Exploring the New God Argument by the Mormon Transhuman Association

Salt Lake City Freethinking Examiner ^ | May 24, 2009 | Jonathan Montgomery

[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?"

[Old Mountain man]

You still haven’t proved every word is faithful to the ORIGINAL manuscripts. I don’t have to prove anything.

[Old Mountain man]

Looks like you are guilty of trying to read God’s mind. I understand that is your theological interpretation. You and I were not there to here Him say what He said to whoever he said it to. Of course, the trinitarian theory appears to make Jesus an idiot for praying to Himself.

[ejonesie22]

Don’t forget the Angels and the other heavenly hosts...

[Colofornian]

22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil."

Take your pick: Some commentators believe God was referencing the family of heaven -- as this all happened after some angels sinned, thus the clan of angels then knew both good and evil. Therefore, "us" could be both God and His angels -- and He could have been speaking to His angels.

More commentators believe God is speaking of Himself -- a diverse Personhood within the unity of one God. Trinitarians have no problem with the concept of "us" within the Godhood -- as God is a compound unity and our world is a diversity-within-unity.

Look around you, the world is full of that arrangement! Having plural species of animals doesn't negate the oneness of the animal world, does it? Having two genders doesn't negate the oneness of humankind, does it?

Let's face it, before angels existed an "us" AND a "Him" existed simultaneously! Love is social. The "diversity" of God is the "us" -- the social -- the relational component of Who He is. The Oneness of God is the unity; the bonding; the 3-cord rope that can't be separated; the intimacy; the single nature.

(Besides, OMM, even Mormons say there's an "us" in the one "Godhead"...so even Mormons try to at times sound a bit "trinitarian" 'cause it makes them appear more orthodox and it helps explain key NT passages...and the Book of Mormon is chalk full of trinitarian passages!)

[colorcountry]

Let him who has ears, hear.

[SkyDancer]

My point exactly - who created the god that created man who became god? My head hurts ....

[ejonesie22]

Easy, it was god's dad.

His friends called him Scott, at least before he became a god himself, then any time they saw him they would just say “oh lord”...

I am working on the revelation about when he coached god jr’s soccer team...

(Hey if they can do it...)

[Colofornian]

My point exactly - who created the god that created man who became god? My head hurts [SkyDancer]

Easy, it was god's dad.

(And lds have the gall to ask us where we get our authority?)

Questions for Lds:

Q. Where did this Elohim get his authority?
(According to LDS theology, he got it from his god)
Q. Where did his god get it from?
(Elohim's god got authority from Elohim's grand-god).
Q. Where did Elohim's grand-god get his authority from? (He got it from Elohim's great grand-god).
Q. Allow me to save some space and then simply ask: What LDS god has ultimate authority, ultimate divine buck-stops-here authority, to wield and yield?

[The answer is, that no matter how many supposed divine generations in search of ultimate priesthood authority, there is none in LDSism. No LDS god has ultimate authority. Not only to grant priesthood authority, but anything. No ultimate authority exists because no ultimate, eternally sourced (meaning from Eternity past) divine being exists in Joseph Smith's theological structure. You see, every known LDS god is an ex-mortal, and every known potential future Lds god is a present mortal. That is lds "prophet" Snow's couplet in a nutshell.]

So, folks, the next time some LDS person cites his priesthood authority as the basis for his actions, just "go over his head." Just say, "I challenge your actions as unauthorized acts" of the ultimate LDS god. Your lower-level LDS god has no authority to tell you to do anything, because he honors no one himself as an ultimate god...because if you're silent about such a god, where's the tribute or honor in that?

[Logophile]

It seems to me that some of these "transhumanist" beliefs align themselves quite well with Lds thought. (Partially agree? Disagree? Why?)

First a disclaimer: I had never heard of the MTA before reading this thread. What little I know of their beliefs comes from their website. Thus far, I would say that Transhumanism is not a good fit with Mormonism.

Let's examine the the first point of their 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.

Exaltation is a term familiar to Mormons. It means eternal life with God. I am not sure what the MTA means by exaltation. (What is exaltation of "anatomies"?)

