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
in Search

Mormon Transhumanists: Lincoln Cannon

Chapter Two of “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins

This is my second post reviewing the book, “The God Delusion”, by Richard Dawkins. The first post can be found here:

 

http://transfigurism.org/community/blogs/lincoln_cannon/archive/2007/10/30/3670.aspx

 

I should repeat some things mentioned at the beginning of my first post. I respect Dawkins as an excellent and inspiring evolutionary biologist. Although he misrepresents and misunderstands religion as a whole, he justifiably expresses anger and distrust regarding many particular aspects of religion. His view of religion is more black and white than mine; and, although sympathetic, I disagree with him. God is not always a delusion.

 

In chapter two, entitled “The God Hypothesis”, Dawkins begins by distinguishing between two views. He describes the first view, which he calls the God Hypothesis, in the following words: “There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.” He describes the second view, which he explicitly advocates, in the following words: “Any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution.” These views overlap substantially, and where they overlap is precisely where one may find the God described in Mormon tradition and canon. Mormons generally understand God to be a superhuman designing intelligence that rose to such stature subsequent to eternities of progression. In other words, God was not always God, but rather became so. Moreover, Mormons generally do not consider eternal progression to be supernatural, but rather a natural progress toward states of being and capacities that we simply do not currently possess or understand, as illustrated by Apostle James E Talmage’s thoughts on miracles:

“Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized. Gravitation is everywhere operative, but the local and special application of other agencies may appear to nullify it—as by muscular effort or mechanical impulse a stone is lifted from the ground, poised aloft, or sent hurtling through space. At every stage of the process, however, gravity is in full play, though its effect is modified by that of other and locally superior energy. The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases.” (James E Talmage, Jesus the Christ 143)

Throughout chapter two, the unacknowledged overlap between the two views becomes increasingly problematic. In the section on polytheism, he claims that he is “attacking God, all gods, anything and everything supernatural, wherever and whenever they have been or will be invented”, which means, despite the hyperbole, that he is not attacking all gods, since not all are supernatural. When faced with obvious overlaps between the views, he dismisses them, such as by claiming that “theology . . . has not moved on in eighteen centuries”, thereby implying that anything that accounts for modern perspectives must not really be theology, or by simply deciding that Buddhism and Confucianism should be treated “not as religions at all but as ethical systems or philosophies of life” because they do not fit conveniently into his characterization of religion. Unknowingly, he categorizes Mormons, whose canon explicitly rejects the immaterial, with agnostics by claiming that the following quote from Thomas Jefferson is “indistinguishable from what we would now call agnosticism”:

“To talk of immaterial existence is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul . . .”

Finally, at the end of chapter two, Dawkins arrives at the ironic climax of the unacknowledged overlap between the God Hypothesis and his advocated view of emergent creative intelligences. I circled the entire page and wrote in big red letters “MORMON GOD”:

"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, just as missionaries were treated as gods (and exploited the undeserved honour to the hilt) when they turned up in Stone Age cultures bearing guns, telescopes, matches, and almanacs predicting eclipses to the second.

 

"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, such as Daniel F. Galouye in Counterfeit World, 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 . . ."

“Eternal progression” is what Mormons call that (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution. “God” is what Mormons call those god-like extraterrestrials that didn’t start that way. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably gods – at least, that’s what Dawkins is telling Mormons, whether he intends so or not.

Published Saturday, November 03, 2007 1:36 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

 

Perfunktory said:

Among other things, I think there are important differences between the SETI Gods Dawkins proposes, and the Mormon Gods.  As Mormons, we believe that God hears and answers our prayers.  Unless these SETI Gods are doing that, I don't know how they would be possible candidates for the Gods we as Mormons hypothesize.
November 3, 2007 5:57 PM
 

Jared* said:

I think it was Orson Pratt who used similar language to Thomas Jefferson in order to equate immateriality with atheism.
November 3, 2007 6:02 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

". . . god-like in ways that exceed anything a theologian could possibly imagine." What if every photon in our synthetic time and space is used by our creators for surveillance?

In any case, the point is that the very "heart of this book" (in his words) is an attack on a kind of God that is not representative of religion generally.
November 3, 2007 6:10 PM
 

John Gustav-Wrathall said:

Lincoln, I agree.  In another section of the book, Dawkins actually discusses how it might be possible to influence the variables at the creation of a universe to consistently produce the conditions for life.  So imagine beings who have evolved sufficiently in their understanding of how creation works to begin creating universes...

