Quite an enthralling article. One shall wait for the outcome of Internation Global Future 2045 Congress in June 2013.
I believe science and religion complement each other in some way, it depends much on individual’s world-view and value-system.
Nonetheless, extreme science, supported by wild conjectures yet to be substantiated or proven, could be construed as a form of religion.
(btt1943, tanboontee, vzc1943)
By venze on Mar 08, 2013 at 9:19pm
@venze - exactly, science and religion complement each other in some way, which depends on the person involved. Science and religion complement each other in different ways for different persons.
By Giulio Prisco on Mar 09, 2013 at 8:29am
One tangible reason science and religion now complement each other in some way is in the past having anachronistic possessions was viewed as praiseworthy; today even religious people whose minds are more/less stuck in the 19th century have the latest gadgets. Virtually all churches have Websites. In the past the homeless (who tend to be religious or at the v. least congregate at religious orgs. such as churches for itinerants) often wore backpacks- today virtually all of them have cellphones in those backpacks. They might sleep outdoors like hunter-gatherers, but they possess 21st century objects.
We can call this a science-religion linkage. The religious are perhaps unconsciously updating their modus operandi.
By Alan Brooks on Mar 09, 2013 at 2:37pm
This sort of thing merely shows that transhumanism is turning into the sort of human-all-too-human ideology that means that it will never rise beyond the human in tandem with technology. The clue is in the ‘ism’ - once the transhuman impulse became an -ism, it was always in danger of losing its integrity as a form of reliable and critical thought about the human within the long haul of future history (which, in turn, had a tendency, in any case, to a geeky love of science fiction).
There is valuable work to be done on the thinking about what technological change will mean to and how it will change humanity but ‘spiritual traditions’ have nothing to contribute to this debate precisely because they are the data which we study.
As soon as ‘trans-humanism’ becomes the data by becoming an ideology, a religion (perfectly possible) or a politics, then it ceases to stand outside itself and becomes embedded in humanity and tradition. It ceases in effect to be transhumanism except as a label - it becomes a bit of an intellectual joke.
To be seriously interested in transhumanity is not only to think critically about the use-value of science (technology) but to think critically about being human and whether the definition of being trans-human is going to be closer to that of Nietzsche than anyone else - a ‘going beyond’ nihilism but also accepting the ‘death of God’ (which means the death of ideology, religion and tradition).
A great deal of work has gone into thinking about these sort of things, ‘humane’ thought at that, but you would not believe it from the article above. There is, of course, nothing wrong with another happy-clappy transcendentalist anxiety-relieving belief system since the hunger for these seems everlasting, but any such belief system is not trans-human (beyond human), does not create the most effective mental attitude for handling technological innovation and it simply expresses the secret terror of the future in an anxious species - precisely what the transhuman mind is seeking to go beyond!
By all means compromise with dialogue with ‘spiritual types’ but if you do, you are no longer even approximating the level of thought required to consider what might be required in a demanding future.
We are in danger of separating humanity from its most advanced thinkers when, I would have thought, the mission was to transform all humanity as a species over time (possibly considerable periods of time) and not merely create a herd of happy spiritual cows herded either by new wave ‘transhumanist’ priests or cold Nietzscheans. Don’t sell the pass on this one ...
By Tim Pendry on Mar 10, 2013 at 3:36am
“but also accepting the ‘death of God’ (which means the death of ideology, religion and tradition).”
“possibly considerable periods of time”
By Alan Brooks on Mar 10, 2013 at 6:02pm
I don’t think it is workable to “stand outside” our own becoming and the creation of the future in the shape of our dreams. If we are “outside” then who will inhabit it? To whom is it of value? What could be more of a place to go beyond disassociation than create the future of oneself and humanity?
We are not attempting to create “cows” but fully alive and more alive than ever possible before whole beings. Not intellects divorced from passion, from dreams, from believing that which is not yet possible to accomplish can be done and should be done and not letting go until it is accomplished or we are shown a better and truer goal.
I am not talking of sucking oblivious at the teat of the old bottles but of making new bottles of new and deeply nourishing “wine”.
By Samantha Atkins on Mar 11, 2013 at 12:12am
Yes, Alan, but this is no excuse whatsoever to try to ‘speed history up’ by falling back into falsehoods out of impatience or desire for social, cultural and political power over scientific knowledge and ‘praxis’ (in its proper sense).
If we have a unit of mental energy to expend, it should be spent on innovation, creation and example and not pandering to obscurantists.
The ‘advance guard’ must know that billions of people are not resourced enough or educated enough or emotionally strong enough to deal with these issues so the game is to build resources, education and emotional strength not cut deals with the Vatican or let New Age loons in by the back door. The cultural horror of Jesuit or hippy trans-humanism is too terrifying ... though what an individual believes internally is their business.
This impatience is not something our Chinese friends would recognise and we should really just ease up and concentrate on the task in hand ... by all means have a trans human ‘imaginal realm’ and even ‘mysteries’ but not ones that mistake the phenomenon for the object creating the phenomenon.
By Tim Pendry on Mar 11, 2013 at 2:07am
@Tim re “what an individual believes internally is their business.”
By Giulio Prisco on Mar 12, 2013 at 1:46am
Of course, we cannot be outside of ourselves, Samantha, but we are capable of imagining ourselves ‘as if’ outside ourselves and that, though a delusion, is less of a delusion than losing ourselves in an idea or an enthusiasm or a hope or a dream.
The Dionysiac moment is part of what we are but it is our detached Apollonian nature that both permits the space for periodic Dionysiac excess and yet stops us from taking it too seriously and taking over our lives. The imaginal realm (which is the domain of this non-thing called ‘spirit’) is not reality and cannot be willed into existence as material reality by enthusiasm ... reality will always overwhelm imaginings and that is good. It keeps us safe and alive. Spirit is not life but denial of life, an attempt to evade its rawness.
I think your ‘enthusiasm’ is romantic but flawed. All enthusiasms must be brought to heel eventually or we lose ourselves and destroy the world we seek to save.
By Tim Pendry on Mar 12, 2013 at 2:25pm
But, Giulio, what an individual believes internally is their business so long as they keep it to themselves and amongst others like them in a ‘church’.
As soon as internally generated beliefs are imposed on others, they become imperialistic and oppressive and the more so to the degree that they are unevidenced, irrational and derived from the faulty perceptions of reality of the wetware of the few.
Resistance to spirituality in public administration and education is, in fact, a moral imperative just as the protection of the private right to belief - even a happy madness - is equally a moral imperative. Both derive from the only real right - that of the autonomous mind to evolve on their own terms in safe public space.
By Tim Pendry on Mar 12, 2013 at 2:32pm
@Tim - re “As soon as internally generated beliefs are imposed on others, they become imperialistic and oppressive”—- No caveats needed. Forcing one’s ideas on others is a bad thing, period. In some circumstances others may have the right to tell me when I can or cannot do, but nobody, ever, can tell me what I can or cannot think.
re “what an individual believes internally is their business so long as they keep it to themselves and amongst others like them in a ‘church’.”—- that must include the right to communicate our beliefs to others, peacefully and without coercion. I cannot force you to listen to me, and you cannot force me to shut up.
By Giulio Prisco on Mar 13, 2013 at 9:05am