a church, like the LDS Church. It’s an aggressive assumption, like it would be to refer to Mormonism (of which the LDS Church is only one denomination) as Restored Christianity, as some Mormons do. Instead, can we agree on “Creedal Christianity” as a description of the kind of Christianity you believe to be incompatible with Transhumanism? If so, we can move along to another disagreement: I see no necessary incompatibilities between Creedal Christianity and Transhumanism.
Regarding materialism, please know that I’m thoroughly materialist. Most Mormons are thorough materialists, holding that even God and spirits are material. Mormon Transhumanism is not heterodox Transhumanism. To the contrary, Mormonism IS a Transhumanism, although most Mormons wouldn’t understand what that means.

Christian Gains Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 11:19 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Thanks Wesley!
Well, I totally understand and agree…and, (while I’m not a big fan of Jerome, (Constantines’ Bishop, over seeing, [I believe] the Conference that developed the “NICENE CREED”), I’ve accepted that that’s the core basics of general Christianity.
But, I primarily stick with my utilizing the KJV as my foundation of understanding of Yahwey’s plan & methodologies, and Yeshuah’s theology.
I AM a BIG fan of Mike Heiser, and his blog,and have REALLY gleaned a lot from his “The Divine Council” and other thesis & papers.
This blog here has been VERY inspiring, also, (inspite of the fact that, sadly, Lincoln really has swallowed that Gen.3:5 subtly, and wants to get that “as gods” act going ASAP).
There truly are none so blind as they who think they see, and yet, walk in gross darkness, rejecting the “light of the world’, and refusing to enter by “the door”, the only “way, truth & life”, and, as you know, “no man cometh to the Father, but by Me”! [Yeshuah Ha Messiah].
But, I TOTALLY agree with you that this has been a very useful & enlightening Blog!
I’m certainly learning from Lincoln’s explanations, why I cannot accept his thesis, nor Mormonism’s, if he is correct.
And, I’ll definitely pray for him, as he IS a very good debater, and sharp mind. He certainly does have a much more calm & less dramatic, or emotionally explosive approach to this debate than many I’ve spoken with that adhere to the TRANS-HUMANIST doctrines and philosophy.
Well, I’ll keep monitoring, and speak as I feel led. God Bless! And thank you!

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
@Christian Gains, have you seriously considered the possibility that you’re rejecting the light?
Blake
April 21st, 2012 | 11:18 pm
Transhumanism is self will and ego.
It is nothing more than the science fiction version of the so-called “Peter Pan syndrome”.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 12:21 am
@Blake, your description of Transhumanism is no more accurate than mine of Christianity would be if I described it as escapism and nihilism, nothing more than the fantasy version of sadism.
Abelard Lindsey
April 22nd, 2012 | 1:24 am
Actually, if you read Frank Tipler’s works, which are based on Pierre Tailhard de Chardin, you will realize that transhumanism and Christianity are identical. God is the omega point intelligence that we are destined to become.
Another work:
http://www.intelligentuniverse.org/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Intelligent-Universe-Emerging-Cosmos/dp/1564149196
also makes the case that transhumanism and associated ideas are logically compatible with the ideas and objectives of Christianity and that there is no reason to consider any separation between these ideas. I think transhumanism and Christianity are just separate paths with the same end-point. There is no reason for animosity between the two.

Markus Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 1:17 pm
@Abelard Lindsey,
I think transhumanism and Christianity are just separate paths with the same end-point.
With all due and undue respect, that is simply not true.
Transhumanism wants to prolong human life with the use of technology. Human beings remain as completely material beings, they just have longer lifespans, with the aim of being potentially infinite. However, merely prolonging life does not give it objective meaning: from chance to chance remains the creed of materialism.
I can understand how bleak human life is without the prospect of immortality: if there is not immortality, then a) your moral choices don’t have any repercussions and become irrelevant b) all you can expect in this world is the inevitable death. You die, your friends die, your children die, the human race will die and the universe itself dies in a heat death. The material world alone does not and can not give you any objective hope or meaning.
If transhumanism is simply an atheistic attempt to avoid this deep existential despair, well, I hope you find something better.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:32 pm
@Markus, some Christians (notably Mormons) hold that God is a material being. That aside, how would immateriality provide any meaning that materiality cannot provide? Escapism doesn’t solve the problem of deep existential despair, except to the extent it ends your existence.

Markus Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 1:44 am
@Lincoln Cannon,
Classical theism (includes purely philosophical theists, Jews, Christians and Muslims) holds that God is immaterial:
1. If God is a material being, He is bound by the laws of physics and is not omnipotent.
2. If God is a material being, He cannot be the Creator of the material universe because it includes Himself.
3. The idea of matter being metaphysically necessary is troubling.
4. If God is a material being, He is not eternal because the universe is going to die, too.
I didn’t understand the escapism reference. If atheism is true, then life is pretty bleak. If Christianity is true, this life has hope and meaning. I’m in the latter camp.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:39 pm
@Markus, I have faith in God. I’m a theist. I trust in a material God, compassionate and creator of our world. I trust also that God became God, like we can and should become God.

Markus Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 1:47 am
@Lincoln Cannon, I admire your honesty.
I also believe that a personal, compassionate, loving God exists who created the universe. I just cannot understand how a material God can exists, with the objections I gave to you.
God cannot become God. You’re positing that some being, less than God, by some means acquired omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence all by (H/h)imself?
Are Mormons really polytheists, as you seem to indicate? That there really exists multiple Gods, and you/I can become one of Them?
My question marks over Mormonism have only gotten bigger.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 11:11 am
@Markus, I don’t know whether there was a first God. I trust that we can become God through both works and grace, the context of opportunity provided to us. Mormons may or may not be polytheists, depending on how you understand that. Most of us do believe in multiple (even innumerable) divine beings, but unlike some polytheists, we don’t think of them as competing against each other, but rather we think of them as united as one in purpose.

