Transhumanism as a secular faith?

Transhumanism can be understood in a number of ways. Three major approaches have been as a field of psychology (Koltko-Rivera 1998: 76), as a philosophical and cultural response to the Enlightenment, or as a technoscientific approach to the future of human capabilities (Tirosh-Samuelson 2012: 715). These are broad categories and each approach the question of religion and transcendence in different ways. Further, they each conceptualise differently what it is to be human and the role technology may play in future human development. Much of the present research in the field of Transhumanism is developed in either of the latter two fields. Tirosh-Samuelson (2012) focuses on the distinctions between philosophical and technoscientific approach, and notes that while both approaches 'envision the eventual obsolescence of the human species' (715), they hold significantly different philosophical perspectives. The philosophical / cultural approach within transhumanism is critical of the Enlightenment and is generally secularist. In contrast, those advocating technoscientific approach view themselves as a continuation of Enlightenment thinking and maintain a belief in human reason and capacity to evolve. Further, they use religious motifs to illustrate their worldview, and believe they are working toward enabling human transcendence (Tirosh-Samuelson 2012: 715-16). 

As I have written before, both approaches are problematic. However, Tirosh-Samuelson (2012) acknowledges these issues (718), before asking whether these approaches can be considered religious (721). He finds that the technoscientific approach in particular has religious dimensions associated with the faith in Kurzweil's theory of a singularity (2012: 723) as well as the desire for humans to, through technology, transcend the flesh in cosmic self-realisation (726). 

However, I am left to wonder, even as a fan of video games and science fiction, two fields that broadly use the ideas and concepts of transhumanism, are these worlds desirable? And what happens to not only those humans left behind in these worlds, but the Earth itself, its flora, fauna, and eco-systems? To privilege scientific knowledge over other forms of knowledge to such an extent that the essence of nature is lost would be a mistake. 


Reference

Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava. 2012. 'Transhumanism as a Secularist Faith'. Zygon, 47(4): 710-734.

Is there even any evidence for prescribing religion?

An article in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) casts doubt on the evidential underpinnings of the belief in some medical fields that 'prescribing religion' should form part of a treatment plan. I have written earlier of two concerns regarding this practice. The first is that by using religion or religious beliefs and practices for instrumental / utilitarian purposes is to lessen its efficacy, as it leaves out the meaning making that provides the deeper connection that can provide some health benefits. There is also an ethical element to this issue. The second issue is that t may not be religion itself that is providing health benefits, but rather the associated lifestyle and socialisation, and thus a treatment plan should include these non-religious elements.

However, both these points rest on an assumption that the evidence is strong enough to create the debate in the first place. Sloan (2000) raises three concerns over the methodology used to develop the argument that religious faith and practice is beneficial for ones health. The first is that the strongest evidence comes from church attendance, and that there is no link between other religious activities and health (Sloan 2000: 1913). Second, and following on from this, is that there is no distinction made between the various types of church services, and that given the wide variety of services across different religious groups, it is premature to endorse church attendance for reasons of health (Sloan 2000: 1913). Finally, there has been no trial that has sought to find evidence that supports the proposition that attending church on the recommendation of a physician can lead to improved health outcomes (Sloan 2000: 1913-14).

Thus, while studies may show that people in the United States would like their religious beliefs taken into account by their doctor, there is little evidential basis for physicians to encourage religious faith as part of a treatment plan.

Reference

Sloan, Richard P. 2000. 'Should Physicians Prescribe Religious Activities?'. The New England Journal of Medicine, 342(25): 1913-1916.




 

Zen Buddhism and Dual/Non-Dualism

There could be any number of motivations for one to begin meditation. I have written earlier of the dilemma faced by physicians keen to 'prescribe religion' for its utilitarian and instrumental value to physical and mental health. In part, this can be understood as advocating for an uptake of a practice of meditation, or contemplation - both common to many religions. Thus meditation can be, and indeed is, commonly practised in secular society outside of a religious framework. Of course, widespread practice means that the individual approach and experience will vary a great deal. 

I find the approach to meditation found in Zen Buddhism most interesting. The idea of reality as a construct that takes place between ones thoughts and ones senses means implicitly that there must be something prior to this interaction taking place. This distinction can be understood as dualism and non-dualism. In practice, meditation then can be seen as a means of accessing the non-dualist world, or the 'true' reality through transcending the dualist, 'constructed' reality or way of knowing (Suzuki 1938: 48, 53). While controlled access to this state through meditation may require considerable training and experience, having and maintaining an awareness of these two states can augment ones experience of life, and allow for moments or glimpses of a true reality.

Reference

Suzuki, Daisetz Teitaro. 1936. 'Zen Buddhism'. Monumenta Nipponica, 1(1): 47-58

Multiple Modernities and Secularisation

The idea that there exists multiple modernities, each comprised of a multitude of spheres of influence (Eisenstadt 2000) is a useful way to conceptualise the differences between cultures across the world. It accounts for the complexities of a society, and gives an insight into how such complexities have developed in the era of colonisation and then globalisation (Eistenstadt 2000: 13-15).

Given such a broad framework, it is then possible to identify and unpack the role that religion may continue to play in a world featuring such cultural fluidity in a web of constructed, overlapping spheres. Religion in this instance can refer to both the public institutions and the private practices of individuals.

Casanaova (2013) identifies three forms of secularisation that may take place within this broader understanding of modernity. While in Western European (along with Australian) society, the differentiation of the secular (scientific and political) and religious spheres has become more firmly established over time, Casanaova (2013) contends that this is not a fait accompli, and indeed many areas throughout the rest of the world have seen these spheres remain entwined, or at least developing alongside one another (169-171). It seems that this point can be lost in the secular West, with a mainstream perspective holding that for society to 'progress', religion should be relegated to the private sphere, if not given up completely. However, this line of thinking ignores the idea of multiple modernities and the variety of contexts societies develop in throughout the world.


