Skip to content

Lucifer, Transhumanism, and Transformation

November 16, 2010

“Lucifer is the embodiment of reason… Join me, join Lucifer…” – Max More.

On October 1, 2010, I attended the Transhumanism and Spirituality conference in Salt Lake City, Utah. At one point in the meeting, a current leader in the Transhuman movement – Max More – told us he was the “spawn of Lucifer.” At first I thought it was a bad joke.

Boy, was I wrong.

After returning home, I stumbled onto an earlier text advocating Mr. More’s trans-human worldview, titled “In Praise of the Devil.” In this short article, Mr. More vigorously promoted the Luciferian perspective: “You are all your own highest authority.”

And that’s the carrot dangling in front of humanity: Mankind is the highest authority – therefore, the works of our hands and the desires of our heart can guide us toward Ascension. Man can become God via science and technology. It’s the ultimate end of Technocracy (check out the back-issues of Forcing Change to learn about Technocracy).

This quest fits with what Richard Seed proclaimed in TechnoCalyps. “We are going to become Gods. Period. If you don’t like it, get off.”

So why am I telling you this? Because you need to understand the shift taking place NOW, and how it impacts Christianity and the broader community. You must download the latest issue of Forcing Change: The Rise of Techno-Gods.”

P.S. Like every issue of Forcing Change, I have a personal stake in its production. Each edition takes time, has costs, and is sweated over. But this issue is of special importance; the cost of bringing you this information has been high. It has been financially expensive, energy and time intensive, and very stressful.

Currently, the membership of Forcing Change is far too small to recoup costs. This doesn’t stop us from bringing the information forward or keep us from trying to move ahead, but it does emphasis the importance of your use of Forcing Change. In other words, make sure you access the resources provided to you: Learn from them, use these resources as a gauge to measure our culture, and pass the information along. — Carl Teichrib

30 Comments leave one →
  1. Carl Youngblood permalink
    November 18, 2010 2:10 am

    Hey Carl, Way to quote More completely out of context. Max More, as you well know if you were in attendance, was simply stating that he was not a believer and jokingly claiming to have more in common with Lucifer than God. He obviously believes in neither of these beings.

    • November 18, 2010 11:07 am

      Out of context? Sure the comment brought laughter, and I would have thought it nothing more than a wise-crack at the time… except that, like you say, he does hold more in common with Lucifer than God (an interesting observation by yourself); to the point that his article in Atheist Notes, “In Praise of the Devil,” openly promotes a Luciferic stance. In that piece, More advocates Lucifer as the symbolic opposition to Jehovah, and both become personalized in the article. More is clearly upset.

      You say he disbelieves both: So what? This is the beauty of atheism. It disbelieves something (God), yet vigorously opposes it – to the point of constantly referring to it, its terms, and uses throughout history. It’s amazing how Atheists expend their energy, sometimes over an entire lifetime, battling against something that “doesn’t exist.” This isn’t rational disbelief, nor the struggle against “irrational faith” – it’s anger.

      Moreover, the terms chosen and used, such as Lucifer, are done within the context of Christianity. In fact, that was the context of the phrase used in Utah, because the question was (and I have the audio for the entire event): “Should we seek dialogue with paranoid Christian fundamentalists who rant against H+, or should we seek more than dialogue, maybe even mock them?”

      James Hughes answered by talking about Tom Horn and said: “Because apocalyptic and millennial energies very frequently inspire violence… so if reaching out across the aisle to someone who thinks I’m a spawn of Satan, and establishing a relationship so that he doesn’t come after me with gun is something I have to do, I’m willing to do it. Right? And it’s the ones who haven’t reached out yet that I’m worried about.”

      Then Max More responds; “I’m not the spawn of Satan, I’m the spawn of Lucifer.”

      A bad joke? A way to lighten a heavy conversation? It could have been – and people did laugh – but this doesn’t change the fact that Mr. More had already positioned himself within Atheist Notes. The bottom line: Symbolic or not, if you don’t want to be called a Luciferian, don’t publicly align yourself as a Luciferian. And don’t do it within the context of bashing Christians, for like-it-or-not, this places the conversation within a religious framework.

