Does championing Enlightenment values require complete rejection of collaboration and dialogue with the religious? Could technoprogressives even learn something from Easter about how to design moral machines?
I just got off the phone with a young theologian writing on Donna Haraway’s cyborgology and transhumanism, and she has inspired me to set down my belated Easter homily. As I may have mentioned I was raised a Unitarian Universalist and my family and I attend the local Unitarian Universalist church. The minister is a smart young graduate of Harvard Divinity who wants to reclaim the Judeo-Christian heritage for us “religious liberals,” so he gave a more passionate reflection on the rebirth and hope symbolism of Easter than the usual academic discussion of its pagan origins.
As I was listening I reflected on the latest research released this week from Antonio Damasio’s shop, a paper on the “Neural correlates of admiration and compassion.” They report on scanning the brains of people viewing or hearing descriptions of other people’s physical and psychological pain, and seeing what parts of the brain are used to register compassion. Basically it’s a lot more immediate to empathize with physical pain of others than their psychological pain because the same parts of your bran register their physical pain as when you experience that pain yourself. Like the mirror neuron research, it illustrates how deep in the mammal brain our moral sentiments run, how they are part of our evolutionary heritage.
For those of us who want to see the creation of “moral machines,” “friendly AI” and uploaded personality it is yet another caution about the importance of embodiment. We will eventually create a machine mind or uploaded personality with virtual mirror neurons, virtual gut instincts, floods of virtual oxytocin and dopamine in response to a smile, or a sinking sensation in its virtual gut and virtual face-flush when shamed. But it’s going to be a lot more complicated than many neo-Gnostic body-loathers, aspiring to create pure compassion in code, imagine it will be.
One of the reflections for Christians in the Easter story is why an omnipotent deity would force a part of itself to be embodied, and then be tortured to death. I don’t believe the supernatural parts of the story of course, but the theological lesson is one we can learn from and relate to: if you want something to have real compassion for the human experience it has to have human experiences.
Does talking theology then help us with the techno-ethical challenge of building safe, beneficial machine minds? Perhaps not, but I think open dialogue with theologians and the lay religious is important for different reasons. While I share a visceral sympathy with the new atheists, and am a militant partisan of Enlightenment rationality and secularism, I’m too much of a sociologist not to see the parallels between the questions we transhumanists, technoprogressives and progressives grapple with and those that have been struggled with in the world’s religions.
The “religious” efforts of our ancestors are reflected in our secular Enlightenment attempts to find meaning and purpose, to parse right and wrong, and to imagine catastrophic risks and a better world, just as we inherit our empathetic pangs in the posterior cingulate cortex from our squirrely ancestry. Some of that inheritance, such as intuitions about the moral wrongness of category transgression - a central point in Donna Haraway’s work, newly illuminated by Jon Haidt’s work on the five moral intuitions - needs to be suppressed or re-purposed by our superior, neocortical, Enlightenment values. Other intuitions, such as the importance of feeling pain oneself to sympathize with the pain of others, are still valuable.
Many of us at the IEET are non-theists and some quite militantly so. Our raison d’etre is the promotion of Enlightenment values and the prospects for a better, freer, more equal world, and that necessitates championing reason over superstition, the separation of church and state, and the rights of those oppressed by conservative religious mores. But there are many people with religious views and deeply spiritual lives who are our allies in these causes, and with whom we want to work. So, in the spirit of this season of rebirth, let’s recommit to keep in mind how much we share with our fellow flawed primates, whether they find their inspiration in a tortured god-man or a transcendent human future, and work together from there.
"I think open dialogue with theologians and the lay religious is important for different reasons."
This dialogue is important to have and I'm reminded often by those around me who are skeptics and religious of this fact. It's easy to forget sometimes.
However, we can put them to work in various projects to benefit mankind by convincing them that their religion truly states that they should do what we prescribe.
Sean, I think you may be confused about the origins of science. It was founded almost exclusively by individuals that were deeply religious. That's not to say that religious people have some special advantage, it just proves that not all forms of religious thought resist logical argument.
In fact, logic isn't really the issue. Many theological arguments contain are built using very subtle modes of logic that rival any work of art or music in their complexity and consistency. Where they tend to go wrong from a scientific point of view is in how they treat unknown variables and exclude important observable evidence. From an empirical perspective It doesn't matter how logical your argument is if you work from premises that are refuted by observation or that could never be falsified in principle.
