Posted on 05/26/2009 10:55:59 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Lincoln Cannon recently left me the following comment:
I'd like to invite your feedback on the New God Argument (do a Google search). It's basically a moral argument for trust in the existence of beings that may qualify as gods from a Mormon perspective.
Lincoln Cannon and Joseph West, founders and directors of the Mormon Transhuman Association, presented the New God Argument for Sunstone in 2008. I've included the video presentation at the bottom of this page.
I was honored that Cannon would ask me about his argument, and overall I found it to be fair. By this, I mean that Cannon and West have constructed it very carefully and understand its limitations.
By way of background information, The Mormon Transhuman Association embraces an idea that Joseph Smith and other early LDS leaders taught, which is that God is an exhalted man.
God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! - Joseph Smith
According to this early belief, our God was able to advance until he attained his current status: God and creator of worlds. This teaching promises that the same is true for all of us, and that we can go on to do the same, perpetuating the cycle of building worlds and raising gods.
This particular belief often comes under heavy criticism from other Christians as being unbiblical, even heretical. Some Mormons have backed away from this teaching, insisting that it was never "official doctrine" and is open to interpretation. In 1997, President Gordon B. Hinckley appeared to distance himself from this teaching in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle:
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?
A: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, ``As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'' Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.
This only makes the Mormon Transhuman Association that much more interesting - as some Mormons distance themselves from this idea, others are openly embracing it. I would have once considered myself among the transhumans. I imagined that a being with advanced technology may well be indistinguishable from God, and could account for everything we see in religion.
So the New God Argument is the idea that if we accept a certain set of assumptions, it is reasonable to conclude that we are the product of an advanced civilization. Further, as we advance ourselves, we too may go on to build worlds. This logical argument, then, meshes nicely with the LDS belief.
It's a fun idea to wonder about, but the New God Argument can't really go beyond a "what if" scenario.
Logic follows a set structure, much like math. If we grant that certain assumptions are true, it is possible to arrive at a logically consistent conclusion. So even if the assumptions are false, the logic of the argument is still valid. Think of it like adding up some store inventory: we might count 24 boxes in one pile and 30 boxes in another pile, and if we do our math correctly conclude that there are 54 boxes. There's nothing wrong with the math, even if we had accidentally miscounted and there are in fact 18 boxes in one of the piles.
So we can logically justify any belief or claim that we want if we only begin with "If we can accept that..." Yes, if we accept one premise then another will logically follow. But that doesn't mean that the real world changes for us.
Cannon and West recognize this, so they offer a reason to accept some of those assumptions. They suggest that we should accept them because they're preferable. It's preferable to believe that advanced civilizations will not go extinct because if they do, it becomes more difficult to argue that we might one day go on to become technologically advanced gods ourselves. It's preferable to believe there are many advanced civilizations in the universe, because if there aren't, it becomes more difficult to argue that we were created by one.
As much as we might want to accept the assumptions that not only will we survive, but the universe is populated with advanced beings, there just aren't many reasons to do so.
The Drake equation is an attempt at estimating the number of intelligent civilizations in the universe. Estimates vary widely because there are several unknowns in the equation - we can only make guesses. But the Rare Earth hypothesis is an attempt at narrowing down some of those estimates. After we've ruled out all of the galaxies that don't contain any of the chemistry needed for life, all of the dead regions of galaxies that couldn't support or maintain life, all of the stars that burn too fast or too violently to support life, all of the stars that are binary systems that might make stable planetary orbits difficult, much less suitable for life, we're down to only a few percent of life sustaining stars. Of those, only a small fraction will happen to have the right kind of planet with the right kind of conditions to develop any kind of life. Of those, only a small fraction will be stable enough for a long enough period of time to allow advanced beings to evolve. Our own galaxy, with some 400 billion stars, might only host half a dozen intelligent civilizations. And they very well may be around for only a brief flash of time, dying off nearly as fast as they come into existence.
The New God Argument suggests that we might all be in a simulation as virtual beings, and that God would also be a simulation running in yet another simulation running in yet another. Cannon and West reference a quote from Richard Dawkins where he suggests that such a thing could be possible.