  2. Carl Youngblood permalink
    November 18, 2010 11:15 am

    I maintain that the comments were facetious and that you’re twisting them to mean something far different than they did. You are not applying Christian charity in your interpretation of his words. Rather, you are interpreting them as negatively as possible, far more negatively than they were intended. Taken as a whole, his talk was friendly and thoughtful with a little good humor thrown in against blatant fanatics. If you wish to convince us of the superiority of your message, you might start out by treating others at least as mercifully as More did. So far your message seems far more vindictive and deceptive than his.

    • November 18, 2010 11:52 am

      You’re certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I’m basing my position on what he both said and published. And while his comment might have meant to evoke some chuckles, and it did, the context was far from humorous. Furthermore, “taken as a whole,” the Utah event painted “fundamental Christians” – those whom you call “blatant fanatics” – in a very negative light. Sorry, Carl, even though I like your first name, and you’re probably a nice guy, I don’t buy your argument. Moreover, I doubt if I can convince the Transhumanist movement of “the superiority” of my message. Based on the negativity shown toward the fundamental Christian community by Transhumans, including language far more vindictive than anything I’ve heard or seen from recognized Christian leaders, the label of “blatant fanatics” can be firmly hung in your camp.

      If you have a problem with the language, including terms such as Luciferian – which is used by the modern father of your own community – then tone down the rhetoric. There is a reason why many look with concern on the Transhumanist movement. Based on what many have seen and heard so far, including myself, “transhuman charity” is an oxymoron.

  3. Carl Youngblood permalink
    November 18, 2010 1:12 pm

    I harbor no ill will against fundamentalist Christians, although I disagree with them. I readily acknowledge that there is distrust between both fundamentalists and many of the so-called new atheists (although More is certainly not one of them). Part of what the T&S conference was trying to do, and what the Mormon Transhumanist Association stands for, is to try to build bridges between these different camps and help them to see that they actually share some common ground. I think I can safely say that you are skeptical of this claim, but I assure you that I and others like me are striving to exercise charity towards both secular transhumanists and traditional religionists and to help them learn from each other. I wish you all the best, Carl, and I hope that some day you can think better of your fellows.

    • November 18, 2010 2:32 pm

      Carl, I appreciate your comments. I’ve been around many individuals whom I disagree with even more sharply than the mentioned transhumanists, and yet enjoyed spending time with them – some as colleagues, some as friends, and some as antagonists (makes for an interesting visit!). Yes, I admit that I’m skeptical. There are historical and contemporary reasons for this. At the same time I see common ground in the sense that we are all adverse to human suffering. I’m not against technology, I’m concerned with its application – especially in the hands of “blatant fanatics.”

      It’s ironic: We probably see a common problem, but through different lenses. The anger of many transhumanists, it appears, is aimed at fundamental Christianity. Why? That’s not hard to figure out. Fundamental Christians hold to a worldview of Biblical exclusivity (that makes me a fundamental Christian). The proper application of this refers to spiritual salvation through Jesus Christ, yet it’s an unfortunate fact that some Christian fundamentalists seek a political form of power that is viewed as threatening to others. Sadly, there are historical examples where this has played out with devastating results. I have no desire for that kind of situation.

      At the same time, the historical hallmark of politically entrenched atheism is catastrophic. To point: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and a host of other despots who’s worldview gravitated around atheism and Social Darwinism. Hitler and Himmler too could be added to this list, although their worldviews – especially Himmler’s – married a form of Germanic occultism with Social Darwinism. The sickening part, from a Christian point of view, is how many in the German churches capitulated – historically to their own demise. Interestingly, Hitler was the first to use computing technologies to achieve one of the largest systematic killings of non-combatants (outdone only by Stalin and Mao), in the name of creating the super-race.