I would argue that as we move into the radically malleable world of advanced technology the role of theological thought may shift from attempting to explain what has always been to informing what should be. After all, religion has been specializing in developing systems of ethics in a world that is completely under the control of an advanced intelligence for thousands of years. Someone may have thought of something relevant during all that time!
"I would argue that as we move into the radically malleable world of advanced technology the role of theological thought may shift from attempting to explain what has always been to informing what should be."
As some Christian theologians have emphasized, particularly in dialogue with transhumanism, Christian theology has also contained an eschatological orientation in which constructing visions of "what should be" is a primary task. Of course this can get cashed out in very anti-transhumanist ways and even generally technophobic ways, but it doesn't have to be. I guess my point is just that this wouldn't actually constitute a shift within the existing theological task.
The real question is whether the kinds of eschatological visions Christianity offers (notice the plural) have anything relevant to offer to transhumanist visions of the future, and vice versa, and whether the sort of collective future-building referenced in the conclusion of the post is possible. I'd like to think this is so, even if I remain critical of transhumanism with regard to specific points (don't get huffy about that; I remain critical about the Christian tradition on a great number of specific points--that's why I'm a theologian).
JCS - did I say anything about the origin of science? who is confused?
are you trying to say that religion is logical and qualified to prescribe ethics?
--------------------
hector - I'm not joking, show me one religion that doesn't reject logic, just one.
--------------------
K Scott - why would I be joking? convince them that their religious moral should compell them to fund science aimed at eliminating suffering and aging.
Why do you have a problem with this idea? What do you think 'cybord buddha' is attempting to do?
Sean, I said that your post "may" indicate that you're confused about the origin of science because you were overlooking this incredibly important example of religious people thinking logically. Perhaps you're aware of this but you're trying to make some sort of distinction between those thinkers and religious thinkers today. I can't be sure.
To be clear, your statement was an attack on all religious thinkers ability to use logic, so whether or not the scientist I'm talking about explicitly reference their beliefs in their work is irrelevant. I'm simply saying that they clearly should not be excluded based on your argument.
As far as whether or not religion can be considered a logical and qualified basis for ethics, I encourage you to look into the history of ethics. This field has also been heavily influenced by religious thinkers. Like in science, not all religiously motivated work has to explicitly include religious beliefs. You may feel some of these theories are outdated, but they still represent valuable contributions to the field.
I hope that work motivated by religious thinking can find a new application in a world controlled by intelligences we build. We aren't the first people to grapple with questions about meaning, morality and the relationship between a creature and it's creator. I'm not saying they should dominate the discussion, but they should be allowed to make what I suspect will be very valuable contributions.
I certainly don't think an intentional effort to deceive people is a logical or qualified approach to prescribing ethics and that seems to be what you're suggesting. I'd like to hear more about your take on the Cyborg Buddha project.
JTB, I think you have a good point. From a theologian's perspective, no real shift may need to occur. I think theological thought and religious history can make valuable contributions even if some of us remain agnostic on where they may have been right all along. I'm not asking anyone to give up their personal beliefs or force them to adopt new ones!
JCS - It doesn't matter if it's intentional, only whether or not it's portrayed as such.
Deception is a daily part of life, ever heard of advertising?
Most human interaction is deceptive to some degree.
---------
I don't think we should exclude them, but don't expect to win them over to your way of thinking. It's better to get them to help with scientific progress.
once the scientific hurdles are overcome, the religious objections to using biotechnology to overcome death and aging will vanish...
so no need to argue the Transhumanist rationale, instead it's better to put them to work and use their money
"Sean, I said that your post "may" indicate that you're confused about the origin of science because you were overlooking this incredibly important example of religious people thinking logically"
actually science is a rejection of religious thought
I have a problem with this part of your statement, "that they should do what we prescribe."
I do not think that anyone should do what any one group prescribes. I do agree that it is an open dialogue, regardless of how stubborn either side is to listen to the other.
"convince them that their religious moral should compell them to fund science aimed at eliminating suffering and aging."
I do agree that there needs to be a dialogue open to funding science and eliminating suffering & aging, but if there are individuals out there who feel it is against their moral belief then they shouldn't be forced in to anything. As long as they are involved in the dialogue then they can form their own opinions as to whether or not they want to participate.