In <i>Dialogue</i> recently there was a piece looking at multiverse theory and Mormonism...  Have you read it?
November 3, 2007 7:36 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

Hi John. Thanks for commenting. I haven't yet seen the Dialogue piece about multiverse theory and Mormonism. I'll have to look for it.
November 3, 2007 7:40 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

November 3, 2007 7:54 PM
 

Perfunktory said:

I'm aware that these god-like being Idea [I]could[/i] be able to influence our lives in ways we can't imagine, but thats not what I'm talking about.
November 3, 2007 9:10 PM
 

Arcturus said:

I agree with Dawkins that godlike beings could already have evolved elsewhere in the universe. This makes me a 'theist' of sorts.

The difference to me, though, is not that such beings could exist. The difference with most theists is that they believe that it is a fact that such beings exist, and more importantly, that such beings have *communicated* with humans. Usually through 'prophecies'.

Believing that gods *do* (rather than *might* or even *likely*) exist requires some sort of evidence, or at least warrant.

Believing that they have communicated humans with evidence requires even more evidence or warrant. Prophecy is easy to manufacture and is not falsifiable. Almost every religions has its prophets and those prophets contradict each other, so even if one were inclined to believe prophecy, one would still have to decide which prophecy to believe.

Greg

November 5, 2007 10:16 AM
 

Allen said:

Thanks, Lincoln, for posting your review of that chapter. I agree with the general trend of your comment, but if I understand you correctly, I have to disagree with one thing you said.

“God” is what Mormons call those god-like extraterrestrials that didn’t start that way. Whether we ever get to know them or not, there are very probably gods – at least, that’s what Dawkins is telling Mormons, whether he intends so or not.

The SETI-like extraterrestrials could have knowledge and skills that are far beyond what we have, even to the point of creating life in a laboratory, but they would still be mortal beings. To my way of thinking, the real difference between God and advanced mortal beings is the type of matter that composes their bodies. Mormons believe that God is a resurrected being of flesh and bones. Because of the resurrection, His flesh and bones are, I believe, composed of different matter than that in mortal bodies. This difference in matter will, I believe, exist regardless of the knowledge and skills that are developed in an evolutionary way in mortals. Terrestrials could even develop mental telepathy to a point where they could hear and respond to thoughts (prayers) of others. But they never will have bodies composed of resurrected matter until they are resurrected, since the resurrection can only occur via the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Greg, if advanced extraterrestrials were able to travel in time, they would be able to visit in the future and then return and "prophesy" of what they had seen. I'm willing to concede that such terrestrials could develop the knowledge and skills to do almost everything, such as miracles, that we currently attribute to God, but I think there is one thing that they will never be able to do and that is develop the power of resurrection independently of the Atonement of Christ. I'm not talking about bringing people who have died back to life as mortals. I'm talking about an actual resurrection, which in my opinion, involves a change in the matter of which our bodies are composed. Without the resurrection, advanced extraterrestrials are still mortal beings with bodies of mortal matter, even though by our standards today they could do miraculous things, such as living to an old, disease-free age. As long as they are in mortality, they would have to eventually die. The resurrection, via the Atonement, is the only path to immortality with bodies composed of resurrection-matter. This is how I see it.
November 5, 2007 10:47 AM
 

Allen said:

This is an appendage to my previous post.

“Eternal progression” is what Mormons call that (perhaps unfamiliar) version of Darwinian evolution.

Actually, I think Eternal progression is a parallel to the Darwinian evolution. They are different, because Eternal progression involves a change from the pre-earth life of us as spirits, to this mortal life, to immortality as resurrected beings, a change in the actual matter as I expressed in my previous post. The Darwinian evolution is just a path within this mortal life.
November 5, 2007 11:16 AM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

Allen, when I write about evolution, I am referring to both biological and technological evolution. While I agree that biological evolution alone is unlikely to result in the kinds of beings that Mormons refer to as "gods", I do think that evolution in the most general sense (biological, technological, and even ethical and esthetic evolution of sorts we've not yet experienced) is likely to result in the kinds of beings that Mormons refer to as "gods" -- if it does not result in our destruction, that is.