      I think you can see why there are concerns when atheist transhumans openly ridicule Christians. At the T&S conference, James Hughes was troubled by the possible violent reaction of fundamental Christians. I don’t want this either. Historically speaking, however, atheistic leaders have proven themselves far more lethal than their religious counterparts. None of this is to say that today’s atheist transhumans, or transhumans who hold different worldviews (including liberal views of spirituality), are the despots of tomorrow. But generations change, and the seeds of what we plant today can bring us a fruit that is poison.

      I wish I could say that my rant is only the reflection of a paranoid religious nut-job. It would be easy to label myself that. The sad truth remains, however, that our future always resembles something of the past.

      My apologies, Carl… I’m too long winded!

      I hope you have a good day, and feel free to contact me again. I may disagree with yourself and many in the transhuman movement, but I’m not your enemy – your worldview antagonist… sure, that’s an honest assessment – but not an enemy.

  4. Carl Youngblood permalink
    November 18, 2010 3:23 pm

    Carl, I absolutely agree with you that atheist regimes have taken far more human lives than Christian extremists ever did. But I wouldn’t lump More and Hughes in anywhere near the same camp as these atheists. In fact, it seems to me that More and Hughes went out of their way to clarify that they strongly oppose the authoritarian methods employed by such dictatorships.

    I also think that religious people, indeed people of any persuasion, need to be able to handle at least some amount of teasing or ridicule in a pluralistic society. Not that I agree with such tactics, but I think that free speech should be granted to religious and non-religious alike, as long as it does not incite violence.

    I believe it is just as possible for an atheist to be good as it is for a religious person to be good. In fact, based on the results of a recent Pew survey, it would seem that atheists are at least much better educated about religion than their religious peers are. This at least would demonstrate to me that many of them have come to their opinions after sincere inquiry, whereas many of their religious peers have hardly examined their own faith. I am a religious person but I have enough atheist and agnostic friends to realize that I don’t have a monopoly on virtue.

    Carl, thanks for your thoughts. I actually find your responses to be a lot more reasonable than your initial post. I would welcome any email or voice conversations about these subjects in the future. Please feel free to contact me any time.

  5. Carl Youngblood permalink
    November 18, 2010 3:29 pm

    One more suggestion, Carl. I would urge you to allow these comments to be posted on your blog.

    • November 18, 2010 3:43 pm

      Will do! I wasn’t sure if you were wanting this to be public, but I’m certainly cool with it. In fact, I think it’s good. One thing about a blog verses a prolonged conversation is that in a posting, especially one like mine, you’re trying to rouse interest. But afterward, it’s the discussion – such as what we had today – where points can be debated and fleshed out. I appreciate your comments, and I liked how both of us were able to bring the emotion of the situation down to a workable level.

      Have a wonderful day!

  6. November 22, 2010 11:44 pm

    Hi Carl T. Thanks for investing time in attending and reporting on the Transhumanism and Spirituality conference. I just finished listening to your interview on Derek Bilbert’s radio show, and I’m planning to read the report you composed after attending the conference. Reading your teaser for the report here on this blog, I had an initial impression, similar to that expressed by Carl Y, that you were erring on the side of sensationalism over accuracy. Max More does have a history of anti-religiosity; however, as an attendee at the conference, you are likely also aware that Max explicitly stated that he has changed (“become an old softy”, as he put it), and no longer views all forms of religion negatively. Clearly he maintains a negative assessment of religious fundamentalism (including Christian fundamentalism), but an accurate characterization should account for the full set of information provided — not just the bits that rile up the readers. In any case, I’ll likely have more thoughts to share with you when I finish reading your report. Thanks, again, for providing that.

    • November 23, 2010 4:50 pm

      Hi Lincoln,

      Thanks for responding to my blog, and thanks also to Carl Y for pointing out the review on your site. I read through your critique this morning, and thought it was well done, regardless of the fact that we hold opposing worldviews. I also appreciate your acknowledgment regarding the existence of antagonism toward fundamental Christianity. Your explanation of the Benevolence theory was also appreciated; obviously I misunderstood that aspect of the New God Argument. I’ll have to re-listen to your presentation.

