Mormon Transhumanist Association

The Mormon Transhumanist Association promotes practical faith in human exaltation through charitable use of science and technology.

Welcome to Mormon Transhumanist Association Sign In | Join | Donate | Help

Home

About

Mormon Transhumanists: Lincoln Cannon

Faithful Science

Jared, a guest blogger at By Common Consent, wonders what "Faithful Science" would look like and how it would be useful. Of course, here at the Mormon Transhumanist Association, we have some opinions about that.

To begin with, all science is faithful to the extent it is actually adhering to the scientific method. The method is based in premises and rules that are matters of faith, such as the premises of uniformity and causality and the rules of hypothesis. Science is an epistemic process that has demonstrated greater success in reproducibility than any other, but, like all epistemic processes, begins and ends with limited persons.

Beyond that, there are numerous hypotheses on the cutting edge of science that resonate with a Mormon world view. The March cover article of Sunstone magazine identifies several parallels between Mormonism and Transhumanism. It compares Joseph Smith's description of the Fullness of Times to our present observations of exponential technological advance. It compares prophecies related to the Millennium to expectations associated with the Technological Singularity. And it explores similarities between Joseph Smith's teachings on worlds without end and Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom's Simulation Argument.

I believe, reflecting the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation, that scientific knowledge and technological power are among the means ordained of God to enable human exaltation, including realization of diverse prophetic visions of transfiguration, immortality, resurrection, renewal of this world, and the discovery and creation of worlds without end. Faithful science should be directed toward the testing of hypotheses that may help us enable such a future -- as well as toward hypotheses that may help us mitigate any risks along the way.

Jared, at the end of his blog post, suggests that faithful science might undermine what makes science special, as priests and politicians get in the way. However, the fact of the matter is that priests, politicians and even scientists are already in the way, and always will be. Such is the nature of human involvement in the scientific project. But we can still attain objectivity! The objectivity will not be the sort that is the opposite of subjectivity, but rather the sort that is derived from an ever-broadening set of subjects reproducing each other's experience. It is not inappropriate to bring our values to science. Indeed, it is essential that we do so, particularly as we now approach the greatest risks and opportunities humanity has ever navigated. We cannot do otherwise than hypothesize and test according to our values. May God bless us with the wisdom and inspiration not to oppress or eradicate our civilization. May God also bless us with the wisdom and inspiration not to hinder the work of human exaltation. These really are matters of faith -- unavoidably so.

Published Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:16 PM by Lincoln Cannon

Comment Notification

If you would like to receive an email when updates are made to this post, please register here

Subscribe to this post's comments using RSS

Comments

	Grasshopper said: Lincoln, I agree that faithful science is not only desirable, it is unavoidable. However, this seems to be talking about faith in a different sense than Jared was discussing in his post at BCC. There, his primary objection seems to be centered around something expressed in Richard Sherlock's idea that God must be considered as a scientific explanation of phenomena. It is one thing to say that everything we do, including science, is grounded in faith. It is a different thing to invoke God as a scientific explanation. August 22, 2007 12:22 PM
	Jonathan Blake said: Correct me if I'm reading this wrong. It seems that you're advocating that we bring our faith-based values to the laboratory. While our own biases are unavoidable even in science, it is important that we strive to avoid them as much as possible. The ideal of objectivity is important even though it is strictly unattainable. The minute that we start to condone and then embrace religious biases in science, we kill what makes science work. What we do with the knowledge science gives us is the purview of ethics (and, I suppose, religion). Science has often thrived <i>in spite of</i> the religious values of the time. Let's give it the room it needs to do its job. August 22, 2007 2:04 PM
	Lincoln Cannon said: Jonathan, I'm saying MORE than that we should bring our values (all values are faith-based) to the laboratory. I'm saying that we cannot do otherwise than bring them to the laboratory, so we should be thinking hard about what those values should be (which can only be done within a context of deeper values of which we might not be aware) and persuading each other toward the values that, in our estimation, are most likely to make the world better (which again is a position within a deeper context of values). The idea that we should try to avoid our values when doing science is itself a value. Objectivity, if understood to be the opposite of subjectivity, has no meaning at all. Whether we like it or not, objectivity, particularly as pursued by science, is to communities as subjectivity is to individuals. Objectivity, in the only way it has any meaning, is shared knowledge resulting from reproducibility, which is something science has excelled at providing. I fully agree that some values get in the way of the scientific project. For the most part I think that is a bad thing. However, as one of many possible examples, consider that science has nothing to say about whether we should test hypotheses of how best to annihilate human civilization. So, in the end, I am arguing that we should be aware of the values we are bringing with us to science, discuss them and argue about them, and attempt to set the contours of the project ever more broadly without sacrificing the best of our values. What are those best-of-breed values? Well, that, of course, is what we are trying to figure out in ethics and religion, and I think Mormons have some valuable things to say about it. ----- Chris, I agree that I may be using "faith" in my post in a manner that may be nuanced differently than in the post at By Common Consent. August 22, 2007 2:53 PM
	rocket scientist said: Just a quick question. Can you name one example where religion produced a new discovery of nature of the world. Yes, religious people who work in science made great contributions in science (and it inspired art, or course) but I am not sure if religious "methods" produced anything that humanity couldn't have produced without religion. September 26, 2007 2:45 PM
	Lincoln Cannon said: Whether humanity could have done what it has done without religion is entirely a matter of speculation. The fact of the matter is that religion has deeply influenced humanity (even its science) and continues to do so. I would argue that even those who claim to reject religion remain deeply influenced by it, both for better and worse. September 26, 2007 7:02 PM
	rocket scientist said: I am not debating the influence of religion, but I am questioning that religion methods (if you can even name one) produced meaningful increase of our understanding of the world like science did and does. September 27, 2007 12:41 PM
	Lincoln Cannon said: Religion and science should not be considered competing epistemic processes. To the extent religion wants to comment on the way the world is, it should be leveraging the best epistemic processes available. September 27, 2007 7:33 PM
	rocket scientist said: If you call the initial wonder to learn about the world a religious experience I am fine with it but I am still not convinced that from methodological point of view, religion has anything to offer in ways to understand the world. I do accept that religion could be inspiring for some but it goes only that far. When it comes to actually learning about the world I can't think of a better method than science uses at this point. September 28, 2007 9:53 AM
	Lincoln Cannon said: rocket scientist, you're insisting on a comparison that I am neither asserting nor trying to defend. For reproducing knowledge, science is the best epistemic process I know of. Religion should use science when it is concerned with reproducing knowledge . . . and it CAN! Really! There is no necessary conflict between religion and science. On the other hand, whereas science can provide kowledge, it cannot tell you what to value. It is equally capable of teaching you how best to destroy human civilization as it is of teaching you how to exalt human civilization. September 29, 2007 5:05 PM

What do you think?

Name (required)
Your URL (optional)
Remember Me?
Comments (required)
Enter the Code You See Below (required)

About Lincoln Cannon

Lincoln is a founding member, director and president of the Mormon Transhumanist Association. He has thirteen years of professional experience in information technology, working primarily for companies in the systems management industry, such as Symantec and Novell. He holds a masters degree in business administration and a bachelors degree in philosophy from Brigham Young University. Lincoln served a mission to France for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is married with Dorothée Vankrieckenge, a French national, and is father to three bilingual children.