Skip to content
U.S. Transhumanist Party – Official Website
  • Home
  • Posts
  • Values
  • Platform
  • Leadership
  • Advisors
  • Candidates
  • Highlights
  • FAQ
  • States & Allies
  • Free Membership
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Search Icon

U.S. Transhumanist Party – Official Website

U.S. Transhumanist Party – PUTTING SCIENCE, HEALTH, & TECHNOLOGY AT THE FOREFRONT OF AMERICAN POLITICS

James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 2) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul

James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 2) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul

February 21, 2019 Ojochogwu Abdul Comments 4 comments

logo_bg

Ojochogwu Abdul


Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

Part 2: Deism, Atheism and Natural Theology

“The dominant trajectory of Enlightenment thought over the last three hundred years has been towards atheism. Most transhumanists are atheists. But some transhumanists, like many of the original Enlightenment thinkers, are attempting to reconcile naturalism and their religious traditions. Some transhumanists even believe that the transcendent potentials of intelligence argue for a new form of scientific theology.” (James Hughes, 2010)

The Enlightenment was the age of the triumph of science (Newton, Leibniz, Bacon) and of philosophy (Descartes, Locke, Spinoza, Kant, Voltaire, Diderot, Montesquieu). Unlike the Renaissance philosophers, the Enlightenment thinkers ceased the search for validation in the texts of the Greco-Roman philosophers, but were predicated more solidly on rationalism and empiricism. Religious tolerance and skepticism about superstition and Biblical literalism was also a central theme of the Enlightenment. Most of the Enlightenment philosophers of the 17th century through the 19th century, however, were theists of some sort who, in general, were attempting to reconcile belief in God with rational skepticism and naturalism. There were, of course, atheists among them as well as devout Christians, but if there was a common theological stance and belief about the divine among Enlightenment philosophers, it was probably Deism, a worldview consisting in the rejection of blind faith and organized religion, an advocacy for the discovery of religious truth through reason and direct empirical observation, and a belief that divine intervention in human affairs stopped with the creation of the world.

Deism, as James Hughes accounts, declined in the nineteenth century, gradually replaced by atheist materialism. Nonetheless, the engagement with Enlightenment values continued in liberal strains of Christianity such as Unitarianism and Universalism, united today among some communities as Unitarian Universalism (UU), and hosting congregations with individuals of varying beliefs that range widely to include atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, deism, Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Neopaganism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Daoism, Humanism, and many more.

Hughes himself grew up in the Unitarian-Universalist (UU) church, a movement whose attempt, he says, “to run spirituality through the rationalist Enlightenment sieve removed God seventy years ago, leaving mostly vague affirmations.” Despite some failings of UU over the decades, Hughes speaks of his belief that we need to “take more seriously the effort of Enlightenment theologians to argue for a naturalist theology.” In contemporary times, we see this effort persevere in the pursuit of such thought-systems as Natural Theology, Theology of Nature, Process Philosophy/Theology, Religious Naturalism, Spiritual Naturalism, Scientific/Naturalistic Pantheism, and the likes.

Modern transhumanism is clearly argued for by some schools as representing an unfolding in the atheist-humanist continuum building up from the Enlightenment. Nevertheless, a number of nuances command attention. Referencing a survey conducted in 2007 of members of the World Transhumanist Association (Humanity+, 2008), Hughes presents the polls wherein “93% answered ‘yes’ to the statement ‘Do you expect human progress to result from human accomplishment rather than divine intervention, grace, or redemption?’ Ninety percent denied ‘clear divinely-set limits on what humans should do,’ and ninety percent affirmed that their ‘concept of ‘the meaning of life’ derived from human responsibility and opportunity, not than [sic] from divine revelation.” When those transhumanists were asked for religious affiliations, Hughes continues, “two-thirds identified as atheist, agnostic, secular humanist, or non-theist.” It is thus the case that self-identified transhumanists today are mostly secular and atheist. However, the survey had a quarter of respondents self-identifying as “religious of some sort, including Christian (8%), spiritual (5%), Buddhist (4%), religious humanist (2%), as well as pagans, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and other faiths.” Furthermore, and in agreement with the argument of Steven Goldberg (2009) that transhumanism is itself a religious point of view, “about 1% of transhumanists listed transhumanism as their religion”, perhaps a new, postmodern religion as some have labeled it.