      Re: Mr. More. Yes, he explained his softening regarding religion in general, and he differentiated between “religion” and “spirituality.” He also explained his position with a unique insight: stating that he is an Atheist in respect to the “Christian god,” but couldn’t claim to be a staunch Atheist regarding other religions because he hadn’t explored all their claims. I thought this was interesting as many (most?) Atheists don’t show distinctions. Nevertheless, his antagonism toward fundamental Christianity was evident – as it was among other speakers. Which brings this email around to the comment originally in question: Lucifer.

      I can see how my use of the Lucifer statement could be viewed as sensational in nature – it does have a ring to it. And I could certainly be accused of overstepping if More had no previous history of using such language, wasn’t a vocal opponent of fundamental Christianity, and had placed his comment in a non-abrasive context. If that had been the case, then I would have marked his Lucifer comment as a bad joke – after all, it did elicit some laughter. But he does have that history, he is antagonist to fundamental Christianity, and the context carried the weight of animosity: “Should we seek dialogue with paranoid Christian fundamentalists who rant against H+, or should we seek more than dialogue, maybe even mock them?” If sensationalism exists, it stems from the abrasive and sensational nature of the question.

      At the same time, the blog is a teaser of sorts. It’s meant to draw people to read the larger report. Should I have explained more about Mr. More in the final version of my document? Probably, although it wouldn’t have changed his factual opposition regarding Christianity. I thought of adding more about Mr. Hughes too, but where does a person end? I’m already known for being too long winded!

      Again, Lincoln, I appreciate you’re critique. If our paths ever cross in the future – and that includes you, Mr. Youngblood – I think we could have a productive discussion, complete with strongly held disagreements, over a really good meal.

  7. Carl Youngblood permalink
    November 23, 2010 2:48 am

    Carl, you may be interested to hear Lincoln Cannon’s comments on your analysis of the conference:

    • November 23, 2010 4:55 pm

      Thanks, Carl. I had the chance to read his comments before lunch. He did a good job. My response note is posted on my blog.

  8. November 23, 2010 9:04 pm

    Hi Carl, Carl, Lincoln, and everyone else,

    What a great Attitude you have Carl, with: “I’ve been around many individuals whom I disagree with even more sharply than the mentioned transhumanists, and yet enjoyed spending time with them” as I share this value. I see you as a very rare individual, as most people, on both sides of atheism, theism, and all other spectrums, have far too little tolerance and willingness to try to communicate, or even be interested in others, in any way. That’s precisely why some of us are working on the survey projects at, where it is our goal to concisely collect, develop, quantitatively measure, and more effectively communicate with everyone. All with the ultimate faith, hope and goal of getting everyone all that they want.

    I like to refer to myself as a “Mormon Transhumanist Atheist”, partially for the above reasons. Unfortunately, many of my religious friends act hatefully towards me for being an atheists, and I get the same from many of my atheists friends. For a time, the MTA was ‘excommunicated’ or kicked out of its affiliation with the world transhumanist association, because a group of haters ended up being elected. Many of us get very little respect from many people on both sides. One of my primary motivations for supporting this transhumanist and spirituality conference, is to foster more cross cultural communication, understanding, and much less hate.

    Personally, I’m very sympathetic for the way Max, and other Transhumanists claim affiliation with Lucifer, regardless of whether it is in a joking or even just mocking way. I think there is much educational value for all in good mocking of terrible things or beliefs. And I also enjoy it when people make a fool of, or even, mock themselves by attempting to still mock obviously good and glorious things.

    But, this, or any kind of communication is where I draw the line. Much has been said, on both sides, against violence. I think this is great, but needs to be much more than just this. We also need to listen to, and find out what others believe, to seek to communicate, as has also been obviously valued by both sides here. But, still, even this, isn’t enough. Once we’ve communicated and know concisely and quantitatively what all others believe and want, then the faith, hope, and goal needs to include to fulfill and bring to pass it all for everyone. i.e. we need to have faith that we can make it all true, and get everyone all that they want and believe in.