References

Casanova, Jose. 2013. Is Secularisation Global? In Opening New Spaces: Worldwide Mission and Secularisation. Accessed 12 September 2014. Available at  http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/publications/is-secularization-global


Eisenstadt, Shmuel N. 2000. 'Multiple Modernities'. Daedalus, 129(1): 1-29.

Witchcraft, Positivism and Neuroanthropology

I found it very interesting to learn that Witchcraft was primarily studied by historians rather than religious scholars. Consequently, it is a pursuit framed in a postivist approach seeking to find explanations for witchcraft and the persecution of witches through the social sciences and empirics. In many respects, this makes sense, as it is useful to apply a variety of lenses to broader cultural phenomena (Gaskill 2008). Certainly, the suggestion that politics lay at the heart of the witch trials is compelling (Rowlands 2003 in Gaskill 2008: 1082). However, this approach is - for the most part - somewhat limited in terms of the actual lived experience of those accused of witchcraft, and how they experienced the 'unseen world'.

It is here that perhaps the work of religious scholars and of neuro-anthropologists may offer an insight into the lived experience of those affected. Luhrmann (2012) explores cultural conditioning and the effect that it has on what Western psychiatry understands as schizophrenic experiences. She found that in Accra, Ghana, those that heard voices were described as being witches, or possessed by spirits, yet were not necessarily in trouble. Instead, positive inner voices were seen as beneficial and could provide guidance and advice (in Downey 2012).

This provides yet another approach to understanding what was going on when accusations of witchcraft were levelled. The experience of religious mystics should also be considered as part of a broader perspective on the experience of witches rather than a purely rational approach.

References

Gaskill, Malcolm. 2008. 'The Pursuit of Reality: Recent Research in the History of Witchcraft'. The Historical Journal, 51(4): 1069-1088.

Downey, Greg. 2012. 'Tanya Luhrmann, Hearing Voices in Accra and Chennai'.Neuroanthropology Understanding the Cultured Brain and Body, accessed 8 September, 2014. Available at http://blogs.plos.org/neuroanthropology/2012/10/28/tanya-luhrmann-hearing-voices-in-accra-and-chenai/    

Transhumanism

Transhumanism, as described by Leigh in his seminar, taken to its logical conclusion is objectionable and problematic on a number of levels. Not only in terms of whether or not it can be considered a religious movement, but politically and ethically it is silent in regard to equality and sustainability, privileging the knowledge and worldview of a select few that consider themselves at the forefront of human development. In embracing scientific materialism it forgoes any sense of metaphysical transcendence or overarching ethical framework to work within. In this respect, it is not dissimilar to libertarian philosophies and can be recognised as a product of the neo-liberal paradigm it has been developed within. As a side, but not unimportant point, is also amusing to see groups that largely identify as atheist adopt religious language in order to better articulate their position.

By advocating a future where human cognition is augmented by technology, thereby transcending our animal nature through physical enhancements rather than through 'hoping' or 'coping' (Hopkins 2005: 15-17), transhumanism veers toward a type of social darwinism. The unlikelihood of universal access to such procedures would result in a further inequality within communities and across the globe. Further to this, claims that advances in technology will lead to greater health and happiness ignore the growing rates of obesity in the West and the increasing awareness of mental health problems that many people face.

Reference

Hopkins, Patrick. 2005. 'Transcending the animal.' Journal of  Evolution and Technology, 14(2): 13-28

Prescribing religion?

Given the links between improved health and religious belief and practice, the question of whether or not a non religious individual should adhere to a set of religious beliefs purely for the health benefits is raised. A common perspective, adopted by a number of health professionals, would argue in terms of a utilitarian perspective. That is, if the efficacy is there, then a treatment plan that encouraged the uptake of religious practice should be put in place (Astrow et al 2001: 283, Larimore et al 2002: 70). However, this is to misrepresent the data, and avoids two important qualifications. The first is whether or not it is religious or spiritual belief itself driving the health benefits, or rather the associated lifestyle practices of the religious individual that has the positive effect (Astrow et al 2001: 284). Whether these practices are abstaining from alcohol or other intoxicants, regular exercise or regular social contact, it could be that patients should be encouraged to adopt aspects of these behaviours, rather than a faith per se. 

The second aspect that must be considered is this utilitarian approach itself. Taking something such as religion, that for many people is an end in itself, and adopting it as a means to an end without any of the associated meaning making that provides for that fuller, lived experience is worthy of pause for thought, not only on ethical grounds, but it may be that without the deeper, inner connection, then the efficacy is lessened anyway. Cohen et al (2000) argue that without the sincerity, religion can not be practised for it's associated health benefits alone (42). Indeed, there is more to the deeper connection to God than simply having one's needs met, and to think otherwise is a flawed understanding of theistic faith (Cohen et al 2000: 43).

References

Astrow A.B., C.M. Puchalski, & D. P. Sulmasy. 2001. 'Religion, spirituality, and health care: Social, ethical, and practical considerations'. The American 

Journal of Medicine 110: 283-287.

Cohen C.B., S.E. Wheeler, D.A. Scott, & the  Anglican Working Group in Bioethics. 2000. 'Prayer as therapy: A challenge to both religious belief and professional ethics'. The Hastings Centre Report 30(3): 40-47.

Larimore W.L., M. Parker, & M. Crowther. 2002. 'Should clinicians incorporate positive spirituality into their practices?  What does the evidence say? Annals of Behavioural Medicine 24 (1): 69-73