Therefore, as Hughes would surmise, “while transhumanism reflects the atheist trajectory of the Enlightenment for most of its adherents, for up to fifteen percent or so some concept of God” (or religious orientation) is “compatible with their transhumanism.” Hence, though secular transhumanism could, to a reasonable extent, be claimed as the most popular brand today of transhumanism, instances still exist of a blend of even some more or less mainstream religious traditions with transhumanist thought as exemplified by Christian Transhumanism, Mormon Transhumanism, Buddhist Transhumanism, etc.

And then again about naturalist theology, Hughes continues with a proposition that although previous efforts to affirm some form of deity through the rational, scientific investigation of nature may have failed, this theological system may finally have found “solid Enlightenment footing in modern transhumanist speculations about the transcendent powers of superintelligent beings.” John Gray (2018), for example, characterizes a subset of science-based atheists as the “transhumanists,” who believe that we are destined to become gods, what Yuval Noah Harari calls “Homo Deus”. This narrative has been around for a while, e.g. in the 20th century, the prolific scientist J.D. Bernal imagined humans becoming creatures of pure light, and Arthur C. Clarke foresaw a similar “end” for humanity in Childhood’s End, his 1953 novel. Moving on, the most confident exponent of transhumanism today, Ray Kurzweil, expresses certainty that, by genetically enhancing ourselves and merging our minds with machines, we will eventually produce a qualitatively new version of Homo sapiens, perhaps in the 21st century. Some see this “superintelligent being” manifesting in the form of a godlike AI, others in a human-AI synthesis that would together act out the “Transcension Hypothesis”, and yet some speak already of Syntheism, humans creating God(s).

Several versions of pantheist cosmotheologies are moreover subscribed to by a number of transhumanists, as 1% of respondents of the survey referred to by Hughes offered “pantheist” or “scientific pantheist” as either a religious or secular philosophy to which they held. Also, a more minimalist version of cosmotheology with some following among transhumanists is found in Nick Bostrom’s (2003) “simulation hypothesis,” in which Bostrom proposes that if the universe “generates vast superintelligences with billions of years to amuse themselves, one of their activities might be the creation of simulated civilizations.” (Hughes, 2010) The simulation argument goes on to submit that we are probably already living in a simulation. This hypothesis, in Hughes’ evaluation: “working from naturalistic assumptions to naturalistic conclusions, ends up as an argument for a kind of naturalistic God that may perform miracles, reward and punish behavior, and grant an afterlife or reincarnation.”

Yet another version of transhumanist cosmotheism is found in the “Order of Cosmic Engineers” (OCE). The OCE, Hughes explains, “describes itself as a transhumanist spiritual movement that foresees a future in which intelligence engineers the universe and becomes godlike. They distinguish between belief in a “supernatural” god, and belief in inevitable natural superintelligent, superpowerful gods.” The Turing Church and the Church of Perpetual Life are similar transhumanist groups which pursue the fusion of spirituality with technology, science-fiction with engineering, and quite importantly, building upon a naturalistic approach towards the vision of a transformation of humans into beings with superpowerful capabilities.

But is this naturalistic trans-spirituality compatible with “new atheism” which to some represents the progression of Enlightenment thinking today? Hughes, as Executive Director of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies (IEET), points out that while the Institute, like the transhumanist movement, tilts towards atheism, and some of the Institute’s prominent members “argue passionately that advocating for atheism is a central responsibility for partisans of Enlightenment values today”, nonetheless, the group also embodies some of those contradictory tendencies found in and inherited from the Enlightenment. Former IEET Chair (now Director of the Future of Humanity Institute) Nick Bostrom was the transhumanist philosopher who articulated the simulation hypothesis, whereas IEET Fellow and current Humanity+ Chair Ben Goertzel is a self-identified panpsychist. Some transhumanists at IEET (and elsewhere) identify with and speak for the Order of Cosmic Engineers and the Turing Church, while Hughes himself and a couple of other frontline figures at IEET are atheist Buddhists, pursuing their “Cyborg Buddha” project of trying to, in Hughes’ words, “integrate neurotechnologies with a spirituality grounded in naturalism, an effort we share with New Atheist Sam Harris.”