    I believe Christ would value having a goal of getting what all others want, before he works on getting what he wants, and I try to emulate this. To me, this is what true love is. Sure, some people may think they want something evil, or destructive or hateful of others. As in maybe one might desire to crucify someone else? Should we not try to frustrate any such desires? I ask, what did Christ Do? My understanding is, that he could have called down the armies of heaven to frustrate such desires of some. But he obviously did not. He basically only did communication about what he thought of such, even powerful and very successful mocking of such hateful behavior, if you ask me. But that is where he drew the line. He was not violent. He did not call down the powers of heaven to frustrate such desires. He let them do, what they still thought they wanted to do. I believe Christ had an eternal perspective including a faith and hope for perfect justice, for all, and that justice would eventually be done, and that the people that got what they wanted, first (his crucifixion), would finally seek for justice, and work to achieve a perfect justice, and at least make a perfect restitution, with plenty of interest, leaving Jesus well ahead in the end, for being last the best of all the game for getting what he wanted. The perpetrators of such evil, in the end, finally feeling their selfish and hateful behaviors, being very successfully, rightfully mocked, finally fully understood and overcome. And I’m sure, as they spend thousands of years in the eternities, working to make it up to him, they were wishing they had not been so mistaken, and had been more open to listening, and not seeking to get what they wanted first.

    Carl Youngblood mentioned “I harbor no ill will against fundamentalist Christians, although I disagree with them”, but to me, this also isn’t quite enough – at least for anyone with hateful and hopeless beliefs like in the reality of some Lucifer character that should be hated and frustrated. I include anyone that believes in any kind of Lucifer in the class of people I consider to be haters. And if they also claim to be “A person of faith” I think they are liars, because accepting anything as hateful and terrible as this is the exact opposite of faith and hope.

    To me, their tempting, luddite, irrational, faithless, fear mongering activities and preaching of devils, and so on are doing much more damage than just the crucifixion of one great being. The more people fight against, and work to frustrate, even slow down progress, the more people will die, end up rotting in the grave or hell, and fail to make it to this glorious heaven. But, again, I seek to follow Christ’s example, and seek to communicate, and mock such behavior, like Max is doing, and attempt to warn them of the way things will obviously end up for them and their sinful indebtedness to the rest of us, I can patiently serve and seek to better understand, exactly whatever it is they think they want, and even seek to help to get that for them, for as long as is necessary. All eternally having faith that even these poor mistaken fundamentalist irrational bastards, will eventually realize the error of their ways, and will be able to be our slaves for many millions of years in the eternities, and that after it is all done, and perfect justice is achieved (including me, serving them, to make a restitution for any way I’ve sinned against them), we will all be happy together, in a perfect and just heaven.

    Carl, do you believe that there will eventually be perfect justice for all?

    Brent Allsop

  9. December 4, 2010 2:11 pm

    Carl T, here are my thoughts on your recent interview with Worldview Weekend Radio:

  10. sentinel permalink
    February 13, 2011 11:40 am

    The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist. The point is, as far as I’m concerned, not whether More was serious or joking, or whether he secretly believes in Lucifer or is invoking him symbolically. The point is that he is advancing the very REAL Luciferian agenda. All of these “progressive” ideas have their origins in occult doctrines.

    For a comprehensive sweep of what is actually going on in the world right now, I recommend “The Ascendancy of the Scientific Dictatorship – An Examination of Epistemic Autocracy from the 19th to the 21st Century” by Phillip & Paul Collins.

    • February 19, 2011 2:26 pm

      The Collins’ brothers have done an excellent job. My only beef with the book is that it doesn’t have an index. But you’re correct regarding Lucifer; I’ve studied occult doctrine and esoteric philosophy for 15+ years, and whether Transhuman advocates recognize it or not, the post-human ideal is rooted in far deeper stuff than computer sciences or “technology.” It reminds me of a 1960 quote by science fiction editor Lester del Rey; “This is an age when the precision of our definitions is exceeded only by the vagueness of the philosophies behind them.”