Moreover, the sorts of technological evolution that seem to be appearing on the horizon suggest to me that immortality is accessible via a combination of technological and ethical advance. The ethical advance is necessary to ensure that we do not use the technology to destroy ourselves -- and this is where the atonement of Christ (throughout the entire body of Christ) is essential, in my estimation. The technological advance will, I anticipate, begin in the form of biological life extension, but will also continue beyond that to full transfiguration from our biological makeup into a more resilient form.

Finally, I'll mention that darwinian evolution need not be biological. Evolutionary processes can occur in non-biological systems.
November 5, 2007 8:44 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

Arcturus, faith in God (of the sort that matters) is to discover and join those gods to the extent they already exist, and to create and become them to the extent they do not yet. Such faith is valuable whether it is accompanied by knowledge of the gods or not, which is not to say that there is no value in knowledge of the gods. It is just to say that, unless we live in a finite system, such faith will be required of even the gods, relative to gods of yet higher orders.
November 5, 2007 8:59 PM
 

Allen said:

Hi Lincoln,

"Moreover, the sorts of technological evolution that seem to be appearing on the horizon suggest to me that immortality is accessible via a combination of technological and ethical advance."

Hmmmm...  Maybe we're using the word *immortality* in different context. I think of immortality as living forever with no possibility of death in a resurrected state. I do think that technical evolution can (and will) lead to longer, healthier lives (the post by efrum about the genetically modified mice is a current example of that), but I don't think technology will ever be able to overcome death and bring immortality to the human race. As I tried to explain in my previous post, to me the distinction between a mortal body and a resurrected body is the type of matter used in the two bodies. In saying that, I'm not just thinking of biological evolution. I'm thinking of different states of existence. I think that mortality and immortality are different states of existence, and the change of state will be made possible only by the Atonement. I don't believe that technology will ever be able to create bodies with resurrected matter, i.e. perform a state-change, because technology has no knowledge of the immortality and has no way to manipulate the laws that govern resurrected matter. In D&C 63:50-51 we read that when the Lord comes in his second coming, those alive will grow up until they become old, and then they will die (because they are appointed to die "at the age of man"), and in the "twinkling of an eye" be changed, which I interpret to be resurrected. "they shall not sleep in the dust". I believe that death is an inherent part of our mortal state. I believe that death is not part of the immortal state. When the Atonement changes our state, we will advance from death to no-death.

Now, here is a scenario that is interesting to contemplate. Let's assume that we are now living after the resurrection in one of the kingdoms of glory. Will there be technology in that kingdom? If so, will there be technological evolution there? Will technological evolution help to bring about great advancements in that kingdom? This is pure speculation, but I would say "yes" to all questions. So, I think I agree with what you are saying except for the ability of evolution of our mortal technology to create the state-change from mortality to immortality.

I agree with you that ethical evolution is needed to balance technological evolution, and I'm concerned because I don't think our scientists will necessarily have the ethics to keep technological evolution from harming society.
November 5, 2007 9:44 PM
 

Allen said:

This is an appendage to my previous post.

I was just thinking that *states* and *state-change* are technological terms and may not have the same meaning to persons who come from a liberal arts background that they have to persons with a technical background. So, I thought I'd try to explain those terms in a non-technical way. If you already know what I'm talking about, feel free to skip the rest of this post.

In technology, a *state* is a set of significant conditions. Changes from one state to another state are significant changes. For example, a computer that is turned off is in a different state than a computer that is turned on. In my posts, I'm using *state* to refer to a condition of existence, including the type of matter used in bodies and the natural laws that govern that matter. In the spirit world before birth, we were spirits and had bodies composed of spirit matter. There were natural laws that governed spirit matter. We were in a spirit state of existence. Now, we are in mortality and are in a different state. Our bodies are composed of different matter, and there are, I assume, different laws that govern mortal matter. After the resurrection, we will, I believe, be in a third state. Our bodies will be composed of resurrected or immortal matter, and there will be laws that govern that matter. We began in the spirit state. Then we went into the mortal state. At death, we return to the spirit state. Then at some time, we will go to the resurrected state, and we will stay in that state forever. Because each state has its own set of natural laws, I don't believe the changing from one state to another is just a matter of biological, technological, and ethical evolution. There is more involved, and I don't understand it. The scriptures teach that the Atonement is the key to the changing of these states, and because of that I don't believe that technological evolution can change the states. That evolution can have effects within a state, but it can't change the state.

