Blog | Events | Multimedia | About | Purpose | Programs | Publications | Staff | Contact | Join   
     Login      Register    

Support the IEET




The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States. Please give as you are able, and help support our work for a brighter future.

Via PayPal




Technoprogressive? BioConservative? Huh?
Quick overview of biopolitical points of view









Personhood Beyond the Human Conference whats new at ieet
Engineering the Future

The American prison system

Fighting Facebook, a Campaign for a People’s Terms of Service

Imagination Experiment: Visualizing Transformative Tech

From Mars to the Multiverse

The singularity: merging human/machine to achieve immortality

Feel the Pulse - 2013 MIT Image Award Winner

CubeSats: Tiny satellites work at MIT, U. Mich.

Should Transhumanists Abandon the Corporatist Capitalist model?

The Far Futures Project


ieet books

eGods: Faith versus Fantasy in Computer Gaming
Author
by William Sims Bainbridge


comments

Intomorrow on 'The American prison system' (May 22, 2013)

Intomorrow on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 22, 2013)

Peter Wicks on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 22, 2013)

Henry Bowers on 'Will the Catholic Bishops Decide How You Die?' (May 22, 2013)

Peter Wicks on 'Should Transhumanists Abandon the Corporatist Capitalist model?' (May 22, 2013)







Subscribe to IEET News Lists

Daily News Feed

Longevity Dividend List

Catastrophic Risks List

Biopolitics of Popular Culture List

Technoprogressive List

Trans-Spirit List



Also check out technoprogressive multimedia on Thoughtware.tv

Hottest Articles of the Last Month

Life in the 2040s: nanofactories, flying cars, household robots, more
by Dick Pelletier
Apr 30, 2013
(6457) Hits
(1) Comments

Ten Responses to the Technological Unemployment Problem
by Jon Perry
May 1, 2013
(5469) Hits
(2) Comments

Organ, tissue replacement could end aging by mid-2020s
by Dick Pelletier
May 14, 2013
(3242) Hits
(0) Comments

Noam Chomsky on Libertarians
Andy80o
Apr 27, 2013
(3181) Hits
(15) Comments

Radical life extension: living a 1,000 year lifespan
by Dick Pelletier
May 7, 2013
(2757) Hits
(0) Comments

Imagine No Religion. On Facebook.
by Valerie Tarico
May 4, 2013
(2674) Hits
(150) Comments



IEET > Rights > FreeThought > Contributors > Lincoln Cannon

Print Email permalink (10) Comments (2680) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


Evolving Gods and Richard Dawkins


Lincoln Cannon
Lincoln Cannon
Lincoln Metacannon

Posted: Sep 23, 2012

I’ve repeatedly found inspiration in Richard Dawkins, despite an important difference between us: he’s a devout atheist, and I’m a devout theist.

He argues cogently that complex life must have simpler antecedents, and he vigorously attacks contrary theist positions. I agree with him. Interestingly, however, to illustrate the strength of his position, he sometimes appeals to the possibility of precisely the kind of God in which I put my trust: evolving Gods.

Here’s an example of Dawkins appealing to the possibility of evolving Gods, from his most (in)famous book, “The God Delusion”:

“Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably alien civilizations that are superhuman, to the point of being god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine. Their technical achievements would seem as supernatural to us as ours would seem to a Dark Age peasant transported to the twenty-first century. Imagine his response to a laptop computer, a mobile telephone, a hydrogen bomb or a jumbo jet. As Arthur C Clarke put it, in his Third Law: ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’ The miracles wrought by our technology would have seemed to the ancients no less remarkable than the tales of Moses parting the waters, or Jesus walking upon them. The aliens of our SETI signal would be to us like gods ... In what sense, then, would the most advanced SETI aliens not be gods? In what sense would they be superhuman but not supernatural? In a very important sense, which goes to the heart of this book. The crucial difference between gods and god-like extraterrestrials lies not in their properties but in their provenance. Entities that are complex enough to be intelligent are products of an evolutionary process. No matter how god-like they may seem when we encounter them, they didn’t start that way. Science-fiction authors ... have even suggested (and I cannot think how to disprove it) that we live in a computer simulation, set up by some vastly superior civilization. But the simulators themselves would have to come from somewhere. The laws of probability forbid all notions of their spontaneously appearing without simpler antecedents. They probably owe their existence to a (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution …”

Here’s another example of Dawkins appealing to the possibility of evolving Gods, in a recording from a speaking engagement with the American Atheists (the title of the video is simply incorrect):

Richard Dawkins debunks the Deistic God of Transhumanism and the Simulation Argument from Juan Carlos Kuri Pinto on Vimeo.