Markus Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
@Lincoln Cannon,
1. You cannot get omnipotent unless you’re already omnipotent. Weightlifting doesn’t five you the power to create out of nothing. Either you have omnipotence, or you don’t. It may be possible for a God to abdicate his omnipotence, but it’s impossible to get it back then.
2. If there never was a first God, AND Person A got this godhood by grace and good works, you’re assuming that there exists some authority above person A who judged his actions. Then this authority deemed them good enough AND Person A somehow got godhood trough grace. What is this higher authority that person A was subject to before godhood? You’re assuming that there once was not a God and that there was a God who judged Person A’s actions who became the first God. This is just piling contradiction upon contradiction.
3. Innumerable divine beings? An infinite amount of Gods? All of them material beings? How do they even fit in this universe, which has a beginning?
I see that you’re honest and sincere. Please find a local church and ask an orthodox Christian minister to talk to you about these doctrines, because they simply don’t make sense.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:30 pm
@Markus, there’s a difference between not understanding something and something not making sense. Here are some brief thoughts:
1) I usually talk about God in terms of sublime compassion and creativity, and not in terms of omnipotence. However, if I do use “omnipotence” in reference to God, I would consider it only a practical approximation relative to us.
2) Again, I don’t know whether there was a first God. You’re also using “grace” more narrowly than I’m using it: grace is opportunity, which may or may not be willed. To the extent other individuals and communities exist, their wills and rules are aspects of my context of grace. To the extent they don’t exist, opportunity is presented by my anatomical desires and environmental rules.
3) Innumerable and infinite are not necessarily the same, not all infinites are necessarily the same, and our universe may be one of innumerable universes.
Abelard Lindsey
April 22nd, 2012 | 1:32 am
“Whereas it is an oxymoron in relation to biblical Christianity it’s perfectly coherent with Mormonism.”
Having spent time with Mormons and having some understanding of their worldview, I regard Mormonism as superior to other forms of Christianity. Mormons are actually better at living the family values that other Christians claim to believe in (compare and contrast Romney with Gingrich, for example). The Mormons I’ve known seem to be actually happy doing the family thing and they seem to cheat less in their marriages. Mormonism emphasizes education and a productive work ethic (unlike certain other forms of Christianity) and it seems to have a pioneering spirit to it (again, totally unlike most other forms of Christianity).
If we develop FTL space travel, or do the O’neill space colony thing, there is no question in my mind that the Mormons will be among the people to go to the “new worlds” and being quite successful at it.

Markus Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 1:28 pm
@Abelard Lindsey,
I’m not an expert on theology, but it seems that Mormons have big problems with the Doctrine of Trinity. To be considered an orthodox Christian, this is pretty much a deal-breaker.
How Mormons behave towards other people and conduct their behavior is another business: I’ve also heard that they lead their lives with more virtue than many Christians. Similarly, an atheist can be virtuous and lead a good, decent life.
If your argument is that Mormons are generally more “good” than other Christians, you may be correct.
If your argument is that Mormonism is intellectually more coherent or plausible, I’ll put a question mark over that.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:38 pm
@Markus, as the Bible is silent on the “trinity”, so are Mormons. As the Bible references the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, so do Mormons. Mormons reject the notion that orthodoxy should be determined based on adherence to the creeds, and Mormons are generally more concerned with orthopraxy than orthodoxy.
For my part, I consider the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost to be archetypes of premortal, mortal and postmortal Godhood, as exemplified by Jesus, who invites us to be one with him in that Godhood.

Markus Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 2:29 am
@Lincoln Cannon,
The early Christian church used the first 400 years of its existence to make sense of the claims and resurrection of Jesus. The adoption of creeds was meant to condense and clarify beliefs, so that cults and heresies wouldn’t come. One of the things is the idea that the Trinity has three different, distinct, divine persons united in one God.
Another is the difference between faith and good works: Christians say that salvation is trough faith. Good works are good in themselves and can strengthen your faith, but you cannot pull yourself to Heaven by your moral bootstraps. Christianity has rejected the Moral Performance narrative and adopted the Grace narrative.
We should first get the ideas in order and then try to live them out. I’m happy that Mormons help the poor and try to conduct their lives with dignity.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:40 pm
@Markus, not all Christians share your assessment of the relation between grace and works. Like most Mormons, I think neither is sufficient alone.
Christian Gains
April 22nd, 2012 | 1:01 pm
This has been quite interesting, and I look forward to the responses I get.
But, one point I believe that Transhumanist seem to miss, is that this 4 dimensional existence that we term “life”, is both transitional, highly deceptive, and cannot genuinely be understood from a simply physical /carnal/materialistic perspective.
Take “personality” for instance. What IS IT? Emotions…what ARE they REALLY? Dreams, visions, thoughts. ALL are not physically viewable, yet ALL are physically impactfull, to varying degrees. They are REALITIES, but often, not physically explainable.
Love, hate, jealously — ALL realities that impact the human experience, but have numerous, (maybe even unlimited), sources or causes.
While humankind CAN & DOES study these realities, and attempts to remedy the negative, and encourage the positive aspects of them, WAR, PREJUDICE, and UNCERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES constantly expose the fact that we humans are doing poorly in solving or eliminating the negative impacts of these realities.
And, I submit, that History PROVES that we will NOT solve those problems any better than any other generation did, until we humble ourselves and cry out to the authorities that (while they ALSO cannot be seen, are not physical — but physically impact our existence), are greater than ourselves or our societies or Nations, or Global governance, and humbly beg for solutions.
But THEN…the REAL CHALLENGE will be whether we’ll be humble, honest & desirous enough for TRUTH, to accept their solution…
Myself, I’ve determined to take Jesus and God the Father, and the holy spirit’s promises and Historic record as ABSOLUTE TRUTH, and have found that they DO respond, they DO answer, and shew me great & mighty things that I know not, and they DO “hedge my life round about”, with marvelous and excellent realities & inspiring events, even in the midst of suffering, trails, and learning.
And, I’ve determined to NOT “take the controls for my life’s journey”, out of their capable hands, and try to make something better…because I know now, (after 40 years of learning through experience), that I can’t do it better than they! And…neither can ANYone…ESPECIALLY NOT Scientists.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:41 pm
@Christian Gains, I share your trust in God, and I trust God would have us learn to become God, not merely in power however used, but rather in power used in love.
Blake
April 22nd, 2012 | 6:12 pm
@Blake, your description of Transhumanism is no more accurate than mine of Christianity would be if I described it as escapism and nihilism, nothing more than the fantasy version of sadism.
It’s because of comments like this that I tend to dismiss transhumanism as childish rage at being expected to grow up.
Or, as another commenter more aptly put it, “existential despair”.
They simply respond to the realities they can’t handle through denial – to the point where they can’t even critique Christianity (or any other serious attempt to reconcile the mysteries of the universe); since they are in denial about all the problems that Christianity solves (or in some cases too immature to have even confronted the problems “at the edge of the universe”), they have no option but to see Christianity as essentially absurd – like a boxer fighting an invisible foe.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:44 pm
@Blake, I didn’t make myself clear enough. I intended no criticism of Christianity. I was giving you a poor example of a criticism of Christianity, and telling you that it was like your criticism of Transhumanism.
Blake
April 22nd, 2012 | 6:20 pm
I think transhumanism and Christianity are just separate paths with the same end-point. There is no reason for animosity between the two.
On the contrary, transhumanism is only compatible with “Christianity” if you’re talking about the brand of pseudo-Christianity that has been taken over by secular humanism to the point where it’s….well, these denominations are Christian in the same sense that Austria was a world power in 1913: everyone pretending it’s true because it’s nice to be polite, and nobody wants a world war.
But one is an extreme of materialism, while the other requires you be prepared to give up all material goods – even your body – in favor of the spiritual.
One is an extreme of individual or group self-will, while the other is about giving yourself over, wholly and completely, into service to one other than your own will, and having faith that this will somehow end other than the way you fear it must.
One is denial of death, the other is transcending it.
The belief systems are inherently incompatible. If someone has achieved compromise, it is only at the expense of at least one belief – and probably to the detriment of both.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 22nd, 2012 at 10:52 pm
@Blake, as I’ve mentioned to others in this thread, it’s not necessary to interpret Christianity in immaterialist terms. Mormonism is a strong example of materialist Christianity.
It’s also not necessary to interpret Transhumanism in egotistical terms. As there are egotistical Christians, there are egotistical Transhumanists. However, Transhumanism is quite compatible with altruism, particularly when you take into consideration the universalist ethics advocated in the Transhumanist Declaration.
You say Transhumanism is a denial of death and Christianity is a transcendence of death, while many Transhumanists say exactly the opposite. Who’s right? I say both, and in that I find not compromise, but rather compliment. My Christianity makes my Transhumanism better, and my Transhumanism makes my Christianity better.

Markus Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 2:14 am
@Lincoln Cannon,
The Transhumanist Manifesto doesn’t seem serious to me. They simply list what they would like to happen, assert moral imperatives for scientific research and individual autonomy, and in the end toss this feel-good “well-being of all sentience” ethic in the end.
I have no problems with the advancement of science and technology, but why should it become my religion? Salvation trough nanobots?

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:42 pm
@Markus, I don’t think Transhumanism should become your religion. I think it should complement your religion. Remember, I’m a Mormon Transhumanist, which is a kind of Christian Transhumanist.
Blake
April 22nd, 2012 | 6:23 pm
But suffering can also be a trial to accept with humility and for which to give thanks because it can lead the sufferer and his/her caregivers directly into the unconditionally and eternally loving arms of God.
This statement reminds me of piano lessons.
Blake
April 23rd, 2012 | 8:13 am
@Blake, as I’ve mentioned to others in this thread, it’s not necessary to interpret Christianity in immaterialist terms.
Well, no, you can “interpret” Christianity however you like.
It is a typical tactic of the left wing to rely on changing the meanings of words instead of actually winning arguments honestly.
But those of us who believe in the concept of “honesty” don’t buy that war can be peace and materialism can be Christianity.
Christianity is pretty well-defined. If you want to come up with a secular humanist definition of Christianity – so as to mislead people into thinking you embrace Christian beliefs while you actually don’t – then you’re welcome to try, but don’t blame me when people who really do practice Christianity are amused or annoyed rather than gulled.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:44 pm
@Blake, regardless of what my personal political inclination may be, most Mormons are political conservatives, and most Mormons are philosophical materialists. This has nothing to do with politics: not all Christians are immaterialists. Honestly!
Blake
April 23rd, 2012 | 8:15 am
But those of us who believe in the concept of “honesty” don’t buy that war can be peace and materialism can be Christianity.
Err, should have said, “materialist secular humanism”.
Cris Putnam
April 23rd, 2012 | 8:19 am
Lincoln’s view that the spirit is material (which is obviously opposed to the NT) has also recently been discredited by scientific evidence that there is indeed and immaterial self that survives the body, veridical Near Death Experiences have been documented in whcih clinically dead folks have accurately reported verifiable events which occurred outside of their bodies. Thus, not only has his Mormon cult been proven false his metaphysic is also proven false. http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html
It is demonstrable that transhumanism is the eschatological hope of the secular humanist. The fact that it works well with Mormonism says more about mormonism than secular humanism.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:48 pm
@Cris Putnam, it makes no sense to claim scientific evidence for that which purports to be beyond science. Additionally, despite your claim, the Bible does not support the idea of immateriality. You’re bringing that with you to your interpretation. There are alternate interpretations that are as consistent with the text and quite compatible with philosophical materialism.
“Christian Transhumanism” is an Oxymoron Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog « Mystery of the Iniquity
April 23rd, 2012 | 11:01 am
[...] “Christian Transhumanism” is an Oxymoron » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. [...]
Blake
April 23rd, 2012 | 4:08 pm
@Blake, I didn’t make myself clear enough. I intended no criticism of Christianity. I was giving you a poor example of a criticism of Christianity, and telling you that it was like your criticism of Transhumanism.
My original objection stands.
The more you talk, the more you confirm.
Transhumanism is for Peter Pan-boys who simply never grew up – and simply can’t comprehend why that’s a problem.
I bet there’s a huge overlap with My Pretty Pony fandom.

holyterror Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@Blake, UM that’s My LITTLE Pony. And, knowing some of those bronie-people I would bet with you.
Blake
April 23rd, 2012 | 4:10 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, you’re generalizing my arguments beyond recognition. I haven’t suggested that everything is Christian. I’ve suggested you’re facilely imposing your definition of “Christian” on me despite my appeals to reasoned explanations of why your definition is insufficient and oppressive.
LOL How DARE he suggest that you can’t just redefine Christianity!
War is peace! Big Brother is being oppressed by the citizen who refuses to play along!

holyterror Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
@Blake, Actually, it struck me this morning as I was washing dishes that this whole exchange has a decidedly “IT” (as in Kamazotz, in L’engle’s AWIT) quality to it, no? The relentless, calm rationalistic insistence that meaning is meaningless…..

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
@holyterror, sometimes meaninglessness arises from our own lack of understanding rather than from others’ lack.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
@Blake, the authorities you revere have redefined Christianity innumerable times throughout the last couple millennia, most notably at the time they adopted the Nicene Creed.
Blake
April 23rd, 2012 | 4:16 pm
@Blake, as I’ve mentioned to others in this thread, it’s not necessary to interpret Christianity in immaterialist terms. Mormonism is a strong example of materialist Christianity.
It’s also not necessary to interpret Transhumanism in egotistical terms. As there are egotistical Christians, there are egotistical Transhumanists. However, Transhumanism is quite compatible with altruism, particularly when you take into consideration the universalist ethics advocated in the Transhumanist Declaration.
You say Transhumanism is a denial of death and Christianity is a transcendence of death, while many Transhumanists say exactly the opposite. Who’s right? I say both, and in that I find not compromise, but rather compliment. My Christianity makes my Transhumanism better, and my Transhumanism makes my Christianity better.
Yes, but who are you to use the words “compromise” and “compliment” as if they had fixed meanings?
I don’t know what’s funnier – that your entire argument relies on unhooking words from meanings, and granting yourself the right to reassign meanings to words such that your argument becomes coherent, or that you scream “oppression” when others refuse to play your silly little game.
Thanks for the laugh. I shall keep a copy of what you have written and use it if I ever find myself arguing that Christians need to do something about people who are trying to sabotage them by assigning the name “Christian” to all manner of absurdities. It’s really dishonest, you know – you’re trying to steal “political capital” that rightfully belongs to someone else.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:52 pm
@Blake, as I asked Cris at the beginning of this thread, are your appeals to ridicule illustrative of the kind of Christianity you advocate?
holyterror
April 23rd, 2012 | 9:47 pm
I went someplace tonight where I listened to people speak about struggling, day by day, minute by minute, to lead decent lives of non-violence, sobriety and compassion, even in spite of tremendous suffering and hardship.
In the middle of it all, I thought of this discussion.
The daily demands of love and compassion, the ones that happen minute to minute and can only be met with grounded presence in the here and now, one that is rooted in something eternal– also, Eternally Now– these are hard enough, and big enough for me. The whole “transhumanist” enterprise seems like one more *thing* to focus attention on, to avoid what is really here, really now, and really does need fixing.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 23rd, 2012 at 11:53 pm
@holyterror, to conceive fixing is to conceive change: Transhumanism.

holyterror Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Well, my Dear Lincoln, you may feel free to create whatever syllogisms and equivalencies you want. You have already admitted here and elsewhere that words mean nothing except what we desire them to.
But I don’t think you can continue to pursue acts of conversing with others at the same time as you claim such a thing.
Speaking of *real* things, *here and now*, I would love to know how (your conception of, at least) transhumanism translates into the everyday, practical reality? What practices, spiritual and scientific, are a part of it? And what are its moral boundaries? Is anything at all permissible, as far as scientiifc research and political policies, as long as it furthers the goals of “moving humanity forward”? (Which last phrase I daresay we have not established as to meaning, but that’s ok.)

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
@holyterror, visit the website of the Mormon Transhumanist Association for answers:
http://transfigurism.org

holyterror Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 2:20 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Well, I might do that if I become more interested in adding to what I already know of Mormonism– by which I do agree that it seems Transhumanism is entirely compatible with it– BUT I was asking you.
I wanted to know the answers but I was also wondering if you were prepared to out yourself as to the real nitty-gritty of your beliefs.
(My guess right now is no, because, like Mormonism itself, the lovely and good public game face is laid over some irrational, even immoral, stuff that the mainstream Christians you want to convince you are “just like” would see for what it is and RUN FAR AWAY from. But I am always pleased to be proven wrong on such things.)

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 2:52 pm
@holyterror, How does Transhumanism translate into everyday practical reality? What practices, spiritual and scientific, are parts of Transhumanism?
I’m a Mormon Transhumanist, so I’ll answer from the perspective of a Mormon Transhumanist rather than that of a Transhumanist generally. First and foremost, I encourage my family and friends to trust in and change toward Christ, understood as compassionate and creative posthumanity, as exemplified and invited by Jesus. Of course, there are innumerable ways to do that, and we’re all unique. I try to be a supportive husband and father, I direct my professional efforts toward socially responsible companies, I donate time and money to the Mormon Transhumanist Association and the LDS Church and other charitable organizations, and I study and discuss and speak about the intersection of technology, spirituality, science and religion.
What are Transhumanism’s moral boundaries? Is anything at all permissible, as far as scientiifc research and political policies, as long as it furthers the goals of “moving humanity forward”?
The first article of the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation responds to these questions as follows: “We seek the spiritual and physical exaltation of individuals and their anatomies, as well as communities and their environments, according to their wills, desires and laws, to the extent they are not oppressive.” The moral boundary of Mormon Transhumanism is oppression. Of course, we can and should vigorously debate our various assessments of oppression.
What other questions would you like me to answer?

holyterror Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, What does oppression mean to you?
How do you draw the boundaries between what is good for larger groups and what is oppressive to the individual?
Does Mormon Transhumanism have any *specific* political or philosophical goals other than “spiritual ans physical exaltation of individuals and their anatomies”?
And, what is “exaltation”, anyway?

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
@holyterror, oppression is inhibiting fulfillment of desires, wills, rules or laws. Reconciliation of communal rules and individual wills is complex and should be dynamic. Anyone who tells me she has a simple answer to the problem is telling me she hasn’t thought much about it.
The purpose of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, as expressed in its constitution, is to promote the Transhumanist Declaration and the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation. All acts of the association support that purpose. Here are links to the statements:
http://transfigurism.org/pages/about/transhumanist-declaration/
http://transfigurism.org/pages/about/mormon-transhumanist-affirmation/
Exaltation is posthuman flourishing in compassion and creativity, immortality and eternal life.

holyterror Reply:
April 27th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Your answer reminded me a lot of the salesman who tried the other night to get me to sign a contract on the spot for a home security system. The questions I asked about specifics led only to more obscure and non-specific answers.
The answers were obscure in order to obscure.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 27th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
@holyterror, what am I obscuring? It must be obscured from me, too.
Markus
April 24th, 2012 | 1:59 am
One objection to materialism, Mormon or secular:
1. Everything that exists is made of matter.
2. Everything made of matter is bound by the laws of physics.
3. I exist.
4. By (1) & (3), I’m made entirely out of matter.
5. By (2) & (4), I’m bound by the laws of physics.
6. If I’m fully subject to the laws of physics, then I have no free will.
7. By (5) & (6), I have no free will.
But obviously I have free will. I think the argument is logical and straightforward. If I’m not using ambiguous terms, then there must be something wrong in the premises.
I cannot deny that I exist. It seems too plausible that all matter is bound by the laws of physics, therefore I posit some kind of immaterial soul.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
@Markus, #2 is not fully understood, and #6 is controversial, as is your conclusion that you have free will. I share your trust in free will, but it’s not obvious as you claim.

Markus Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 3:45 am
@Lincoln Cannon,
#2 seems very plausible to me. You can question this premise, but I just don’t see any reason to deny it.
Freedom needs that I can do A or do not A. Both must be possible.
#6 can be understood in a deterministic or indeterministic fashion. If physics is deterministic, then by material chain of causes X will happen by physical law. If physics is indeterministic, then I cannot know what will happen, and I have no power over it either. In either case, material beings dance to the laws of physics.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 10:42 am
@Markus, the problem with #2 is that we don’t understand all the laws of physics. The scientific project is not, and probably never will be, complete.
The problem with #6 is that something we might describe as “free will” may be part of the laws of physics. The laws of physics need not be wholly deterministic nor wholly indeterministic.

Markus Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 4:12 pm
@Lincoln Cannon,
I think that #2, “Everything made of matter is bound by the laws of physics”, is more in the realm of a metaphysical assumption. If we have a material being that always behaves in a certain way, we simply assume that there must be some kind of physical law that describes that activity. An appeal to inadequate knowledge of science is therefore a bad objection.
Dark matter could be an objection to this, but then why are physicists trying to understand it? They try to find another particle or a field that would describe it, and not just wave their hands and say “nothing to see here, we’ll never know the answer”. They assume #2.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 5:33 pm
@Markus, I share your practical trust in the perpetual drive to improve our articulation of physical laws, but I don’t share your implied monistic inclination. It may be the the universe is actually a pluriverse. Monism itself is a hypothesis.
Blake
April 24th, 2012 | 4:47 am
@Blake, as I asked Cris at the beginning of this thread, are your appeals to ridicule illustrative of the kind of Christianity you advocate?
I believe that logic is not compatible with emotion. If your feelings are easily hurt, then don’t try to engage people logically with arguments about how the world ought to be. You can’t have it both ways.
You might as well complain that it’s not “Christian” for a football player to tackle.
I think it is entirely right and proper to ridicule transhumanism: the whole idea that people should never be judged for anything – no matter how destructive (except, of course, for judging someone) does great harm. Stigma exists for a reason, as does shame. You’d think people who claim to “believe” in evolution would understand this stuff.
Transhumanism is an immature impulse and an evil intention. Immature because it is based on the negation of all social responsibility (it is really nothing but a form of hoarding, a type of greed), and evil because we already tolerate this sort of thinking and it already does great harm. It needs to be stopped, and the Peter Pans who fantasize about life without limits need to be shamed into growing up.
And BTW I think it’s especially right to ridicule a strategy that relies on “creatively reinterpreting” basic concepts – in other words, misrepresenting both what Christianity is and what transhumanism is – so as to ‘steal’ a little of the political and moral capital Christianity has built for itself. If you’re afraid to die, you’re not a Christian, no matter what Jesus Christ means to you. Words have meanings and honest people at least try to use words to clarify, rather than to mislead.

Blake Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
@Blake,
I actually spoke badly on a number of points – I know what I meant, but I wouldn’t blame others for not knowing what I meant.
Particularly troubling: “if you’re afraid of dying, you’re not a Christian” – poorly worded, since one assumes all human beings are afraid of dying, Christian or no.
My apologies -

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
@Blake, I checked the Bible, and I couldn’t find any admonition to ridicule others. Could you?
In any case, your characterization of Transhumanism is simply inaccurate. To the contrary of your demonization, if you read the Transhumanist Declaration then you’ll find that Transhumanism advocates social responsibility, including the well being of all sentience. You’re bombastically declaring criticisms of an ideology that you clearly know little about. When you finish lecturing me about honesty, I recommend that you reflect on how to apply your lecture to your own behavior.
Blake
April 24th, 2012 | 4:51 am
Actually, if you read Frank Tipler’s works, which are based on Pierre Tailhard de Chardin, you will realize that transhumanism and Christianity are identical. God is the omega point intelligence that we are destined to become.
No, transhumanism and Christianity are not identical.
You are welcome to have your own beliefs about God and Christ, but you are not welcome to lie about what Christians believe, nor are you welcome to appropriate other peoples’ names or their identities for fraudulent purposes.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 9:07 am
It’s not even Judeo/Christian because it denies human exceptionalism. Intrinsic and unique human dignity are the core of JC, which transhumanistic theology denies explicitly.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, where does Jesus or the Bible teach human exceptionalism? When you provide an answer, please explain how the example illustrates an exception of kind rather than an exception of degree.

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 12:10 am
Made in the image and likeness, to begin with. Dominion. Etc. But I don’t base HE on the Bible.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 24th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
@Blake, who’s lying about what Christians believe? If to disagree is to lie then you’re as much a liar as I am.

holyterror Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 2:15 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Actually, you are not answering Blake’s charge here, and I for one am curious to know how you do.
How do you respond to the statement that you are merely appropriating Christianity for your own purposes?

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 2:36 pm
@holyterror, I’m trying to live the Christianity I’ve learned from the example of Jesus in the Bible. How would you respond to the charge that you are merely appropriating Christianity to your own purposes?

holyterror Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Christianity is *not* “an example of Jesus I read in the Bible.
I did not invent the Christianity that Blake is describing. It dates back to the time of Christ and his followers. And, certainly some people see it as “the one narrative that won out”, no more, and it *definitely* is not a single narrative even since the time of the early theologians and the writings that made it into the Bible.
However, it is the one that survives, even with its various iterations and fringe-scufflings about whether LDS or SDA are Christian or not. Perhaps, as you suggest, it IS just a political heavyweight that has managed to dominate the discourse, and in fact the real Christianity is something lost long ago….or applied to the texts years later….whichever, right?
In that case, your assertion that *your* beliefs about Jesus are Christianity mean nothing whatsoever because the word “Christianity” has no real meaning other than it is marginally linked to a semi-historical figure who was called Christ. In that case, your use of the term Christianity is meaningless on any grounds but your own. Which would be fine if you weren’t trying to convince other people that your use of the term is “correct” in any other sense than “any use of the term is correct if I want it to be. Certainly then, you are saying that the term is meaningless… OR you are trying to appropriate the term in order to manipulate others.
Another possibility is that the traditional Christianity did survive not by political, rhetorical brawn but with aid from the Creator, and for a purpose. In which possibility I wonder: How does Transhumanism contend with the idea that it has survived with those ideas this long? Are the traditional ideas just another shell to slough off when everybody wakes up to the special knowledge (that you claim to already have) of the *real* metaphysics of everything? Because otherwise it seems, again, you are doing just what Blake claims you are: trying to appropriate the orthodox version’s credibility and history to shore up your own version.

holyterror Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
@holyterror, I neglected to close quotes above. It might be obvious, but for clarity’s sake, these should read:
***Christianity is *not* just “an example of Jesus I read in the Bible.”
***Which would be fine if you weren’t trying to convince other people that your use of the term is “correct” in any other sense than “Any use of the term is correct if I want it to be.”

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
@holyterror, here’s a common Mormon perspective. Christianity went apostate sometime within the first few centuries after Jesus lived, and it was restored by God in the early nineteenth century through the prophet Joseph Smith. That which you call “Mormonism” is restored Christianity. That which you call “Christianity” is apostate.
Personally, I’m more ecumenical. I don’t buy the idea that Christianity wholly apostatized, although I do buy the idea that Mormonism has important contributions to make to improving modern Christianity.
Also, as it turns out, I’m far from alone in my assessment of Christianity. There are many liberal Christian denominations whose understandings approximate mine. There are many Mormons whose understandings approximate mine. Also, I happen not to be the only Mormon Transhumanist. Ignoring or marginalizing my claim to Christian identity is not merely ignoring or marginalizing me. It’s a much broader issue than that.

holyterror Reply:
April 26th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, While I appreciate you clarifying that there are many more people who hold those beliefs, I can’t see what the comment does otherwise.
I don’t have the power to marginalize anyone and you can be assured that I do not ignore any person or groups who believe that my beliefs are apostate versions of their, and who are also looking to create a future in which we can find ways to compel people through force or soft coercion to “become more compassionate.”

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 26th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
@holyterror, who said anything about forcing anyone to compassion? You’re projecting your prejudices.
Mirco Romanato
April 24th, 2012 | 6:15 pm
I suppose the Christian Church is orthodox enough.
In the Spring of 2009 we had the Theological Week of Pistoia dedicated to discuss “Immortality of Earth”
Here the list of the talks.
It is all in Italian language.
The Bishop of Pistoia closed the Week with friendly and supporting remarks as no one opposed science and technology to faith and religion and the meeting was a good way to rethink what really is death.
Transhumanism is trasversal, you can have Catholics could be Transhumanists without betraying their tenets of faith. Life is a gift, don’t preserving it, allow it to flourish a bear fruits as much as possible is a sin. Technology increase our productivity in many ways different from making more cars or plasma TVs. Increasing our IQ, will, drive, understanding, compassion, foresight, productive life span, is a worthy quest.
Cris D Putnam
April 24th, 2012 | 11:01 pm
“Additionally, despite your claim, the Bible does not support the idea of immateriality. You’re bringing that with you to your interpretation.”
It’s not really an interpretative matter, it’s simply the obvious intention of the biblical teaching. “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”(Jn 4:24) If there is any doubt as to the ontology of a spirit Jesus clears that up for you as well. “See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.”(Lk 24:39)
Your metaphysic is atheistic Lincoln.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 11:29 am
@Cris D Putnam, your first quote shows that material persons are capable of worshiping in the spirit, and your second quote is compatible with degrees of materiality. My metaphysics is indeed atheistic relative to the oppressive God you worship, Cris.

holyterror Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 9:44 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, Yep. Keep ‘em talking long enough and they tell you the truth eventually…..

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
@holyterror, if by that you intend to suggest that I’m an atheist, you’re incorrect. I have faith in God, but I do not arbitrarily accept any account of God. For example, the God worshiped by fundamentalists like Cris is, so far as I can tell from reading the Bible, indistinguishable from Satan.

holyterror Reply:
April 26th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
@holyterror, Actually, no I was referring to “the oppressive God you worship” as it reveals, to me, the inner hostility that helps to animate the desperate search for control and domination of godhood that transhumanism is engaged in.
Blake
April 25th, 2012 | 7:48 am
@Blake, who’s lying about what Christians believe? If to disagree is to lie then you’re as much a liar as I am.
There is a difference between disagreement vs. misrepresentation.
What Christians believe is not up for you to decide. It is for you to research.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 25th, 2012 at 11:30 am
@Blake, you’ve demonstrated a need to do additional research into Christianity, which you understand narrowly at best.
Micah Redding
April 25th, 2012 | 9:44 am
The fact is, Christianity is inescapably a transhumanism. The biblical story is about the transformation of the world, not its abandonment; and rather than contrast the need to act with the need for grace, the bible sees grace as opening up the possibility of human action and progress.
I’ve written a full response here:
http://micahredding.com/blog/2012/04/25/christianity-transhumanism
Thank you.
Lincoln Cannon
April 25th, 2012 | 11:26 am
Here are the thoughts from another Christian who agrees that Christianity is compatible with Transhumanism, and more: Christianity IS a Transhumanism …
http://micahredding.com/blog/2012/04/25/christianity-transhumanism#comment-5132
James Redford
April 26th, 2012 | 10:01 am
Hi, Wesley J. Smith.
In the 2nd ed. of the Oxford English Dictionary, the entry for “transhuman” states that the word’s origin is from Dante Alighieri’s Italian neologism “trasumanar”. The word is used in his Divine Comedy, Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72:
“”
Trasumanar significar per verba
non si poria; però l’essemplo basti
a cui esperïenza grazia serba.
“”
In translation:
“”
To soar beyond the human cannot be described
in words. Let the example be enough to one
for whom grace holds this experience in store.
“”
The example which Dante refers in the above is to the prior verse’s topic of the Greek myth of Glaucus, a mortal human who became an immortal god by eating a special plant.
Of course, the Divine Comedy is one of the greatest expositions of standard medieval European Christian theological doctrine. Thus, the word “transhuman” is from its very origin tied to traditional Christianity: indeed, to one of the greatest works of Christian theological literature.
For the details on how transhumanism and Christianity are, when sufficiently understood, one and the same, see my following article, which concerns physicist and mathematician Prof. Frank J. Tipler’s Omega Point cosmology and the Feynman-DeWitt-Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE):
James Redford, “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything”, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Apr. 9, 2012 (orig. pub. Dec. 19, 2011), doi:10.2139/ssrn.1974708, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1974708