Apparently, the transhumanists' version of exaltation may be attained according to human "wills, desires and laws." In contrast, Mormonism is clear that we must obey God's will, desires and laws if we are to live with him. Consider, for instance, the third and fourth Articles of Faith:

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The second point of the MTA Affirmation at least mentions God in passing:

(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.

Mormons have traditionally had a great appreciation for science and technology, but I doubt that many would agree that scientists will discover the secret of resurrection, immortality, or transfiguration, not to mention exaltation. We place our hope in Jesus Christ, not technology.

I actually took the time to listen to the presentation by Cal Youngblood, a director of the MTA, that is posted on their web site. Commenting on the second point of the Affirmation (about 55:20), he notes that science and technology are "among the means ordained of God." Youngblood goes on to say:

There are other means ordained of God as well, such as charity, faith, hope, other things like to that.

Youngblood seems to be saying that science and technology are alternatives to faith, hope, and charity, something that is antithetical to Mormonism. He reinforces this impression later (about 60:13):

There is also a conflict that I have between bearing one's cross and sacrificing now for a greater future . . . versus the fulfillment and possibly even the indulgence that might result from these technological improvements. . . . There are some things we can't fix right now and we have to still be willing to bear our crosses.

If I understand his point, Youngblood is proposing that technological improvements can take the place of bearing one's cross, and other old-fashioned notions such as faith, hope, and charity. That is definitely not Mormonism as I understand it.

I started listening to Cannon and West's presentation, but lost interest after about 12 minutes. They admit early on that their argument is aimed toward atheists and almost entirely avoids religious language. That accords with my earlier impression, that the MTA is more Transhumanist than Mormon.

[Colofornian]

Thank you for taking the time to do an "under-the-hood" inspection.

On the surface, there seems to be some MTA-Lds overlaps...but appears to be plenty of fork-in-the-road divergences.

[Old Mountain man]

Too bad you don’t get it.

[ejonesie22]

If I didn’t get it it would not be a bad thing really.

Sadly I do get it, all too well...

[Elsie]

Oh, yeah, I forgot. They are all gone.

Do the NON-English versions of the BoM compare favorably to the original Golden Plates?

Oh; I forgot - the ANGEL took them away!!

[Elsie]

 

Can you prove it is?

 

Not our call...

 

---

 

Articles of Faith

The Articles of Faith outline 13 basic points of belief of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The Prophet Joseph Smith first wrote them in a letter to John Wentworth, a newspaper editor,
in response to Mr. Wentworth's request to know what members of the Church believed.
They were subsequently published in Church periodicals.
They are now regarded as scripture and included in the Pearl of Great Price.

 

 

 

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
History of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535—541

 

 

1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
   
2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
   
3. We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
   
4. We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
   
5. We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.
   
6. We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
   
7. We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.
   
8. We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
   
9. We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
   
10. We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
    
11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.
    
12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
    
13. We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.

Joseph Smith

 

 

[Elsie]

Why, then, would Lds also offer free KJV Bibles in TV commercials like they have? (That, too, is rather odd.)

It's not ODD if you are trying to imply that you might actually BELIEVE the stuff that is written there...

[Elsie]

Would the LDS then be guilty of knowingly distributing defective merchandise?

You misunderstand; Gentile.

The bible is the milk of Christianity.

The Book of Mormon (pbui) and the REST of our Standard Works® are the MEAT of Christianity.

--MormonDupe(I just LOVE reading MY BoM when trying to go to sleep!)

[Elsie]

Perhaps you can tell us exactly how it isn’t translated correctly since you are the one denigrating God’s Holy Bible.

Sorry, ANTI; but OMM is NOT the one you should be asking this question of; but our Glorious Leader and Founder; Joseph Smith.

--MormonDupe(Praise to the MAN!)

[Elsie]

Let him who has ears, hear.

Let him who has brains; think!

[Elsie]

On the surface, there seems to be some MTA-Lds overlaps...but appears to be plenty of fork-in-the-road divergences.

LDS(Salt Lake) and FLDS(Texas) have a 99.999% overlap.

[elcid1970]

If Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, do they exchange cards at Smithmastime?

;^)