The point Dawkins was making, though, is that even if we allow for such a possibility, at some point we must get to a "real" universe where the very first computer programmer created the very first simulation. And that this being would have come about by natural means, through an evolutionary process.
Occam's Razor suggests that if it is possible for a natural universe to create an advanced civilization through natural means, we ought to just cut out the middle-man and assume that's us. We have no reason to suppose we're in a simulation, and everything we have available to us tells us we're in a real, natural world.
It's true that if an advanced civilization could create a simulation indistinguishable from the natural universe, we very well may be in one. We may be brains in a jar, or batteries for robots. We can speculate about some meta-reality above our own, whether it be a computer program or an alternate dimension, but there's no reason to think any of them might be true. Without any evidence, even if we are in a simulation, it's more reasonable to assume that we aren't.
Indeed, without any evidence, we can't distinguish any of these possibilities. It may be that we are just feeding electrical energy into the robots that rule the planet. This isn't any more or less likely than any other simulation we might suggest.
But if we grant that this could all be the case, that we are the created beings of a benevolent civilization, we can't make any connection to any current theology or god. Faith, Priesthood, Temple ceremonies, prayer, worship, abstaining from coffee - virtually none of what we associate with religion would or even should have anything to do with whatever technologically advanced being created us. To their credit, I believe Cannon and West understand this.
Ultimately, I believe that the argument is as they themselves describe it: a tool to ground our faith rationally. It serves as an intellectual bridge that connects the faith we want with the reality we have. But however sound the logic itself might be, it is founded on assumptions that would be irrational to accept. These assumptions add an infinite amount of complexity to a universe that could be explained far more simply and elegantly. They do not answer any questions or resolve any issues except: "How can I fit my existing belief in God with science?"
....The New God Argument suggests that we might all be in a simulation as virtual beings, and that God would also be a simulation running in yet another simulation running in yet another. Cannon and West reference a quote from Richard Dawkins where he suggests that such a thing could be possible. The point Dawkins was making, though, is that even if we allow for such a possibility, at some point we must get to a "real" universe where the very first computer programmer created the very first simulation. And that this being would have come about by natural means, through an evolutionary process.
Mormon Transhumans
__________________________________
ROFLMBO
And yet they claim that they are not cult?
At the end of 2008, the Mormon Transhumanist Association consisted of over 80 members, with approximately 40% living in Utah and 80% living in the United States. According to a survey in early 2008, 82% of our members were also members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the largest Mormon denomination) and 76% identified as theists. Politically, 29% identified as liberals, 20% as libertarians, 20% as centrists and 17% as conservatives. All members of the association support the Transhumanist Declaration and Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation, and all voting members are also voting members of Humanity+.Even allowing for some growth since the first of the year, I would guess that the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA) has fewer than 100 members; not all of them belong to the LDS Church. This is not a major movement in Mormonism, folks.
The foregoing refers to the "Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation", which reads as follows:
Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation(1) We seek the spiritual and physical exaltation of individuals and their anatomies, as well as communities and their environments, according to their wills, desires and laws, to the extent they are not oppressive.
(2) We believe that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable such exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end.
(3) We feel a duty to use science and technology according to wisdom and inspiration, to identify and prepare for risks and responsibilities associated with future advances, and to persuade others to do likewise.
The Affirmation strikes me as much more "Transhumanist" than Mormon.
The MTA reminds me of a friend I met at U. C. Berkeley, who claimed to belong to a group named Mormons for Marxism. I could never pin him down on the size of his group, but I suspected they could have held their meetings in a phone booth.
Every part of it. We have no other gods BEFORE God.
No god's before and no gods after .....
I didn’t say anything about after and neither does the Bible.
Ping
The issue isn't simply "group size," Logo. (Otherwise, you'd have perfect qualifications for being the PR Director for the Pharisees 2,000 years ago). We could all hear your spiel: Even allowing for some growth since the first of the year, I would guess that the Jesus as Transhumanist Apostolic Discipleship Association (JATADA) has fewer than 100 members; not all of them belong to this 'Jesus' Church. (In fact, some are even committing suicide -- like that Judas character). This is not a major movement in Religiousdom, folks."
