Lincoln Cannon

著者： Lincoln Cannon
無料で聴く

  • サマリー

  • Lincoln Cannon is a technologist and philosopher, and leading advocate of Mormon Transhumanism.
    2021-2024 Lincoln Cannon
    続きを読む 一部表示
activate_samplebutton_t1
エピソード
  • Miracle Optimization

    Miracle Optimization
    2024/09/14
    After reading my recent article on “ The Technological Conception,” a friend suggested to me that I might be leaving some value on the table, so to speak. His concern was, essentially, that my preference for simplicity might have led me to an insufficient explanation for real possibilities with greater overall practical value. In other words, God might occasionally have solid practical reason for miraculous conception rather than simple conception – still natural, but perhaps more technological than biological. My friend was right. There’s more to say about miracles, especially from a practical perspective. So let’s explore. What is a miracle? Some consider miracles to be interruptions of natural law by divine intervention – antinaturalism. But the Mormon Transhumanist perspective is steadfastly naturalist, richer and more nuanced, situating miracles as part of an expansive view of natural law and human potential. From this perspective, why might God perform or enable miracles? How and why might God optimize the frequency and magnitude of miracles? And how should we, in turn, optimize our perspectives on miracles? Defining Miracles Miracles can be literal – real physical events that defy our present ability to understand scientifically or replicate technologically. But they can also be figurative, representing spiritual or psychological transformation. Literal miracles might include actually healing the sick or really walking on water. Figurative miracles might include calming a storm as a metaphor for finding peace amidst suffering, or raising the dead as a metaphor for experiencing hope in times of despair. While it may be tempting to marginalize the value of figurative miracles, they have substantial power. For example, someone may find unexpected strength to forgive an enemy after contemplating the scriptural story of Jesus healing a man who was sent to arrest him. Such change provides psychological benefits, as well as social benefits when repeated at scale – many people experiencing similar change while contemplating the story. The capacity for forgiveness can mend relationships and create a ripple effect, promoting greater social cohesion. On the other hand, although it may be hard for some of us, we can esteem literal miracles as real natural events. Some secular persons have exemplified this. Notable among them is science fiction author Arthur C. Clarke, who observed, “ Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Just substitute “miracle” for “magic.” Mormon authorities have also exemplified the naturalistic approach to literal miracles. James Talmage claimed, “Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized.” Speaking of modern medicine, travel, and communications, Gordon B. Hinckley observed, “It is a miracle. The fruits of science have been manifest everywhere.” What about the historical Jesus of Nazareth? In the New Testament, even Jesus hints at what we might reasonably interpret as encouragement toward a mechanistic, and thereby naturalistic, approach to literal miracles. On one occasion, he applies mud and prescribes washing to heal blindness. And on another occasion, he comments regarding a particularly persistent demonic possession, “This kind can come out only by prayer.” Practical Consequences of Miracles What’s the point? When we hear about miracles, or experience what we esteem to be miraculous, why do we care? Why do scriptural stories about miracles attract so much attention, both fascination and derision? Are there potential detriments in addition to benefits? Of course, those who experience a miracle label the experience as “miracle” because we esteem the experience to be good, at least on the whole. We generally don’t use “miracle” to describe bad experience. We associate a greater purpose or perhaps superintelligent intention with an experience that is otherwise more difficult or less satisfying for us to explain, thereby reinforcing the experience with something of an enduring psychological boost. A potential downside to this is that it can cultivate an explanatory laziness, leading to antinaturalism. The scriptures use miracles, at least in part, to illustrate divine intervention and signify the presence of God in the world. Miracles communicate God’s concern and love for creation, moving theology away from a passive deism. Divine acts can motivate believers to follow the example of God, engaging actively in the world. But, as with direct experience of miracles, stories about miracles can lead some toward a passive antinaturalism that expects God to do everything and pacifies us against real action. Optimal Frequency and Magnitude Given the possibility space of practical consequence for us, miracles would also have practical consequence for God – for any superintelligence that may care about the future ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • The Technological Conception