I don't know if this makes sense to you, but it is th best I can think of right now.
November 5, 2007 10:09 PM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

I think I do understand what you would like to communicate. You see multiple spheres of existence, within which technological progress is possible, but between which technological progress is not possible. Is that accurate?

As I see things, whatever process is used to go from one sphere to another IS a technology. For example, biological conception is a process that we can reverse-engineer, and subsequently modify or extend, and is thus a technology in the broadest sense of the word. Likewise, for practical reasons, I assume we can learn other transitional processes, and that they are entirely natural (even if apparently magic relative to our current understanding). I could be wrong, of course; however, I am less concerned about being wrong in this faith than I would be about being wrong in the opposite faith. What if we not only CAN work technologically toward immortality, but MUST if ever we are to attain it. Why should we not expect the need to use all our means to work against both sin AND death?

I agree with your interpretation of the D&C passage of scripture, that there must be a change from our current biological bodies, even after their longevity is extended dramatically. One step at a time.
November 5, 2007 10:34 PM
 

Allen said:

Yes, I think you've expressed my viewpoint correctly. I now have a better understanding of your viewpoint. I'm glad we've had this exchange of ideas.
November 5, 2007 10:51 PM
 

Arcturus said:

Allen,
Yes, there *could* be prophets. The difficulty would be in distinguishing them from anyone else.
If Christ was once a mortal, then how did he get the resurrection body? And if it was from a previous god, where did that god get the resurrection body? Eventually, if one trails back, there had to be a being who invented it himself, right?
I believe the physical human body can be made to continually repair aging damage so that it is effectively immortal in that sense. However, the damage not from aging could still cause death, so more robust forms of immortality would need methods of "backing up" persons and multiplying backups to store safely. This could reduce the possibility of death to a very small probability, but still not zero.
I am not clear, even in theory, what sort of substance could be completely invulnerable to hazards, especially if it has a physical form. But anything might be possible.

Lincoln-
Well, I think we humans are doing everything we can to 'discover' the gods, even if that is not what we are consciously trying to do. We are trying to advance in science and to explore the universe. Eventually, if the gods exist, we should bump into them or find traces of them, or they might decide to contact us.
Like you, I kind of optimistically assume that ethical progress will go hand in hand with technological progress. I think we can conclude that humans today are more ethical, in general, than people in ancient times (a big generalization, but still true I think). So, if we extrapolate that out...
But I don't believe it's impossible that some species might have advanced beyond us technologically while not advancing beyond us ethically, which would put us in a very difficult position. We might be very much in danger from those sorts of 'gods'. And a more immediate danger is individual humans or groups of humans advancing in an unbalanced way, which we have already seen in history, and in the future this could result in some very scary scenarios ('demonic' powers unleashed).

Greg
November 6, 2007 9:05 AM
 

Lincoln Cannon said:

Greg, thanks for expressing those ideas. I agree.
November 6, 2007 9:19 AM
 

Allen said:

Hey Greg, congratulations! You've discovered one of the paradoxes of Mormonism.

"If Christ was once a mortal, then how did he get the resurrection body? And if it was from a previous god, where did that god get the resurrection body? Eventually, if one trails back, there had to be a being who invented it himself, right?"

It's easy to look into the future and to comprehend that a process could go on forever. However, it is difficult to look into the past to to realize that a process has been going on forever. Yet, that is how Mormonism, as I understand it, teaches eternal progression. Christ received the power to perform the resurrection from his Father, our Father in Heaven, and so on. No beginning and no end. I can't even fathom no beginning, so I just accept it on faith and look forward to understanding it in the future. Maybe someone else can explain it better.
November 6, 2007 1:06 PM
 

Mormon Transhumanists: Lincoln Cannon said:

This is my third post about Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”. The first two posts are available...
November 8, 2007 10:51 PM
 

Mormon Transhumanists: Lincoln Cannon said:

It’s time to get back to my review of Richard Dawkins’ book, “The God Delusion”. In this post, I’ll be...
February 11, 2008 10:39 PM

What do you think?

(required) 
(optional)
(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.

This Blog

Post Calendar

<November 2007>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
2345678

Syndication