The answer is no -- but it helps.

The further one moves toward accepting faith-based explanations for worldly phenomena, or toward applying supernaturally derived dogma to modern-day ethical issues, the more difficult it will be to maintain the rational rigor expected of a technoprogressive. Note that this doesn't entirely rule against those who profess faith in a given religion being able to function within the technoprogressive milieu, but it does point out the inherent challenges presented by a non-scientific approach to answering questions.

As illustrated below, there is ample space in the IEET community for atheists, agnostics, and at least some believers. However, as faith passes from a personal source of comfort to a primary source of knowledge, the possessor of that kind of faith will find it hard to reconcile his or her beliefs with the prevailing naturalistic attitudes found here.



What's interesting is that we can apply a similar set of boundaries to any number of debates taking place in society at large and especially inside the scientific and transhumanist realms.

For example, where do you come down on the question of global warming: Is it actually happening? Is it mainly driven by human activities? Is it serious enough to require a strong response? Must we act urgently?



As suggested above, someone who would deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming does not demonstrate the scientific reasoning to be taken seriously within the technoprogressive community. However, there is still a range of opinions on how strong and how urgent our response should be. Some within our ranks think that near-future emerging technologies will be so powerful in dealing effectively with the problems caused by AGW that we can refrain from taking drastic measures now. I disagree, but it is a legitimate matter for discussion.

Or take the question of 'fine-tuning': Why is it that our universe appears to enjoy exactly the right range of physical constants that would allow humans to develop and flourish? It didn't have to be this way, obviously, so why is it? Numerous answers can be given, running the gamut from "God did it" to "dumb luck."



Technoprogressives would certainly not accept an approach based on Biblical creation. There are some of us, however, who take seriously the hypothesis that we are currently living inside a computer simulation, and nearly all of us would concur that some form of a multiverse explanation seems viable.

As a last example, consider the issue of global governance.



The strongest application of a cosmopolitan approach would lead to a unified global government, an outcome favored by some but not all technoprogressives. Sticking with the status quo means promoting nationalism, which only a few of us prefer, while the idea of throwing out central governance altogether and letting the free market set the rules is pretty much a non-starter.

So, what is the takeaway message from all this?

Within the IEET community there is a healthy variety of thought. We encourage wide-ranging speculation, so long as it is bounded by reason and science. We invite productive criticism, secure in our knowledge that it is the best means of finding truth. We place limits, however, on those areas where argument goes well outside the borders of empiricism or when it is in clear and direct conflict with our fundamental commitment to progressive principles. Some things are not negotiable.

Finally, we are convinced that formulating ethical public policy requires projecting potential future conditions; however, projection is not the same as prediction -- we can create useful scenarios for modeling policy options, but should be careful not to become too attached to specific future visions. Flexibility is key.