Thursday, February 12, 2009

I Believe - But What Do I Believe?

Interestingly, rather than receiving input from atheists or anyone who would like to try to defend the transhumanist or posthumanist "saved by technology" point of view, I have received feedback from passionate believing Christians who care about the fine points of religious belief systems and who have asked me to elucidate them before moving on in an attempt to speak in behalf of a majority of people of faith.

My friend and valued colleague, Stellenbosch theologian Gerrit Brand, has even gone so far as to say that it is a strategic mistake to juxtapose religious belief as an antidote for the posthumanist and transhumanist belief systems, for he says that there are many non-believers who would feel quite as scared of these movements as I am. He is right of course, and indeed I have had feedback from such readers too, who have said to me that they share my concern albeit for reasons that have nothing to do with religious belief.

While I granted Gerrit his point (and it is an important one) immediately, I nonetheless wish to emphasize that it is the transhuman/posthuman movement itself that has identified its opposition (real and potential) as consisting of mainly two kinds of people: environmentalists and, as they themselves put it, "people of faith." They did not specify which faith; they simply said "faith." They of course forget that atheism itself is a faith; there is no scientific basis for atheism for you cannot disprove the existence of a Creator or of an active universal creative force, any more than you can prove it empirically (as Gerrit is quick to point out we cannot purport to want to do even though I am, like many philosophers and theologians in history, apparently about to fall for the temptation of giving it my best shot!) ... so an atheist could theoretically be a "person of faith" too, for he holds as a tenet of his belief the notion that no God exists, or that no-god exists; he believes in the existence of nogod, or nothing - a conceptual impossibility in fact, but it is a belief that he nonetheless holds, as stubbornly as I hold to my clear observation that the world could not have created itself.

Agnosticism is the only philosophical position that is completely consistent with scientific enquiry: a consistent "we are not sure" or "we just do not know" which includes the possibility of postulating at least for the sake of hypothesis, the existence of a creative force of one kind or another.

I am going to stop here for today and continue again tomorrow. Izak please be patient, I will get to the fine points of mainstream Christian theology versus alternate viewpoints very shortly, for I completely agree that it is important to get those out in the open and completely sorted out before we proceed. If "people of faith" (other than atheists of course) oppose the transhuman/posthuman trends, then who are they? Which people of faith, and for what reason, and based upon what suppositions of theirs (Gerrit elucidated the aspect of assumption in the belief system beautifully in earlier comments) do they oppose these trends? These are important questions, and they have very clear and specific (albeit broad and encompassing) answers.

6 comments:

  1. as I have said on the facebook - let's constantly pray to God for wisdom ...

    ReplyDelete
  2. J. Hughes, "On The Compatibility of Religion and Transhumanism," Global Spiral 8(2), Apr 1, 2007

    http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/hughes20070401/

    http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/9930/Default.aspx

    http://ieet.org/archive/20070326-Hughes-ASU-H+Religion.pdf

    Abstract: Transhumanism – the proposition that human beings should use technology to transcend the limitations of the body and brain – is a product of the Enlightenment humanist tradition. As a consequence most avowed transhumanists are secular, and many religious are skeptical or hostile towards the transhumanist project. However there are also many religious transhumanists who find the project of human enhancement at least consistent with, and sometimes a fulfillment of, their metaphysics, soteriologies and eschatologies. Transhumanism appears to be especially compatible with religious traditions that emphasize human agency and evolution to a transcendent state, such as Buddhism, or that have incorporated Enlightenment values, such as liberal Christianity. But elements of the transhumanist worldview and enhancement technologies are compatible with one element or another of most world faiths, even the most fundamentalist. We can thus expect that human enhancement technologies will be adopted creatively into the theologies of groups within all the world’s faiths, producing many flavors of “trans-spirituality.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. The outcome of transhumanism and the extend thereoff will have definate limitations that will be set by the Creator of all organic and anorganic as well as metaphysical and spiritual enteties in the universe ( i.e. The Trinity of God Allmighty) , no matter what any earthling will or wants to believe ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. If there was an "extent" to be set, it wou;ld have been set long ago. J. Huges' comment is right on the money. If you refuse the aumentation of human abilities, please DO NOT wear glasses or use a computer, car or anything else!

    Just because something is outdated and old, does not make it sacred...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Beste Annesu
    Graag lewer ek repliek op jou skrywes hier. Jy sal my bona fides moet vertrou insovêr ek gesonde debat in ‘n goeie gees wil voer (al kan ek soms geniepsig ervaar word).
    Hierdie diskoers berus volgens my op die basiese vertrekpunt dat daar kernverskille tussen ‘n filosofiese en teologiese epistemologie bestaan (ten spyte van die feit dat die filosofiese epistemologie so gefragmenteerd en uiteenlopend is). Ook dat die twee totaal eiesoortig is en baie moeilik met mekaar in gesprek tree. Die basiese premisse waar vanaf gewerk word verskil ook geheel en al. Dit word binne die teologie aanvaar dat God bestaan en dat daar as sulks sodanige openbaring bestaan. Die teologiese epistemologie wil dit ook hê dat ons tot geldige kennis kan kom via hierdie openbaring. Verder is die teologiese epistemologie ontwerp rondom voorveronderstellings wat juis vir hulle bewysbaarheid van hulleself afhanklik is en is as sulks van meet af geformuleer vanuit ‘n bevooroordeelde posisie. Dus maak dit ‘n teologiese epistemologie ‘n logiese sirkel. Die filosofie daarinteen, maak nie dieselfde voorveronderstellings nie en is die gronde waarop, en reëls waarbinne die twee dissiplines gestalte vind, in wese anders. Ek sou eerste in die ry staan om ruimskoots amnestie te verleen aan enige iemand wat voel dat die twee mekaar amper noodwendig moet uitsluit. So iemand sal kwalik blameer kan word.

    Omdat daar geweldig baie (miskien die meeste) teoloë is wat heelwat slimmer en beter geleerd as ek is, en uit respek vir die dissipline, sou ek myself nie aanmatig om die geldigheid van teologiese uitsprake kategories onder verdenking te plaas nie – met die voorwaarde dat dit as geloofsuitsprake behandel word. Soos ek by herhaling genoem het, is geloof en rasionele redevoering elk geldig in eie reg maar anders in aard. Geloofsuitprake loop noodwendig op ‘n logiese cul de sac uit omdat daar vanuit die staanspoor sekere voorveronderstellings, wat onbewysbaar is, op gronde van geloof as aksiomatiese waarhede aanvaar moet word ten einde ‘n epistemologiese model te vorm wat hierdie voorveronderstellings kan bewys. Die gevolgtrekking is reeds vooraf by die premis ingesluit. Binne die filosofiese epistemologie het geloofsuitsprake gevolglik, in terme van logika, nie dieselfde aanspraak op bewyspleging as rasionele redevoering nie. My eie domheid ten spyt sal enige analitiese filosoof (of selfs die eerlike teoloog) hierdie standpunt gelyk kan gee.
    Ek reken jy gee die bogenoemde ook gelyk omdat jy noem dat agnostisisme die enigste intellektueel verantwoordelike stand is om in te neem t.o.v. God. Ons weet doodeenvoudig nie.
    As ons gevolglik op ‘n basiese intellektuele vertrekpunt, naamlik ons epistemologiese invalshoek, kan ooreenstem wil ek dan verder oor trans/posthumanisme en jou kommentaar daaroor gesels. Ek gaan puntsgewys (maar nie noodwendig in enige orde nie – hetsy kronologies of andersins) ‘n paar vlugtige en oppervlakkige opmerkings maak om die bal aan die rol te kry. Ek het amper onder die versoeking geswig om sistematies al jou formele logiese denkfoute uiteen te sit, te kategoriseer en te tabelleer. Ek het egter nie die vryheid om my aan beide van ons se tyd te vergryp nie.
    1. Net omdat ‘n mens iets in “aanhalings tekens” plaas, negeer dit nie die betekenis of waarheid daarvan nie. Dit word dikwels (soos wat hier ook duidelik is) as instrument gebruik om ‘n bepaalde saak onder verdenking te plaas. Om dus woorde soos “enhancement” en “progress” in aanhalingstekens te plaas beteken nie dat konsepte en/of die geldigheid en/of waarheid daarvan ondermyn is nie. Dit is amper soos ‘n ad hominem denkfout - maar op woorde gerig. Aanhalingstekens kan nie goeie logika vervang nie.
    2. Waarom noem jy die beweging “quasi-intellectual” as jy dit duidelik gemaak het dat dit sterk aanhang onder akademici, intellektualiste et al geniet?
    3. Die feit dat iets kan gebeur, beteken mos nie noodwendig dat dit sal gebeur nie. Daar is mos ‘n verskil tussen potensialiteit en aktualiteit. Om te sê dat transhumanisme “mind-altering psychotropic drugs” kan isnluit beteken mos nie dat dit wel ingesluit is nie. Ook – vuur het “frightening destructive power”. Maak dit vuur nou kategories boos?
    4. Om apél te maak op “most people” vir sanksie rakende jou standpunt is op vele vlakke verkeerd. Eerstens neem jy aan dat meeste mense werklik voel soos jy sê hulle doen en tweedens neem jy amper ‘n besluit namens hulle. Verder is dit allermins wys om wetenskap, filosofie, of enige ander dissipline agter die perde van popularisme te span.
    Ek het uiteraard nog heelwat om te sê (ek trek immers nou eers by jou eerste paragraaf) maar dit sal moet wag tot ‘n ander geleentheid.

    Groete,
    Jacques

    ReplyDelete

Chastity Bono and her band Ceremony - Could Have Been Love

When In Doubt, Google!

Custom Search