To make the discussion more concrete, here's a book I read a few years back that illustrates the type of interaction between theology and technology I think will become more common as we go forward.
I don't think every contribution made by a religious thinker has to contain such explicit religious content or support my point of view.
Any serious intellectual endeavor welcomes a diversity of views and leaves the door open for legitimate criticism. Otherwise it could degenerate into a hermetically sealed echo chamber that takes on the most toxic qualities of the types of religious expression atheist are committed to opposing.
JCS - you do understand that the nature of religion is faith in doctrine? - an unwavering belief in something without investigation or openness to other viewpoints.
it is the antithesis of science
so buy making yourself open to religion you are actually doing the opposite of what you espouse - closing your mind off
religion is only compatible with science if it promotes its theories as just theories without validation rather than holy truth
I have a problem with this part of your statement, "that they should do what we prescribe."
I do not think that anyone should do what any one group prescribes. I do agree that it is an open dialogue, regardless of how stubborn either side is to listen to the other.
--------------------------
well suffering and death don't care about how well we pretend to care about each other's viewpoints, this isn't a high school football game designed to instill sportsmanship
this is ideological war
-----------------------------
"convince them that their religious moral should compell them to fund science aimed at eliminating suffering and aging."
I do agree that there needs to be a dialogue open to funding science and eliminating suffering & aging, but if there are individuals out there who feel it is against their moral belief then they shouldn't be forced in to anything. As long as they are involved in the dialogue then they can form their own opinions as to whether or not they want to participate.
----------------------
convince doesn't imply forced, just like advertising doesn't force but is still designed to compell others to do what you want
As a religious thinker (dare I even claim that possibility in this discussion?) I have this to say about the above exchange. First, I think it is certainly possible for religious people of many types to conclude that technologies are a tool to improve human life leading to a significant degree of overlap regarding some H+ goals. This means that some kind of intensive propaganda effort, in the sense that somehow religious people have to be fooled into agreeing with H+ for their own good despite themselves, is really unnecessary. But this leads me to the second point, which is, the working definition of religion(s!) is overly simplistic and antagonistic, which necessitates that paternalistic "let's compel them to agree with us" attitude. There might be a glimmer of hope in the statement, "religion is only compatible with science if it promotes its theories as just theories without validation rather than holy truth"--implying that this is a logical possibility even if you don't think it is an actual reality? But that glimmer of hope is pretty much extinguished by stronger statements like "antithesis of science" and "ideological war."
I guess what I really don't understand is, if that's your working understanding of religion and religious people, why not just ignore us altogether and go on and do your thing, and let other transhumanists with a more optimistic view about the reasonableness of religious people and possibilities of consensus take up the dialogue? What's the point of coming in to the discussion just to shout "you're all stupid anyway?" I'm not talking about hurt feelings or being "nice", I'm talking about pragmatic strategies for forwarding your goals. Don't you think it would be more productive to let those in the movement not disposed to consider religious faith by definition irrational be the spokespersons in the dialogue with religion(s) and theology? I mean, surely that wouldn't be considered too misrepresentative or disingenuous, given the alternative of some kind of subterranean ad campaign...
If that pragmatic suggestion for ameliorating your PR problem generated by this attitude toward religion is unwelcome--why? Is your objective to forward transhumanist goals or to debunk religion? Or is debunking religion by necessity a transhumanist goal, and efforts to create some kind of dialogue with religious thinkers are inherently misguided?
Sean writes: "you do understand that the nature of religion is faith in doctrine? - an unwavering belief in something without investigation or openness to other viewpoints."
Why do you say that this belief is unwavering? And why do you imply that religious people aren't open to other viewpoints? Generalizing like this, Sean, is not a good example of openness.
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Einstein
I don't mean to use that quote as a cheap shot (I think it's been abused in the past). It has actual content if you open yourself up to just how broad the definition of "religion" is in practice.
We all have something like religion going on behind the scenes when we're striving for things that transcend the self. Let's not be so paranoid that we discourage the next Newton, Maxwell, or Einstein from helping us build a better world.
IEET Blog |
email list |
newsletter |
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 229B, Trinity College, 300 Summit St., Hartford CT
06106 USA
Email: director @ ieet.org phone:
860-297-2376