From a critical perspective, the representation of a compromise betraying the core Enlightenment commitment to scientific naturalism, and perhaps even a “backsliding towards irrationalism”, is an impression likely to be deduced from some of these above-cited positions. Hughes, however, disagrees with this notion, at least in principle. “Naturalist predicates and arguments”, he affirms, coupled with some receptiveness towards transhumanist conclusions, are “leading to new scientific theologies and spiritualities.” There is, therefore, no cause for intellectual angst. This tension, Hughes reminds us, as it were between the atheist, anti-spiritualist wing on the one hand, and the natural theology wing on the other (existing more so within the transhumanist body today) – one that was bequeathed from the Enlightenment – is itself an already three-centuries-old problem. As such, we may as well be realistically braced not to expect any resolution any time soon.


Ojochogwu Abdul is the founder of the Transhumanist Enlightenment Café (TEC), is the co-founder of the Enlightenment Transhumanist Forum of Nigeria (H+ Nigeria), and currently serves as a Foreign Ambassador for the U.S. Transhumanist Party in Nigeria. 


Guest Articles
atheism, Chogwu Abdul, Deism, Enlightenment, Homo Deus, James Hughes, materialism, naturalism, Nick Bostrom, Ojochogwu Abdul, pantheism, philosophy, Religion, simulation, technoprogressive, theology, Transhumanism

Post navigation

PREVIOUS
James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Intro + Part 1) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul
NEXT
U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Meeting and Q&A – February 23, 2019

4 thoughts on “James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 2) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul”

  1. Pingback: James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Intro + Part 1) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul – U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party – Official Website
  2. Pingback: James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 3) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul – U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party – Official Website
  3. Pingback: James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 4) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul – U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party – Official Website
  4. Pingback: James Hughes’ Problems of Transhumanism: A Review (Part 5) – Article by Ojochogwu Abdul – U.S. Transhumanist Party / Transhuman Party – Official Website

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Media

Constitution of the U.S. Transhumanist Party

Transhumanist Bill of Rights – Version 3.0

U.S. Transhumanist Party Facebook Feed

Free Transhumanist Symbols

Guidelines for Community Conduct

SUBMIT A POST

Subject Categories

    - Life Extension
    - Artificial Intelligence
    - Space Colonization
    - Robotics
    - Biotechnology
    - Nanotechnology
    - Autonomous Vehicles
    - 3D Printing
    - Cryptocurrencies
    - Vertical Farming
    - Universal Basic Income
    - Existential Risk
    - Rationality

Hashtags

    #USTranshumanistParty, #TranshumanistParty, #TranshumanistPolitics, #TomRoss2024, #RossTwedt2024

Recent Posts

  • The Copenhagen Consensus – How to Feed the Hungry – Article by Zach Richardson
  • The Issue of Food – Article by Luis Arroyo
  • Results of Platform Vote #9 and Vote on Proposals on Investigations and Emergency Declarations; Adopted Sections of the U.S. Transhumanist Party Constitution
  • Official Ballot Options for Platform Vote #9 and Proposals on Investigations and Emergency Declarations
  • Gennady Stolyarov I and Gennady Stolyarov II Discuss the Progress of Information Technology (2019)
  • Immortality: My Quest and Reasons for Seeking an Indefinite Lifespan – Article by Albi Ndoni
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement on the Murder of Brian Thompson
  • News Regarding THPedia, the Transhumanist Encyclopedia for Everyone – Invitation to Contribute – Statement by Gennady Stolyarov II
  • The Transhumanist Council: A Worthy Effort for a New Umbrella Transhumanist Organization
  • Report on the Montana Right to Try Act – Analysis by Shamar White
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Comments on the Citizen Petition by Age Reversal Unity to Declare Aging a Disease
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Chairman’s Eighth Anniversary Message
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Statement on the Outcome of the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
  • Preliminary Member-Reported Write-In Totals for Tom Ross and Daniel Twedt in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party and Nevada Transhumanist Party Positions on 2024 Nevada Ballot Questions
  • Where to Write In Tom Ross for President of the United States – and How to Make Sure Your Vote Counts
  • Celebration of U.S. Transhumanist Party 10th Anniversary and International Longevity Month
  • U.S. Transhumanist Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon with Tim Wass – June 23, 2024
  • How to Fight Homeopathy: Why People Believe in Homeopathy and What to Do with That – Article by Ariel VA Feinerman