    The Technological Conception
    2024/09/08
    The scriptures say that Jesus was conceived by a virgin. Speculation on the biological mechanics of his birth leads us to the intersection of theology, linguistics, and even technological possibility. A friend asked me for my opinion on the topic. Here are my thoughts. First, let’s distinguish between the idea of a virgin birth and the “immaculate conception.” Among some Christians, “immaculate conception” refers not to their doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus, but rather to their doctrine that Mary herself was conceived without original sin. This is important to them because they want to explain how Jesus could be free of sin while being conceived by Mary, who some might suppose inherited original sin from Adam and Eve. In Mormonism, this isn’t a salient concern because we have no doctrine of original sin, instead attributing sin exclusively to individual choices made by persons with ethical accountability – usually considered to be around age eight, which is also the typical time for baptism. In our modern technological world, the idea of a miraculous birth through divine intervention can seem less mystical when we consider advancements in reproductive technology. In vitro fertilization (IVF), surrogacy, and even the potential for creating embryos using genetic material from two same-sex parents are illustrations that extraordinary births are technologically feasible. If we entertain the possibility of the existence of superintelligence with technology far superseding our own, whether we attribute divinity to them or not, it is entirely plausible that such beings could orchestrate biological conception without sexual intercourse – virgin birth. Early Mormon leaders suggested that Jesus was conceived through natural means. Here’s an example from Brigham Young, the second president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: “The birth of the Saviour was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers.” ( Journal of Discourses 8:115 ) The most straightforward interpretation of these words seems to be that, according to Brigham, Jesus was conceived by sexual intercourse. Presumably, although not explicitly, Brigham meant that God, who is embodied according to Mormon theology, was the the biological father. Some have suggested that, because Brigham doesn’t explicitly mention intercourse, the natural action could have been what we might recognize as reproductive technology. To me, that seems like an interpretive stretch, even if practically feasible. Some contend that any natural conception, whether by sexual intercourse or reproductive technology, would contradict scriptural accounts of virgin birth. However, a reasonable case can be made that the word “virgin” in English scripture may have been translated from words that simply refer to young women, rather than those who’ve never engaged in sexual intercourse. This would align ancient linguistics with natural possibilities, without any necessary diminishment of the sacredness of Mary’s role. After all, we need not be antinaturalists to recognize sanctity in motherhood. No matter how we approach the topic of Jesus’ conception, it merits ethical deliberation. Although ancient cultures had different moral frameworks, contemporary values emphasize autonomy and consent. In our framework, some of us find the story disturbing. And, depending on the specifics of various interpretations, I share in that feeling. However, the ancient authors actually seem to have observed and implicitly responded to such concerns, at least to some extent. For example, Jesus’ genealogies, as presented in scripture, suggest complex family dynamics, including instances of extramarital conception. Rahab, who was apparently a sex worker, and Bathsheba, whose relationship with King David began in scandal, are among those in the lineage of Jesus. The implication appears to be that morally complicated relationships can contribute to sacred events and sacred people. Personally, I lean toward the simplest explanation. Like Brigham, I imagine Jesus was conceived naturally – although probably devoid of extraterrestrial involvement, as some have speculated. Grounding the origin of Jesus within the natural human process strengthens his example for our lives. Worshiping through emulation a God with the same origin as us enriches the relationship with deeper accessibility. Embracing this view consolidates ontological and metaphysical speculations into an inspiring narrative of tangible progress and potential for all humanity. An approximation of this pragmatic value is expressed in a revelation from Joseph Smith: “[Jesus] received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace; And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness; And thus ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Beyond Disappointing Dreams of Sectarian Eschatology

    Beyond Disappointing Dreams of Sectarian Eschatology
    2024/09/04
    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...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満

あらすじ・解説

Lincoln Cannon is a technologist and philosopher, and leading advocate of Mormon Transhumanism.
2021-2024 Lincoln Cannon
スピリチュアリティ
続きを読む 一部表示

Lincoln Cannonに寄せられたリスナーの声

カスタマーレビュー：以下のタブを選択することで、他のサイトのレビューをご覧になれます。

Audible.co.jp

Amazon.co.jp
レビューはまだありません。