As these examples illustrate, Dawkins, one of the world’s greatest evolutionary biologists, acknowledges the possibility of evolving Gods. He calls them “god-like extraterrestrials” because he assumes, as do many theists, that evolving beings cannot qualify as Gods. I don’t share their assumption. To the contrary, the only God I’ve ever cared about, reflecting the God my parents taught me about when I was a child, is a changing and progressing God, exemplifying our own potential as changing and progressing beings. Moreover, even if non-evolving god-like beings were to exist (which I reject, along with Dawkins) then I wouldn’t assent to their Godhood. Wilford Woodruff, an early Mormon prophet, expressed the sentiment well:

“If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us.”

Gods evolve, worlds without end, and it is just so with us. In fact, that’s precisely the point: this is primarily about us. God always has been and is at least a posthuman projection: humanity evolving beyond itself, with increasing intentionality.


Lincoln Cannon is a philosopher and professional software engineer. In his spare time, he serves as president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association.
Print Email permalink (10) Comments (2681) Hits •  subscribe Share on facebook Stumble This submit to reddit submit to digg submit to Twitter


COMMENTS


What in particular do you disagree with Dawkins on?





Hi SHaGGz. I disagree with Dawkins’ antireligiosity. I share his observation that religion has provoked the worst human actions, but we part ways when he overlooks that religion has also provoked the best human actions. Religion is powerful, and it can be used for good or evil, like all powerful tools.





My question pertained more to ontology.
I think he does recognize that religion has done some good, it’s just that, on balance it does more harm than good, and there are better ways to achieve what good religion does without the attendant baggage.





SHaGGGz, he and I may not have any major ontological disagreements. I do, though, disagree with the idea that we can attain the goods of religion without religion. We can attain those goods without fundamentalism, and even without presecular religion, but religion in function has always been about more than fundamentalism and presecularism. To encompass all that has been described as religion, both contemporarily and historically, we must understand religion more broadly and postsecularly: any communal practice that provokes a strenuous mood, whether for good or evil. Check out the link at the end of my article for more thoughts on this.





Then in what sense are you not an atheist? You seem to be distorting the definition of religion far beyond its commonly-accepted meaning. Are we engaging in religion right now?





SHaGGGz, I trust in posthumanity, our future of radical flourishing in creativity and compassion, and I trust we’ll not be the first or only to attain such empowerment. I recognize in nearly all (if not all) God hypotheses an extent to which such trust in posthumanity is manifest, and I value and try to build on those commonalities. I’m theist, even if not all theists share my views. On the other hand, I don’t find it insulting to be considered an atheist, even if I disagree with that characterization. Note, though, that I’m far from the only person who recognizes that we’ve poorly understood the function of religion. We have some categories to break, so perhaps there I do have an ontological disagreement with Dawkins: he’s stuck with fundamentalists’ definitions of “God” and “religion”, and I reject them.





Since Dawkins accepts the possibility of “Simulation hypothesis” for explanation/creation of this Universe, humans, and all other life, then the only remaining question is regarding what we term these entities, and Dawkins’ position really is closer to agnostic and he should admit it, despite his derision of “fence sitters”, there really is no shame?

For atheists the argument against the term God usually involves an aged patriarchal image with a booming voice and white beard, (Abrahamic) - well whoop-dee-doo!

Despite what term you prefer to apply to the above possibility, and be it God, Gods, or Posthuman, can we permit theists to give praise to this “source of creation” and use the term God?

What else then is there to argue over?

Omnipresence, Omniscience, Omnipotence? Hmm.. ?

Personally I prefer Omnipresent “Potential”

Om!





Just to clarify, my position as agnostic stands as, I believe the “Potential” for creation exists and will always endure, despite of the fate of this Universe, (ie. This “Potential” is all encompassing residing both within and without this Universe, and perpetually endures).

Yet I also keep an open mind as to the possibility this Universe was created/triggered purposefully by entities unknown?





CygnusX1, thanks for commenting. I know that feeling!





I totally agree with Lincoln. I find Dawkins’ ideas very sensible, but his “militant atheist” followers terminally boring.





YOUR COMMENT (IEET's comment policy)

Login or Register to post a comment.

Next entry: Sam Harris on the “Innocence of Muslims” affair

Previous entry: Quantum Computers: Headband Telepathy, Medical Advances, and more!

HOME | ABOUT | FELLOWS | STAFF | EVENTS | SUPPORT  | CONTACT US
SECURING THE FUTURE | LONGER HEALTHIER LIFE | RIGHTS OF THE PERSON | ENVISIONING THE FUTURE
CYBORG BUDDHA PROJECT | AFRICAN FUTURES PROJECT | JOURNAL OF EVOLUTION AND TECHNOLOGY

RSSIEET Blog | email list | newsletter | Podcast
The IEET is a 501(c)3 non-profit, tax-exempt organization registered in the State of Connecticut in the United States.

Contact: Executive Director, Dr. James J. Hughes,
Williams 119, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT 06106 USA 
Email: director @ ieet.org     phone: 860-297-2376