Recent Comments

  • Theo Ibrahim on The Issue of Food – Article by Luis Arroyo
  • Theo Ibrahim on U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • R. Nicholas Starr on U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • R. Nicholas Starr on U.S. Transhumanist Party General Discussion Thread for 2025
  • Alexander Noyle on The Issue of Food – Article by Luis Arroyo

Archives

  • March 2025 (3)
  • February 2025 (1)
  • January 2025 (3)
  • December 2024 (2)
  • November 2024 (6)
  • October 2024 (3)
  • September 2024 (2)
  • August 2024 (5)
  • July 2024 (4)
  • June 2024 (3)
  • May 2024 (1)
  • March 2024 (1)
  • February 2024 (1)
  • January 2024 (8)
  • October 2023 (11)
  • September 2023 (6)
  • August 2023 (1)
  • July 2023 (4)
  • May 2023 (3)
  • April 2023 (3)
  • March 2023 (2)
  • February 2023 (12)
  • January 2023 (23)
  • December 2022 (2)
  • November 2022 (2)
  • October 2022 (3)
  • August 2022 (3)
  • July 2022 (2)
  • May 2022 (6)
  • March 2022 (3)
  • February 2022 (4)
  • January 2022 (7)
  • December 2021 (11)
  • November 2021 (4)
  • October 2021 (5)
  • September 2021 (2)
  • August 2021 (2)
  • July 2021 (3)
  • June 2021 (2)
  • May 2021 (6)
  • April 2021 (7)
  • March 2021 (4)
  • February 2021 (5)
  • January 2021 (6)
  • December 2020 (10)
  • November 2020 (4)
  • October 2020 (2)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • August 2020 (4)
  • July 2020 (5)
  • June 2020 (6)
  • May 2020 (3)
  • April 2020 (3)
  • March 2020 (6)
  • February 2020 (1)
  • January 2020 (6)
  • December 2019 (3)
  • November 2019 (2)
  • October 2019 (9)
  • September 2019 (10)
  • August 2019 (12)
  • July 2019 (18)
  • June 2019 (17)
  • May 2019 (12)
  • April 2019 (8)
  • March 2019 (12)
  • February 2019 (7)
  • January 2019 (13)
  • December 2018 (9)
  • November 2018 (5)
  • October 2018 (9)
  • September 2018 (5)
  • August 2018 (10)
  • July 2018 (13)
  • June 2018 (14)
  • May 2018 (8)
  • April 2018 (8)
  • March 2018 (10)
  • February 2018 (15)
  • January 2018 (17)
  • December 2017 (8)
  • November 2017 (17)
  • October 2017 (19)
  • September 2017 (11)
  • August 2017 (11)
  • July 2017 (16)
  • June 2017 (15)
  • May 2017 (10)
  • April 2017 (7)
  • March 2017 (8)
  • February 2017 (16)
  • January 2017 (8)
  • December 2016 (6)
  • November 2016 (5)

Categories

  • Allied Projects
  • Announcements
  • Art
  • Candidates
  • Debate
  • Discussion Panels
  • Distributed Computing
  • Exposure Periods
  • Foreign Ambassadors
  • General Discussion
  • Guest Articles
  • Inclusion
  • Interviews
  • Legislative Analysis
  • Official Ballots
  • Petitions
  • Platform
  • Presentations
  • Press Releases
  • Research
  • Sample Ballots
  • Science Fiction
  • Statements
  • Tolerance
  • Virtual Enlightenment Salons
  • Vote Results
  • Working Groups

Victor Run Virtual Race – June 4-6, 2021

Historical Archive – 2020 U.S. Presidential Ticket – Charlie Kam and Liz Parrish

© 2025   Copyright - U.S. Transhumanist Party - All Rights Reserved | WordPress design: Art Ramon Paintings