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 26th, 2012 at 11:41 am
So? The word and Dante’s use, was completely different from what transhumanists today are about. Orthodox Christian views are that God transforms at the Second Coming and God forgives. Transhumanists think we will “seize control of our own evolution” in the here and now, meaning in corporeality as it now exists. The two are only alike in that the word begins with “t.” Indeed, most would think Dante delusional for his Christianity.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 26th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
@Wesley J. Smith, you’re positing an unnecessary difference in kind between God and humanity. Christianity has long provided support for considering God and humanity different only in degree:
http://community.transfigurism.org/quotes/theosis
http://community.transfigurism.org/quotes/mormon-authorities-on-theosis

Wesley J. Smith Reply:
April 26th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Good grief.

Markus Reply:
April 27th, 2012 at 8:59 am
@Lincoln Cannon, Please stop using the name of Christianity, what you’re talking about is not Christianity. You can call yourself a Mormon Transhumanist if you want to.
And stop redefining the meaning of words to win an argument.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 27th, 2012 at 10:36 am
@Markus, it would be dishonest for me not to call myself a Christian. Your understanding of Christianity, real world Christianity that is as broad as the two millennia of its history, should expand.

Markus Reply:
April 27th, 2012 at 1:43 pm
@Lincoln Cannon, I cannot help you. You think you can redefine existence and the words describing it in any way you want. There’s no possible argument I could give to you, because you always just obfuscate definitions.
Your idea of a God who is a material being, who once never was, became God by “grace” and “good works”, who has many contemporary Gods, is not really that different from human beings, who is not omnipotent or the standard of good. This is not even wrong, in fact, it’s beyond ridiculous.
I assume you have a good heart, but these ideas do not belong to Christianity. They don’t even belong to classical theism, they are simply incoherent.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 27th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
@Markus, do you have evidence that the ideas I’m expressing are simply incoherent, or could it be that you’ve not fully understood?

Markus Reply:
April 28th, 2012 at 1:28 am
@Lincoln Cannon,
God is metaphysically necessary, He exist is all possible worlds and cannot fail to exist.
This implies that God is eternal: contradiction #1.
Since you’ve posited a material God, who is part of the existing universe and had a beginning, then He must have a cause: contradiction #2
This implies that God cannot be a material being, because we can imagine that His body could be composed of different particles, which would make Him a different God, thus not necessary: contradiction #3.
God is omnipotent.
You can analyze this further and say, for example, that even God cannot do logically impossible things (can God make a stone heavier than He can lift). But you cannot wriggle out of this one by simply saying, “it’s a poetic notion”, “it’s a practical approximation”: contradiction #4.
A being who is not omnipotent cannot become omnipotent, this feat would require powers so impressive that we could call that omnipotence: contradiction #5.
God is the standard of good.
If God “became” God by good works, then there is an authority higher than God who judges Him by good works: Contradiction #6.
This is basic philosophy of religion. I’m not a philosopher, just a layman, but if you want to refute me, accept the terms and definitions that everyone else does.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 28th, 2012 at 11:23 am
@Markus, are you honestly not aware that many other theists do not share your theological assumptions?

Markus Reply:
April 29th, 2012 at 10:25 am
@Lincoln Cannon, yes I do am aware of that.
I’ve given my reasons for believing that the Mormon God has many, many problems that cannot be brushed away. You didn’t respond to the arguments I gave, so I don’t have a good reason to change my position.
A common, and perhaps the simplest (or most simplistic) objection to God’s existence is “who created God”. In Christianity (and Classical Theism), God didn’t have a cause, he is eternal, metaphysically necessary, cannot fail to exist and is the ground of all being.
In Mormonism, you actually have to answer that question, because everything that begins to exist has a cause. And no, I’m not going to give arguments for that proposition.