    • February 19, 2011 9:28 pm

      It seems to me there is some definite fear and hate going on here towards this so called ‘lucifer’, his desires, and anyone that shares his “luceferian” or “progressive” agenda. It is obviously different than what you want, and you seek to do all you can to frustrate and destroy anything even close to such. Would you consider your destructive desires, actions and beliefs as hateful, or morally good? Evidently you don’t have faith and hope for or believe in unconditional love for all?

  11. February 19, 2011 2:38 pm

    Sentinel and Carl T, you will find my perspective ironic, as I find yours ironic. As I read the Bible, I understand the prophets to be warning us away from worship of that which would raise itself above all else called God, and to be encouraging us toward worship of that which would raise us together as joint heirs in the glory of God. It appears to me that fundamentalist Christians (like fundamentalists of other religions) worship an exclusive God like that against which the prophets warn us, whereas Transhumanist Christians worship an inclusive God like that toward which the prophets encourage us. Fundamentalist Christians identify the exclusive God as “Christ”, whereas Transhumanist Christians identify the INCLUSIVE God as “Christ”. The irony, then, is that we each observe the other to be misdirecting worship. As you observe, there is indeed much more going on here than just shallow technology. There are deep theological differences at play. The first step toward understanding each other better is to acknowledge and discuss these differences.

    • February 19, 2011 3:11 pm

      Lincoln, you’re right in saying that deep theological differences are at play; there is so much more going on then technology. And you’re correct in saying that fundamentalist Christians (and I’ll add followers of orthodox Judaism) hold to the worship of God as exclusive, not inclusive. However, I don’t quite follow the line regarding the prophet worshiping what raises “us together.” Rather, I see examples such as Elijah and the prophets of Baal in the Book of 1 Kings, and the example of King Solomon (although not a prophet) in 1 Kings 11, where its obvious that inclusive worship was to be rejected. Likewise in the NT with 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. Many other examples could be given, including the words of Jesus Himself, that compliment the exclusive position. I do appreciate the fact that you recognize this is the dividing line splitting fundamental/traditional Christians and Transhumanist Christians. In that sense, the irony is that we all hold to a dogmatic position: dogmatic exclusivism, or dogmatic inclusivism. And in this marches the Law of Non-Contradiction, and wow… we find ourselves in very troubling waters. Thanks, Lincoln, for your input.

  12. February 19, 2011 3:52 pm

    Carl T, there is a form of exclusiveness in inclusiveness: the exclusion of exclusiveness. This is logically consistent so long as one does not pretend to a superlative inclusiveness, which is nonsensical like all superlatives. When I read of exclusiveness in the Bible, I understand one of two things to be happening: (1) behavior reflecting old theological understandings superseded by new theological understandings provided by Jesus; or (2) behavior reflecting the exclusion of exclusiveness, analogous to acknowledging that religious fundamentalisms are simply incompatible both between themselves and with non-fundamentalist ideologies. Of course, in some cases we would disagree on interpretations of the text. Neither of us should hastily conclude that our disagreements stem from merely shallow or careless readings, and we should remember that there are deeper reasons than anything included in the text that contribute to our different interpretations. Indeed, some of those deeper reasons are what lead us both to value the Biblical text, even if interpreted differently. We have in common at least one thing that most Transhumanists do not have in common.

  13. sentinel permalink
    February 19, 2011 9:10 pm

    By the way Carl, I subscribed to your magazine, and it’s amazing. Everything is so well done, I wish I was less shy and went out into the world more to tell people about it. I appreciate all the source documents as well. Is there a way to be notified of additions to those? Keep the faith strong.