The issues are both:
How representative of what fuels their content comes directly from Mormon beliefs & past Mormon leadership comments?
And, how much traction do their comments receive in broader Mormon literary circles?
Well, the article already begins to answer the second question: Lincoln Cannon and Joseph West, founders and directors of the Mormon Transhuman Association, presented the New God Argument for Sunstone in 2008.
(Your next PR assignment, Logo, is to issue a statement explaining how few cafeteria and liberal Mormons make up Sunstone)
So. Perhaps you could address the first question: How representative of what fuels their content comes directly from Mormon beliefs & past Mormon leadership comments?
Yet group size matters. Anyone can start an organization, be it Mormons for Marxism, the Mormon Badminton League, or the Mormon Transhumanist Association. If such an organization is unable to attract more than a handful of Mormon members, it probably is not representative of Mormons or Mormonism.
How representative of what fuels their content comes directly from Mormon beliefs & past Mormon leadership comments?
Your question is unclear. Would you care to rephrase it?
And, how much traction do their comments receive in broader Mormon literary circles?
I am not sure what circles you have in mind.
To repeat what I wrote previously, the "Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation" strikes me as more Transhumanist than Mormon.
"I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don’t know a lot about it, and I don’t think others know a lot about it."
But we KNOW that there are 'gods' after GOD, becuase our trusted leaders has told us; and...
If a religious Organization® can only attract a membership of around 12-13 million in a world of 6,000,000,000 beings - then it probably does not represent Christians or Christianity.
Read your Bible. That stuff is in there. Why would Israel call Him the Most High God?
I agree.
Your question is unclear. Would you care to rephrase it? [Logo]
OK. These "transhumanists" suggest, according to the article, that they are (at least in part) fueled by basic long-held lds beliefs:
Article: By way of background information, The Mormon Transhuman Association embraces an idea that Joseph Smith and other early LDS leaders taught, which is that God is an exhalted man. God Himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! - Joseph Smith
Lds connection: Lds have taught that somehow their man-become-god became exalted. (According to the article, The Mormon Transhuman Association embraces [that]...idea)
Article: According to this early belief, our God was able to advance until he attained his current status: God and creator of worlds. This teaching promises that the same is true for all of us, and that we can go on to do the same, perpetuating the cycle of building worlds and raising gods...Further, as we advance ourselves, we too may go on to build worlds. This logical argument, then, meshes nicely with the LDS belief.
Lds connection: Lds have taught that the universe incorporates many habitable planets or stars (Kolob, etc.). Obviously, inhabitants of these stars are to "earthlings" -- something of an "alien" variety...and Lds teachings focus on celestial-rank people populating these planets/stars in the next life (Transhumanists embrace this idea of an advanced mortal civilization living on other built-up planets)
Article: ...it is reasonable to conclude that we are the product of an advanced civilization. Further, as we advance ourselves, we too may go on to build worlds. This logical argument, then, meshes nicely with the LDS belief.
Lds connection: Lds teach "eternal progression" of mortals, which seems to be the foundational belief of transhumanists...that men who advanced unto godhood-like status turned around & generationally are now assisting in the progression of their spiritual offspring as they, too, move on to build other worlds.
Bottom line: If you take the literal definition of the word, "transhumanist," all it means is a human who either changes or moves across (as in moves across dimensions & time & space). Lds have long taught that "father" Elohim was...
(a) part of a broader scheme of gods -- a council of gods;
(b) was a mere human under one or more of these gods and "advanced" -- changed, progressed, moved across dimensions...etc.
(c) and Lds prophets like Spencer W. Kimball and others have stressed how people on earth today can likewise "pull themselves up by the bootstraps" to become "gods" as well.
It seems to me that some of these "transhumanist" beliefs align themselves quite well with Lds thought. (Partially agree? Disagree? Why?)
That is better. I agree with your statement, as amended.
OMM, how many Most Low gods then do you have? (Do you also have a "Most Middle God," too -- or has Uncle Sam usurped that role as the "ultimate middle-man god" of our age?)
All of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.