Lincoln Cannon Reply:
April 29th, 2012 at 11:20 am
@Markus, to the contrary, I don’t need to answer that question in any final way. That’s not to say it’s uninteresting. I’m interested, but there’s a difference between interest and necessity. I need to learn. I don’t need to know everything. In fact, the hypothesis that it’s possible to know everything undermines itself on practical grounds, as do many other hypothetical attributes of your Neoplatonic God.
James Redford
April 26th, 2012 | 1:36 pm
Hi, Wesley J. Smith.
The example of transhumanization which Dante refers to in his Divine Comedy, Paradiso, Canto I, lines 70-72 is to the prior verse’s topic of the Greek myth of Glaucus, a mortal human who became an immortal god by eating a particular plant. That is, a mortal human who became an immortal god by physically-material means. (Although the transformative crop is said to have been planted by Kronos, it is nevertheless a physically-material substance within the legend.) Thus, Dante’s neologism of transhumanist matches its current usage by those who call themselves this term.
You stated that “Orthodox Christian views are that God transforms at the Second Coming and God forgives.” What the known laws of physics demonstrate is that traditional Christian theology is correct: which in part means that God performs His miracles by way of His natural law, and that God never violates His natural law. On this matter, below is the text from the Glossary entry “miracle” from my article “The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything” (Social Science Research Network, Apr. 9, 2012) that was cited in my previous post above:
“”
miracle
traditional Christian theology has maintained that God never violates natural law, as God, in His omniscience, knew in the beginning all that He wanted to achieve and so, in His omnipotence, He formed the laws of physics in order to achieve His goal. The idea that God would violate His own laws would mean that God is not omniscient. In traditional Christian theology, miracles do not violate natural law–rather, they are events which are so improbable that they can only be explained by the existence of God and His acting in the world. As Augustine of Hippo wrote concerning miracles [7, Book 21, Ch. 8],
“”"”
For we say that all portents are contrary to nature; but they are not so. For how is that contrary to nature which happens by the will of God, since the will of so mighty a Creator is certainly the nature of each created thing? A portent, therefore, happens not contrary to nature, but contrary to what we know as nature.
“”"”
That is, traditional Christian theology has maintained that if we had the ultimate physical law, then we would be able to explain how God’s existence and His miracles are possible [cf. Romans 1:19,20; 419, 1st Part, Question 2, Arts. 2–3]. According to the known laws of physics, we now have that ultimate physical law, the Omega Point/Feynman–DeWitt–Weinberg quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) correctly describing and unifying all the forces in physics, and so we are now able to explain God’s existence and His miracles. Within the Omega Point cosmology, miracles are physically allowed via the Principle of Least Action, as the universe is logically forced by the known laws of physics (i.e., the Second Law of Thermodynamics, General Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics) to evolve into the Omega Point final singularity, and so any event which is required in order for this evolutionary process to occur is certain to occur. Thus, a miracle within the known laws of physics is an event which is so improbable that it can only be rationally explained due to the end-state that said physical laws require the universe evolve to.
The English word miracle etymologically means “object of wonder” [386]. The Old Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Hebrew [402]: oth (tw’), “sign”, “token”; mopheth (tpwm|), “sign”, “wonder”; and pala (‘lp|), “marvelous”, “wondrous”. The New Testament words translated as miracle are in the original Greek [402]: dunamis (dÔnamij), “power”, “mighty work”; semeion (shmeØon), “sign”; and teras (tèraj), “wonder”. So the meaning of these words in their Biblical context has nothing to do with violating natural law.
—–
Bibliography:
[7] Augustine, De Civitate Dei, ca. 413–426, English translation: The City of God, Vols. 1–2 in Marcus Dods (Ed.), The Works of Aurelius Augustine, Bishop of Hippo: A New Translation (Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, 1871–1976), 15 vols., WebCite: 5wDMCpLPU, [...] (Vol. 1); WebCite: 5wDMHzger, [...] (Vol. 2).
[386] John A. Simpson and Edmund S. C. Weiner (Eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed., 1989), ISBN 0198611862, LCCN 88005330.
[402] James Strong, The Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (New York: Eaton & Mains, 1890), LCCN 2007373427, [...].
[419] Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiæ, 1265–1274, English translation: Laurence Shapcote of the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, revised by Daniel J. Sullivan, The Summa Theologica, LCCN 90222011, Vols. 17–18 of Mortimer J. Adler, Clifton Fadiman and Philip W. Goetz (Eds.), Great Books of the Western World (Chicago, Ill.: Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2nd ed., 1990), 60 vols., ISBN 0852295316, LCCN 90080213.
“”
In Sec. 8.2.2: “The Mark of the Beast” and Sec. 9: “The Omega Point Cosmology Vis-à-Vis the New Testament” of my aforementioned article, I demonstrate that the events spoken of by the Messiah (see Matthew 24:1-25:46; Mark 13; Luke 21:5-36) and divinely imparted to John of Patmos (see Revelation) regarding the End Time tribulation are true and are going to take place. Jesus Christ said that no flesh would survive the tribulation during the End Time without His intervention, i.e., His Second Coming (see Matthew 24:22; Mark 13:20)–the aforecited sections demonstrate that this statement by Jesus is correct: the faithful’s transformation into their immortal bodies and the foundation of Heaven on Earth will only come about due to Jesus Christ’s Second Coming. See also pp. 8 and 11 within Sec. 2: “History of the Omega Point Cosmology” for further discussion on how the miracles of Jesus Christ are allowed within the known laws of physics.
Greg J.Maloney
May 2nd, 2012 | 3:34 pm
Post Humanism in the Godless Society:
the Fulfillment of a Nightmare
It is not merely existing humans, who are threatened by “the culture of death” from abortion, physician assisted homicide, or the destruction of embryos ‘for research’ purpose. It is rather that we are seeing the increase in a Godless culture of anti-life per se; which includes posthumanism/transhumanism whose goal is the creation of synthetic entities with a fervor that amounts to idolatry. It used to be said by biologist (bio=life) that: life comes from life, dog breeds dog, man begets man; but now instead of biologist, we have “creation technologists” brewing up or building synthetic substances and calling these products life, or living beings, or new transformed, improved, brighter than bright (Lucifer means bright) products that come from laboratory manipulations, instead of from God. God is not needed, nor wanted in the factory of the caldrons of creation of an unlife/ anti-life, so to speak; but from scratch, and available in many styles and forms. An anti-life/unlife made perhaps, from ashes and dust, by pouring out of test tubes or stamping mills, or vats and sterile clean rooms on an assembly line; and sold at Wal-Mart for various uses.
God, being no longer needed, is replaced by the human life-tech engineer; or by automated factory machinery; while many humans seek the title “God”, as perhaps by adding, the initials Go.D. after their names. The materials of the assembly line would instead be treated as the idols of the culture.
Where is the sanctity of God created life in this culture, or even the sanctity of personhood? Perhaps, personhood can be conferred on these products; or maybe they will have “lifehood”. Whatever the term, they will not be created by God in His image, but rather in a polymorphic variety of many synthetic images; some perhaps, looking like the image of their technomakers.
Some interesting questions arise in this Manufactured New World. Could “it” (a Frankenperson or frogperson) vote? Have citizenship? Be under the legal protection of the Bill of Rights? Sue for discrimination? Marry? Reproduce? Hold office? Declare that it is the superior “be-thing” and enslave or eliminate the puny inferior humans as one would scrap damaged or obsolete models of cars? The anti-Christ in action?
This used to be science fiction, but today it is science fact. And what thing… “its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?”
Meanwhile, back in Heaven, sits God on his celestial throne, perhaps considering if it is the time for the fire? Or maybe, as many modernist ethicists endorse, He will just pull the plug on technosapiens? “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”, like Joshua; and maybe install a lightening rod and some fire extinguishers.

Links

• Home
• Current Issue
• About Us
• Advertising
• Contact Us
• Media
• RSS Feeds
• Kindle & iPad Editions
• Store
• Affiliate Books
• Print Subscription
• Web Subscription

Blogs

• First Thoughts
• Evangel
• Postmodern Conservative
• Secondhand Smoke

Find Us

• Facebook
• Twitter

Contact

• ft@firstthings.com
• p. 212.627.1985
• Legal/Terms and Conditions