  14. Sean permalink
    March 22, 2011 11:43 am

    Regrettably, what even most Christian and other concerned researchers fail to realize is that Transhumanism/Transtopianism and the posthuman ideal go way beyond the integration of man and machine. For the dark, sinister, malefic spiritual forces or inter-dimensional beings (IDBs) behind the Transhumanist Movement are, in fact, also behind the UFO/Alien Abduction Phenomenon. The ultimate goal of the new technologies bent to the transhumanist goal of creating humanity anew, particularly germ-line genetic engineering, is to produce altered humans who will be ideal vehicles and mediums for incarnating ‘spirit-beings’ (hostile inter-dimensionals) devoted to the psychical and biological exploitation of humankind.

    Let those with eyes to see, see!

  15. March 22, 2011 9:53 pm

    Hi Sean. That’s a creative hypothesis that’s impossible to prove or disprove objectively. More importantly, though, I wonder what practical benefit you get from advocating such ideas. I imagine it provides you with a sense of meaning and empowerment as you situate yourself on the side of the good God combating the forces of evil. Unfortunately, however, that sense of meaning comes from an interpretation of evil that dehumanizes and literally demonizes persons like me. Horrible actions have resulted from such attitudes historically. I hope you’ll find it in your heart to change and redirect your religious passion toward combating our common enemies: death and hell, rather than your brothers and sisters and fellow children of God.

  16. May 1, 2011 11:50 pm

    Hi Carl.

    I just watched your video here:

    You are an excellent presenter. Please know that you mischaracterize Mormon Transhumanists when you imply that we are indifferent to others’ concerns.

    • May 2, 2011 10:07 pm

      Hi Lincoln,

      Thanks for the comments. I watched most of the video, and while it flowed relatively well, I certainly have brushing up to do on different points.

      Re: MTA. After watching, I see how my talk implies that the MTA may be indifferent to other’s concerns, so I do need to bring this together in a better way. I introduced that section by explaining the MTA has some really good guys (and it does!), and that while our philosophies are at odds, I don’t have anything against MTA members personally. But I should have followed this through better, and I will work to develop that section differently. I appreciate your feedback, and next time I give this talk I’ll try and bridge the MTA section more thoroughly. Do you have any suggestions?

      On a related note: How does the atheist-side of the Transhuman movement view the Mormon group? The hostility from the atheist-side to conservative Christianity is palpable… does the MTA experience this too?

  17. May 2, 2011 10:35 pm

    Carl, thanks for giving thought to my feedback. I don’t know your audience nearly as well as you, of course, but I think it would be worth noting to them that theistic and religious transhumanists, such as Mormon transhumanists, present a relatively greater extent of common ground from which you could pursue improved understanding and proselyting. Although many if not most transhumanists discount or altogether reject the value of religion, most theistic and religious transhumanists value religion and often deeply so. As just one of many possible examples, most Mormon transhumanists value the Bible, even if we interpret it differently than you. That can be looked at as a threat or an opportunity, and it really is a choice. I’m confident that the choice to look at it as an opportunity would have better practical consequences.

    Regarding relations with atheist transhumanists, some are indeed hostile toward us, but they are a minority and tend to be relatively less educated. So far without exception, the more influential voices in the transhumanist movement have been either quite supportive of or simply indifferent toward us. It’s worth noting that, although most Mormon transhumanists are theists, a small number are atheists that trust God just doesn’t exist yet. As you know, I think that’s a self-defeating position for reasons put forth in the New God Argument. The MTA bridges two world views that have, in many persons’ estimations, become increasingly irreconcilable. Sometimes that makes me feel something like Paul described himself in the New Testament: a stumbling block for the religious and foolishness to the secular. Most of the time, though, the results of our efforts have proven quite positive.

    • May 2, 2011 11:35 pm

      Thanks, Lincoln. I appreciate your perspective, and I’ll work to incorporate an aspect of this into my material in the future.


  1. Ольга Четверикова. Диктатура «просвещённых»: о духовных корнях и целях трансгуманизма. Ч.4 | ХРАМ УСПЕНИЯ ПРЕСВЯТОЙ БОГОРОДИЦЫ ЛУГАНСКАЯ ЕП

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: