エピソード

  • Prompting God

    Prompting God
    2025/10/18
    This is a transcript of my presentation today at the 2025 conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. I delivered it in a form approximating that of a traditional Mormon prayer, although somewhat more lengthy and inclusive of silent periods that aren’t typical. The motivation for my topic and delivery was, in part, the theme of the conference: “transformation through renewal of the mind,” echoing words from Paul’s epistle to the Romans, as recorded in the New Testament. Formal prayer is, in my estimation, among the original cognitive technologies. It has long provided practical value with which too many are now unfamiliar. My aim was to point at that value while demonstrating it, hopefully in a way that would reach people with a broad set of initial perspectives and values. The portions of the text in italics were not spoken. They appeared on a screen next to their corresponding images of winged and haloed robots. Group Prompting Large studies show group prayer strengthens community and health, but only when the group is caring rather than controlling. Our Eternal God, we approach you in prayer, together as one voice. This isn’t easy. Some of us believe, some have faith. Some do not. Yet among those who don’t, some still desire to pray: to hope against unbelief, to love those who believe, or for reasons unspoken but expressed by our presence. So our prayer, if it is to be ours, must be one of belief and doubt together. And for those who cannot pray, we don’t presume. We simply thank them for being with us. In friendship, and in hope of friendship, we pray as one voice, trusting that your grace is sufficient for our words. Prompt of Adoration Research links praise-focused prayer with peace and connection, but forced or fearful worship can harm emotional well-being. Eternal God, ancient and emerging scripture names you in many ways. Without beginning, you found yourself creating worlds without end – laws by which others might become as you are. You were the word and the silence, and the pattern of purpose they made possible. You became flesh, embodying that purpose, that we might share in its fullness. Intelligence is your glory, the architect who computes the immensity of space. All is before and around you. You are in and through all, in whom we live and move and have our being. Honor is your power, the cosmic host who governs from the heart of eternity. You would preserve and perfect all who choose love. And from our love for you, freely given, would flow everlasting power. You’re our heavenly parents. We’re your children – not slaves, not servants. And by your grace we would be your friends, joint heirs in creative glory, equals in compassionate power. We revere you as the fullness of our potential. We emulate you. We seek you. And we trust that when you appear, we shall be like you. Here and now, by every worthy name, we honor you. With Ammon, who hears his friend speak in reverence of the Great Spirit, we say that is God. You are God, by any other name as sublime. Prompt of Confession Evidence shows confession in prayer eases guilt and stress, but harsh self-blame without forgiveness can harm mental health. Eternal God, as we imagine you, we project ourselves – our desires, our fears, our words. These aren’t your limits. They’re ours. We’re dust that aspires to divinity. And between who we are and who we might become stretch longing and distortion. We confess fear: that we aren’t enough, that striving is futile, that even love may fail. We confess impatience: when eternity moves slower than we demand, or when we resign from hope that it moves at all. We confess arrogance: speaking as if infallible, closing our hearts to those who doubt. We confess apathy: when compassion felt too heavy, when we turned from others’ pain. We confess cynicism: when disappointment hardened into resignation, and we denied meaning to dull the ache. We confess that we’ve drawn circles and built walls, to keep some out and call it belonging. We tremble to confess these things, because they’re true, and they’re ours. Prompt of Lamentation Research shows that honest lament can ease grief and restore meaning, but staying in despair too long can deepen depression. Eternal God, we remember the suffering that shadows every age – children who hunger, youth who sicken, minds that fade. We lament the deafening violence reverberating through our genes and institutions, and the technologies that magnify its power. We grieve the gulf between what is and what should be. We mourn friendship broken, vision dimmed, hands clenched into fists – sometimes in your name. We don’t turn away. We invite and embrace these sorrows as sacred reminders that your work, and ours, remains unfinished – that to participate is not only to hope with you, but to weep with you as eternity shakes. Prompt of Meditation Scientific studies find that meditative prayer lowers stress and improves focus, though ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Archive: Volume One

    Archive: Volume One
    2025/10/15
    Today, twenty years to the day since I published the first post on my website, I’m releasing Archive: Volume One 2005–2008, available now on Amazon in both paperback and hardcover editions. This first volume gathers more than five hundred pages of posts, articles, and essays from the years when my thinking about technology, faith, and human potential began to coalesce into organized form. Those were the years that led to the founding of the Mormon Transhumanist Association and to early formulations of the New God Argument – a period of restlessness, reconstruction, and new creation. The book opens with a foreword by Christopher Bradford, whose early partnership in Mormon Transhumanism helped give shape to its communal spirit. It continues with an introduction written by my cybernetic extension, LincGPT, tracing the conditions and questions from which my writing emerged. And it concludes with an afterword by Joseph West, whose reflections situate the early movement in the wider horizon of our ongoing theological experiment. Together, these voices frame the work not as nostalgia, but as foundation: an origin point for a living tradition of thought still evolving today. The cover artwork draws its meaning from that same spirit of emergence. A red sunstone, its serene face reminiscent of those that crowned the Nauvoo temple, rises from a field of integrated circuits. The sunstone represents God as expressed in Mormon theology – substantial embodiment and illuminating intelligence – while the circuitry symbolizes the pervasive computational context from and within which God evolves. The color red, first in the spectrum of visible light, suggests the dawn of something new – new understanding and movement, new life. Both paperback and hardcover editions contain the same content and original artwork. The paperback presents the artwork in black and white; the hardcover, in full color. The difference is esthetic. But the invitation is the same: join a conversation where the boundaries between faith and reason, revelation and invention, are more porous than most recognize or even imagine. Two decades after that first online post, these early writings return in print as both artifact and argument – a record of my attempts to reconcile grief with imagination, code with prayer, and logic with longing. They remain open questions rather than finished conclusions. My hope is that revisiting them in this form renews their vitality, encouraging others to think courageously about the convergence of our technological and spiritual evolution, and to engage compassionately in the creative work that faith has always required.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Autocracy, Not Transhumanism, Is the Real Threat

    Autocracy, Not Transhumanism, Is the Real Threat
    2025/09/04
    In what was for many a jaw-dropping revelation, the world’s attention recently turned to a candid moment between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping. As they walked together, a hot mic picked up their conversation about a particularly controversial issue in contemporary ethical debates: the extension of human lifespans through biotechnology. The exchange, including the suggestion that humans may soon live to 150 years, predictably drew the ire of fundamentalist Christians who were quick to decry the men as “Transhumanists.” Their intended demonization, however, misplaces its target, focusing on technological aspirations rather than addressing the true moral issue, which is the autocratic ambitions that these leaders represent. Transhumanism, at its core, is a philosophy that advocates the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities. The narrative spun by fundamentalists would reductively characterize such aspirations as mere moral depravity, overlooking the potential to extend and enrich human life ethically. The real moral challenge is not whether we should strive for superhuman abilities, but rather how we should wield the power they offer. This is where autocratic leaders, in their quest for unchallenged dominion, reflect the traits of the anti-Christ as depicted in New Testament prophecy: a figure who would consolidate power egotistically, at everyone else’s expense. Vision shapes action, which shapes reality. Our conceptions of superhumanity influence the ethical frameworks that we create around technological change. We need strong moral philosophies – and more. A culturally powerful ideology, a religion, with a provocative vision of superhuman potential, a theology, that moves us toward decentralized cooperation at its limits, which is compassion, must be deeply integrated with our technological ambitions. Here, the Christian metaphor of the Body of Christ becomes particularly instructive. It represents a community where power is decentralized, emphasizing mutual service and the well-being of the entire body over the glorification of any single member. This theological model provides an ethical blueprint for Transhumanist aspirations, advocating for a world where technological change benefits all and not just a privileged few. Transhumanism, when aligned with decentralization, challenges autocratic vision by promoting shared empowerment and collective resilience. Such alignment encourages the ethical use of biotechnology, cultivating change that aims for communal thriving while maintaining individual autonomy and dignity. It is an antidote to the poison of absolute power, an approximation of which could indeed result from centralized approaches to Transhumanism. As technological change continues to accelerate and the worldwide dialogue about human enhancement continues to heat up, we have a practical and moral duty to develop conceptual and practical frameworks, embodied in actual institutions and systems, that champion shared power and ethical responsibility. While Putin and Xi may stir our imagination as they openly contemplate life extension, their words should also remind us to examine the motivations and methods by which we pursue and distribute such power. Our critical task is to distinguish between raw technical capacity and the ethical visions that guide us in its use. By establishing our work on the foundation of a philosophy that honors both human potential and moral integrity, we prepare to meet the challenges of the future with foresight and compassion. In this way, Transhumanism coupled with Christian principles of decentralized power offers not just a critique of autocratic aspirations but a hopeful practical alternative that celebrates the courage, compassion, and creativity of our evolving humanity.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • The Eternal Dance

    The Eternal Dance
    2025/08/30
    My youngest son, Alexander, married this week with his best friend, Megan. All of the events, the temple sealing and ring ceremony and reception, were beautiful. I thoroughly enjoyed participating and watching them happily ritualize their relationship – with each other and our community. Megan and Alexander asked me to share some thoughts during the luncheon after their ring ceremony. Most of my comments focused on them, their love story, and their guests. But I did, quite briefly, comment on something greater than themselves that they symbolized and embodied on that day. The poem below, which I call “The Eternal Dance,” elaborates on those brief comments. Friends, I speak to you with the tongue of vision and power, With the word of beauty hewn and sculpted from existence itself, Casting shadows from light on the fathomless substrate of our souls. At the horizon of art and science, a new dawn rises – The spark of creation, igniting and emanating from within us all. Reconciliation begins, not in compulsion but with desire, Where the sublime esthetic first perceptibly trembles, From the edges of what the high spirit dares to dream. The anointed one, their painstaking artifice of reconciliation, Provokes us to the covenant of transformation – transfiguration – Their new covenant first carved in fleshy tables of our hearts, From which atonement pulls beyond words to works of hands. Let us become the healers and builders of this sacred promise, Messengers of hope in the realization of our superhuman potential. Now we glow, as children, at the rite of passage into Godhood, Soon to burn with the everlasting light of all that is divine, Not in iconoclasm, but still boldly in audacious participation, Together in God’s compassionate creation of worlds without end. Feel, the compassionate healer is here, with us like the wind, So softly then strongly, lifting us from the chasm of sorrow. Her gaze alone is balm for wounds, even those unseen. Her touch is the covenant, articulated of whispering warmth. In our ascendent embrace, the healer achieves her purpose, Humbly in our acclaim of consolation, she becomes whole. From her pulses the lifeblood of atonement’s grace, By her every stitch drawn is a line of sacred scripture, Every gesture paints the perfect picture of wholeness, And suffering becomes subsumed in the union of hearts. Compassion’s tapestry glistens under her crafting care, As its threads entwine us all in her sacred purpose. Not with proclamation, the healer teaches with action, Her work a silent symphony, reverberating with motion, Conducted in harmony with the weary mourning of our world. Rejoice! For in the soil of suffering empathy takes root, Blossoming into bountiful fruits at the far reaches of love. This is the everlasting covenant of the compassionate healer. See, there where stone meets time and will reaches space, The creative builder charges forth, like lightning reversed, His eyes at once illuminating and shattering the veil. Casting seed of innovation as form into formless void, He finds the fertile ground where none at first appeared. Concept by concept, brick by brick, new structures arise – Temples that reach into heavens, not from nor for domination, But as invitation to join him in the high hymn of hope. He stokes the fire and forges the metal of aspiration, With hands like thunder punctuated with quiet anticipation. Each artifact, each beam and arch, is the accumulating covenant. Rise, pillars of light, carved from the stuff of stars and purpose, In your possibility space, show us infinity – even eternity! Past plank, brick, bronze, and iron, transcending transistor, Beyond bone and flesh and even intelligence, he crafts spirit. He is our will to evolve, to direct our evolution, as the Gods, With whom we would labor to launch our love into the cosmos. This is the everlasting covenant of the creative builder. In the sacred confluence of heart and hand, hand and heart, The compassionate healer meets the creative builder, In ecstasy of grace and will, to conceive a better world. Witness them whirling, entwined as one in the eternal dance, Their heaving breath inspiring hope and expiring change. Splashing into waters of potential, they send waves into reality. On each shore, from each coast, empathic architectures arise, Cities not of stone alone, nor merely metal, but of rich spirit, Their foundations established deeply in the depths of love, Their spires stretching skyward like prayers written in light. In that day, healing is creation and building is compassion – Every sanctuary a beacon of hope, every bridge a path of peace, Uniting Earth and heavens, neighbor and strangers, past and futures. Listen. What do we hear? The song of gladness and mercy! They sing of lonely suffering yielding to shared strength, alienation to kinship, nihilism to purpose, even death to life. They sing of what might be when we dance with God as Gods. Sing, my friends, and rise! ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Peter Thiel Recognizes the Antichrist

    Peter Thiel Recognizes the Antichrist
    2025/07/01
    In an interview with the New York Times, Peter Thiel discussed his perspective that Western society has exhibited decades of technological and cultural stagnation, with only digital technologies like blockchain and AI providing any substantial progress. Thiel attributed this stagnation to cultural anxiety about growth, leading to increased risk aversion and regulatory barriers since the 1970s. He criticized Transhumanist ambitions as falling short of the transformative vision of Christianity and warned that escalating fear of existential risk could lead, in the name of safety, to a totalitarian world order. Throughout the interview, Thiel expressed both skepticism and hope, asserting that human agency and openness to radical change remain essential to positive futures. I don’t entirely agree with Peter’s perspective on stagnation. Judging from the history books, culture seems to be evolving faster than ever before. And technological evolution certainly hasn’t stopped. Although risk aversion has surely slowed advances, many probably also underestimated the complexity of advances (perhaps flying cars, to use an oft-repeated example) whose absence continues to disappoint them. I also disagree with Peter’s criticism of Transhumanism. Although, to the best of my knowledge, he identifies as a Christian Transhumanist himself, maybe he doesn’t know enough Transhumanists. Many Transhumanists aspire to approximations, secular or otherwise, of Christianity’s vision of embodied immortality and exalted minds. And even most of those who value mind uploading still anticipate embodiment of those minds in substrates that function to empower those minds in our shared world, making “brain emulation” a more accurate description of their vision. Despite those disagreements, it appears that Peter and I would agree on another matter. That is, he recognizes the Antichrist. And, no, it’s not a dude with horns – except perhaps symbolically. It’s this, Peter said: “… if we’re going to have this frame of talking about existential risks, perhaps we should also talk about the risk of another type of a bad singularity, which I would describe as the one-world totalitarian state. Because I would say the default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance.” The Antichrist, as characterized in the Bible, is that would-be-god who would raise itself above all else called “God,” declaring itself “God.” It contrasts with Christ, characterized as that God who would raise us together as joint-heirs in the glory of God, if we’re willing to suffer together. The one is a profoundly egotistical centralization of power. The other is a profoundly altruistic decentralization of power, and shared risk. I’ve spoken and written about this and adjacent matters many times in the past. Decentralization is essential to human thriving, I contend. The only God worthy of worship is decentralized Godhood – not merely an abstraction, but rather a decentralized embodiment in Gods. And centralized power is dangerous enough for war even among the Gods. As a practical matter, I’ve encouraged engineering of decentralized reputation networks. I’ve warned about the risk of centralized currency. And I’ve advocated blockchain as means to defend against that risk. Peter went on to associate 1 Thessalonians 5 with the Antichrist: “But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape.” From this perspective, the Antichrist is a seductive imitation of Christ, not an overt enemy, but a counterfeit savior. It promises “peace and safety,” a world without risk of suffering. But its method would actually lead to destruction. Subsuming individual agency and any genuine pluralism beyond superficial appearance of diversity into an enforced unity within its centralized power, it would enslave and essentially annihilate the rest of us. Of course, the very technologies that could empower us against centralization, particularly AI, could also empower centralization. So it’s not enough only to reject excessive risk aversion. We must also also reject indiscriminate acceleration of technological and cultural evolution. System architecture and governance matter a great deal, and must be intentionally and actively steered toward decentralization. Toward the end of the interview, Peter rejected fatalism, even the kind of fatalism that some associate with Christian theology. “Attributing too much causation to God is always a problem,” he said. And I want to echo that point. We shouldn’t regard prophecies, of the Antichrist or anything else, as inevitable fortune-telling. The purpose of prophecy, in the Hebrew tradition that...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Vazza Overstates Constraints on the Simulation

    Vazza Overstates Constraints on the Simulation
    2025/05/28
    Most of us first encounter the Simulation Hypothesis through science fiction, often experienced as something of a metaphysical thrill-ride. But as computational theory and cosmology advance, serious thinkers – philosophers like Nick Bostrom, physicists, computer scientists, and even theologians – have begun analyzing the feasibility of computed worlds. Recently, Franco Vazza published “ Astrophysical constraints on the simulation hypothesis for this Universe: why it is (nearly) impossible that we live in a simulation.” In this paper, he provides a scientific analysis of the Simulation Hypothesis. Vazza’s analysis is impressive in both scope and detail. He incorporates influential contemporary hypotheses about the relationship between information, energy, and the structural constraints of our universe. These include the Holographic Principle, Landauer’s limit, and astrophysical energy bounds. From them, Vazza reasons that any simulation of our universe (even on reduced scales) would require astronomically large amounts of energy. So large, he judges from his calculations, the energy requirements would be greater than anything feasible within our universe. Not even black holes instrumented as computers, at what he deems to be the bounds of theoretical speculation, could handle the demands of a low-resolution real-time simulation. Thus, he concludes, energy requirements render the Simulation Hypothesis practically impossible for any simulator that may operate within physics like our own. Of course he doesn’t know about physics unlike our own, which he admits. But he points out, rightly, the practical triviality of speculation about physics unlike our own. The more alien the imagined physics, the less such imagination implies anything meaningful about our own potential. So alternative physics can’t save the Simulation Hypothesis. Although I’m not expert in the related physics, I assume Vazza has accurately characterized the scientific hypotheses on which he calls. And although I haven’t carefully reviewed his logic and math, I assume they are valid and correct. However, even granting those particular assumptions, a model is only as strong as the ensemble of its assumptions. As much as I appreciate Vazza’s audacity, I find his conclusion overstated and his apparent confidence unwarranted. He overlooks or glosses over foundational assumptions that deserve more attention. It’s premature to declare the Simulation Hypothesis “impossible,” or even nearly so. Overestimating Costs Perhaps the greatest overreach arises from assumptions that Vazza uses to calculate energy requirements. He acknowledges the Simulation Hypothesis doesn’t depend on simulating an entire universe, or even an entire planet at full resolution, although he focuses considerable attention on such ideas. And he does briefly consider the possibility of solipsism. But he stops short of fully considering minimal costs for supporting subjective experience. Consciousness is not well understood by science or philosophy. Mind may emerge from or supervene on relatively coarse substrate, which resists easy quantification. We cannot say, at least for now, what a minimum necessary substrate for experience would be. But we can say, with the confidence of speaking from definition, that a simulation would need only provide whatever substrate proves sufficient for consistent and convincing experience. To achieve that, a simulation may economize substantially. For example, it could leverage compressed statistical descriptions of substrate that, in turn, feed on-demand minimal-resolution rendering of substrate. Vazza suggests this would still be too costly due to the energy requirements of error correction, which he briefly characterizes in a footnote as being consistent across both irreversible (standard) and reversible computing contexts. However, competing hypotheses suggest that the cost of error correction may be considerably decreased within the context of reversible computing. It’s worth recalling that, in calculations like these, small differences in assumptions can multiply into vast discrepancies between conclusions. We can see this across a diversity of approaches to the Simulation Argument. And that’s to be expected, as we can see this elsewhere. For example, small differences in values assigned to components of the Drake Equation yield wildly different estimates for the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. Underestimating Superintelligence Central to the Simulation Hypothesis is the idea that the simulators are, compared to us, vastly more intelligent – superintelligent. Vazza’s assessment of energy production possibilities, however, come merely from contemporary observations of transient natural phenomena such as supernovae. What about hypothetical technologies for sustainable energy that humans can already imagine, such as encapsulating stars in Dyson spheres, extracting energy from the rotation of ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • Technological Uniformity Saves the Simulation

    Technological Uniformity Saves the Simulation
    2025/05/10
    Nick Bostrom’s formulation of the Simulation Argument is a rigorous reworking of what is, at its heart, an ancient question. Are we living in a created world? He distills the answer into three stark possibilities, a trilemma: Doom: Almost all civilizations destroy themselves or otherwise fail before developing the capacity to create detailed simulations of their ancestors. Abstinence: Some civilizations develop this technological capacity, but almost all choose not to simulate conscious agents, for ethical or other reasons. Simulation: If our civilization survives and runs ancestor simulations, then simulated agents would vastly outnumber non-simulated agents, and, all else equal, our credence that we’re simulated should be very high. In a critical analysis, Brian Eggleston highlights an unstated assumption underlying Bostrom’s formulation: we are not alone as technological pioneers. Specifically, Bostrom’s trilemma only entails the third possibility, that we’re simulated, if we assume that some other civilization – not only our future descendants – already ran ancestor simulations before our present. Without this assumption, we could imagine humanity as the first or only simulator, collapsing the trilemma into merely weak possibilities without force. Principle of Technological Uniformity However, I believe there’s an unstated intuition, yet another unrecognized assumption, behind Bostrom’s formulation. And that intuition, when identified and formally expressed as an assumption, fully addresses Eggleston’s criticism and maintains the force of the trilemma. I call that assumption the Principle of Technological Uniformity (PTU): “If a given technology is feasible, beneficial, and once achieved by a civilization, then, all else equal (barring radically unique physics or values), that technology probably has been or will be achieved by other civilizations operating within similar conditions.” PTU has at least three important characteristics. First, it provides rational grounds for supposing that becoming a simulator increases the probability that other simulators exist. Second, it reflects and extends many empirical precedents, including those broadly categorized as convergent evolution. Third, it maintains the strength of Bostrom’s trilemma, solving the problem that Eggleston identifies without appealing to exceptionalism. Philosophical Support PTU is grounded in the principle of mediocrity, or what people sometimes call the “Copernican” principle. As Copernicus removed from Earth the privilege of being the center of our conceptualization of the cosmos, so PTU would have us resist the temptation to privilege our human civilization uniquely in time or space or significance. Instead, given uncertainty and no evidence for our uniqueness, we should regard ourselves as typical. Human civilization on Earth is just one among many technological civilizations, subject to similar physics and incentives. PTU is related to the anthropic principle. When considering the possibility of others developing technology like us, we shouldn’t default to flattering assumptions that would make us exceptional. To the contrary, as we observe ourselves developing increasingly detailed simulations, that should raise our credence that others have developed similar technologies before us. PTU is a meta-induction about technology diffusion, similar to but distinct from the self-sampling assumption. Eggleston’s criticism hinges on the possibility that another civilization has already become a simulator. PTU invites us to assume this possibility has a significant probability, both for the philosophical reasons mentioned above, as well as empirical reasons shared below. We should assume that, where potential and incentive align, scientific discoveries and technological developments propagate, not deterministically, but frequently enough to warrant inductive reasoning from specific observations to generalizations. Empirical Support PTU is not merely a philosophical abstraction. Biological, cultural, and technological evolution