-
Beyond Disappointing Dreams of Sectarian Eschatology
- 2024/09/04
- 再生時間： 1分未満
- ポッドキャスト
-
サマリー
activate_samplebutton_t1
あらすじ・解説
In the ever-evolving discourse around Transhumanism, Michael Baggot offers a thought-provoking critique of its relationship with religion. Michael is a professor of bioethics in Rome, Italy. His recent article about Transhumanism is entitled “ The Daring and Disappointing Dreams of Transhumanism’s Secular Eschatology.” Michael traces the roots of Transhumanism’s soteriology and eschatology, emphasizing how these secular hopes borrow heavily from Christianity – both orthodoxies and heresies, as he characterizes them. He criticizes the movement for its attempts to achieve human happiness and immortality through merely digital means, arguing that such endeavors sacrifice an appreciation for the relationship between the human body and spirit. In the end, Michael calls for a reorientation toward a Thomistic vision of theosis – divinization through divine grace – in contrast to what he perceives as the technocentric dreams of secular Transhumanism. Disagreements In his article, Michael expounds on several ideas and insights with which I agree – some quite enthusiastically. However, before getting to those, I must first point out an important way in which our perspectives diverge. There are other divergences. But one stands out above the others. Michael repeatedly characterizes Transhumanism too narrowly. The title of the article itself might reasonably be understood to imply that Transhumanism is inherently secular, which isn’t true. And while the article sometimes uses qualifiers such as “those transhumanists” to scope its criticisms, it more often generalizes. Consequently, Michael is actually critiquing only segments of Transhumanism while purporting to critique Transhumanism in general. Most unfortunately, Michael almost completely ignores religious Transhumanism. He does mention some religious figures, such as Federov and de Chardin, who were arguably proto-Transhumanists. But he doesn’t mention explicitly religious Transhumanism, such as Terasem, let alone Mormon Transhumanism or even Christian Transhumanism. Maybe he doesn’t know religious Transhumanism exists, although that seems unlikely because his article evidences extensive research. As I mentioned, Michael and I have perspectives that diverge in other ways. For example, he considers Pelagianism to be a heresy, while I have a more nuanced perspective on Pelagianism. And he seems inclined toward thinking of the soul as immaterial and heaven as supernatural, while I consider those positions to be escapist, and instead embrace materialism and naturalism. But these latter divergences affect my opinion of his work less than the former. Agreements Despite his over-generalization of a narrowly characterized Transhumanism, Michael’s article is insightful and worthy of consideration by Transhumanists. He identifies several common weaknesses among Transhumanists. And he advocates some Christian ideas that, if more broadly and thoroughly adopted by Transhumanists, would serve us well. Here are some areas where he and I appear to be in agreement: Misrecognized Religiosity: Michael observes that secular Transhumanism “frequently tends toward quasi-religious expression.” Indeed, while Transhumanism need not be religious, in practice many Transhumanists are engaged in misrecognized religiosity. Marginalized Embodiment: Michael shows that some Transhumanists have disregard or even disdain for embodiment. This is unfortunate practically, and incoherent rationally. Brain emulation (or “mind uploading”) can be perfectly consistent with reverence for the body. Excessive Hedonism: Michael claims that, when considering happiness and pleasure, some Transhumanists “conflate the two aspects of human experience.” Happiness, considered holistically, must indeed account for pleasure. But it must also rise to love. Impractical Atheism: Michael reasons that the combination of atheism with Transhumanism “seems to require more faith than the Christian version of salvation.” I agree, although for slightly different reasons. The New God Argument demonstrates the incoherence of atheist Transhumanism. Neglecting Grace: Michael observes that some Transhumanists neglect “humanity’s need for grace to overcome sin and grow in virtue.” I disagree with his account of the Pelagian “heresy.” But our reliance on power beyond ourselves is pervasive and persistent. And we should extend this grace. Welcome Longevity: Michael welcomes technology that has “extended today’s lifespan” and “could bring about even longer lengths of life.” I esteem such applications of technology as expressions of faith through action, as invited by Jesus Christ. Need Theosis: Michael proposes “the traditional doctrine of theosis can elevate desires for human transcendence” better than merely secular aspirations. I cannot overstate my agreement with this proposal. Theosis is the most powerful and utterly essential doctrine of Christianity. Conclusion...