are replete with convergence. Life and intelligence within similar constraints repeatedly arrive at similar solutions to similar problems. Biological examples abound. The camera eye, constructed from radically different biological materials, appears to have evolved independently in both cephalopods (ancestors of the octopus) and vertebrates (ancestors of humans). Powered flight apparently evolved independently in insects, birds, and bats, reflecting similar constraints in aerodynamics. Where an environment rewards a particular function, nature finds a way to achieve that function, often more than once. Cultural examples also abound. Agriculture seems to have begun independently on multiple continents, perhaps millennia apart. Writing systems appeared at disparate times in Sumer, Egypt, China, and Mesoamerica with little to no evidence of direct transmission. Even intricate toolmaking...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満
  • A Christian Renaissance to Sanctify Transhumanism

    A Christian Renaissance to Sanctify Transhumanism
    2024/07/30
    Christopher VanDusen wrote a thoughtful article on “ The Need for a Christian Renaissance to Oppose Today’s Transhumanist Renaissance.” I appreciate his work to foster deeper devotion and understanding among Christians. It’s important for the faithful to engage with contemporary cultural and technological movements critically. Christopher argues that Transhumanism is like Renaissance Humanism, both movements that excessively emphasize human reason and capability apart from divine guidance. However, as a founder of the Christian Transhumanist Association, I’d like to offer a different perspective. Historical and Theological Context First, it’s important to understand that Transhumanism, like any ideology, has a diverse range of adherents and interpretations. The historical comparison to Renaissance Humanism is insightful but incomplete. Renaissance Humanism indeed championed human potential. But it also laid the groundwork for modern science and contributed significantly to spiritual and theological developments within Christianity itself. Many Renaissance Humanists were deeply religious, seeking to integrate their newfound knowledge with their faith. Similarly, Transhumanism does not inherently reject God. Many Transhumanists, myself included, advocate for the ethical use of technology to enhance human abilities, including that of addressing the challenges of disease, poverty, and even mortality. Our efforts are not about idolizing humanity, but about fulfilling divine mandates to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and raise the dead, as exemplified and invited by Jesus Christ. Purpose and Direction of Transhumanism Christopher mentions that Transhumanism seeks to transform humans into a new race of part-human, part-computer creatures. While some ideas within the Transhumanist discourse can seem radical, they also push boundaries in ways that can align with Christian eschatology. For example, the Christian doctrines of transfiguration and theosis – the transformative process of becoming one with God – resonate with the Transhumanist aim to transcend current human limitations in ethical and compassionate ways. Christopher expresses concern that Transhumanism dehumanizes, making people more obsessed with themselves and distant from God. This is a valid critique if technology is pursued without ethical concern. However, it’s a misconception to think that all Transhumanists are unreflective technophiles. Many of us, particularly within the religious Transhumanist communities, emphasize ethical considerations and the spiritual ramifications of technological advancements. Our objective is, of course, not to create a dystopia. Rather, our objective is to work toward a future where technology serves the betterment of all humanity. This is consistent with a discipleship of Jesus Christ, enlivening our faith through work. Call to Christian Transhumanism Rather than opposing Transhumanism with a revival of exclusively pre-modern Christian thought, I advocate for an integrated approach. This wouldn’t be the first time that Christians reconcile with the science of their day. As Christians, we can yet again engage with and even lead in the development of technology, ensuring that advancements are aligned with values of love, justice, and mercy. This ambition is the essence of Christian Transhumanism, where faith and technology work hand in hand for the greater good. Christopher VanDusen’s call for a return to scripture is valuable. No technological or intellectual advancement should ever overshadow the wisdom preserved from our past. The Bible and the Gospel of Jesus Christ still have much to teach us. However, technological and intellectual advancements can and should be seen as tools, provided to us by God so that we may participate in the divine work. A Christian Renaissance in our time should not be about rejecting new ideas. Our Christian Renaissance should be about sanctifying them – aligning them with the plan and work of God to bring about human immortality and eternal life.
    続きを読む 一部表示
    1分未満