Religion and Transhumanism

In his paper, Hopkins (2005) highlights a parallelism of transhumanism and religion. He believes these two strands of belief to be more alike than one would typically expect. He begins by stating that "when we die, we are through, our part of the wide organic web is ended, and the next generation moves on" (2005: 14). Hopkins thus understands the existence of death as the common underlying factor for the existence of both transhumanism and religion.

Transhumanists attempt to change our very nature by altering our bodies or restructuring our very embodiment (Hopkins 2005: 17). They champion technological practices to do so. These adherents therefore utilise technology to alter our physical and cognitive limitations. They attempt to move beyond animal nature, or mortal nature, by taking control of the constraints of nature, or in other words, death (Hopkins 2005: 17). Transhumanism can therefore be interpreted as a reaction to the perceived "oppressive" and "disappointing" limitations of human nature (Hopkins 2005: 17).

This is where Hopkins says that religion aligns with transhumanism. He believes that both influences are simply reactions to the limitations of given human nature, otherwise known as mortality. Whilst religion offers followers explanations for what happens when they die, transhumanism strives for immortality. For instance, Christians are offered everlasting life with Christ in heaven. On the other hand, transhumanists are offered immortality here on earth, by using technology to find the way. Either way, both ideals offer their adherents immortality.

Hopkins therefore understands both religion and transhumanism as "reactions to an unsatisfying and deflationary account of human nature and human limitations" (2005: 18). They both see mere mortality as a disappointing limit to human life.

However, I do not think this argument is overly coherent. To me, if human beings were immortal, then there would be no need for religion. If people could live forever, then there would be no need for a belief in an afterlife. So, if transhumanism found a way to overcome the limitations of human nature, being morality, then religion could in fact decline and eventually become extinct. Religion and transhumanism are therefore similar only when human beings are mortal. If, sometime in the far distant future, humans become immortal, then religion becomes a vastly different, and possibly unnecessary, concept.

So, the question is, would religion exist if human beings were immortal? Would there be any true purpose for religion if no one ever died? If one did not have to wonder about the ultimate question "what happens when we die?" would religion have any true role in our world today? If people did not have to be comforted by the existence of heaven, or the idea of reincarnation... what would religion be? Would there even be such a thing as religion? Dying gives our lives purpose, it gives religion purpose.

However, although transhumanism is not technically a religion, it is in no way anti-religious. It can in fact be seen as pro-religious or religious in itself due to its undeniable similarities to religions. One can say that religion and transhumanism are more like to each other than either of them are like secularism humanism. I wonder if, in the future, transhumanism will in fact come to be recognised as a 'real' religion? Or, conversely, will the very existence of transhumanism lead to religion's extinction?

Reference

Hopkins, P. (2005). Transcending the Animal: How Transhumanism and Religion are and are not alike. Journal of Evolution and Technology 14 (2): 13-28.

Mind-Body-Spirit as the Future of Healthcare?

In the last few decades, there has been many studies released focusing on the relationship between religion and spirituality, and, mental and physical health. It has been argued that religious belief may in fact influence a person's health. One topic of particular interest within this subject is prayer. Prayer has come to be understood as a kind of treatment modality. It has been thought of as a medicine to fight against disease. However, this argument is somewhat irrational.

According to Cohen and co,  scientists seeking hard evidence of prayer's curative powers misunderstand the nature of prayer in the Western theistic traditions (2000). This contemporary way of linking prayer with medicine is grounded in a basic misunderstanding of the nature and role of prayer in religious traditions.

Although these authors realise that religious belief may influence health, they are sceptical about whether prayer can be tested scientifically. They highlight that "no one can sincerely practice a faith for its health benefits" (Cohen et al 2000). Religious adherents engage in prayers because that is where they encounter God. Entering into prayer is entering into a personal relation with the creator. So, true religious peoples do not pray solely to get their needs met. They pray to meet their most fundamental need, their need for God. In other words, praying is not a sure means of getting God to give humans their way. Therefore, if one prays solely for selfish reasons, such as to rid illness, the prayer is not essentially 'real,' it simply becomes a means to an end, which it is not.

God is not a means to a humans end. He is the End (Cohen et al 2000). So, prayer is also not a means to an end, but an end in itself. Religious folk do not engage in prayer for self-interest reasons. So, if prayer is carried out as an experiment, it is not being carried out to help patient's recover but to see what happens. It this light, it is not a 'real' prayer. One cannot simply ask God for something and expect it to happen. Prayer does not work this way. It is not a sure means of getting God to give humans their way. It can neither be measured or verified.

Doctors should therefore not possess the ability to prescribe religion or prayer as a form of medicine. Religion and prayer is not a means to an end. It is not something that someone can simply pick up and take, like medicine, to make themselves feel better. It is not a drug. Religion and spirituality, and therefore prayer, are not something someone can just decide they want because a study says that there are connections between it and good health. Religion or spirituality is so much more than a remedy for sickness. It is a way of life and a person's belief system. So, prayer is not something a doctor can prescribe a patient to do, especially if the patient is not religious at all. Only a truly religious person understands the significance of prayer and the importance of their spirituality, and therefore can reap the benefits from their loving God. It should not be exploited or degraded. It is a special connection between an adherent and their God.

Although it can be recognised that religious conviction and a spiritual wellbeing can promote good health and healing, doctors should not be specifically prescribing religion as a treatment. However, clinicians should become comfortable addressing basic spiritual and religious needs of a patient, such as their religious history, supporting their beliefs and ensuring them access to religious resources (Larimore et al 2000). When people become ill, they constantly rely on their religious beliefs and practices to relieve stress, take control, maintain hope and give their life meaning and purpose. So, it would be illogical, senseless and uncaring to ignore a person's religiosity altogether. It positively reduces the feeling of helplessness that accompanies illness.

So, clinicians, doctors and nurses should address the religious and spiritual needs of a patient, but, these people should not be prescribing religion as a form of medication. Religion, spirituality and prayer will not help people who are not religious or spiritual themselves. Spirituality is not a means to an end but an end in itself.

References

Cohen, C.B., S.E. Wheeler, D.A. Scott, & the Anglican Working Group in Bioethics. (2000). Prayer as therapy: A challenge to both religious belief and professional ethics. The Hastings Center Report 30: 40-47.

Larimore, W.L., M. Parker, & M. Crowther. (2002). Should clinicians incorporate positive spirituality into their practices? What does the evidence say? Annals of Behavioural Medicine 24: 69-73.

The Future of Asian Traditions (Buddhism)

Given the topic 'The Future of Asian Traditions,' I was immediately intrigued. I wondered what lay ahead for religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism in the near or distant future in both the East and the West. However, what I learnt was something entirely off of this thought pattern. Yesterday, I had the great opportunity to listen to a lecture on this very topic by Assoc Prof Rod Bucknell.

Focusing solely on Buddhism, Bucknell asked the big question: where is it all going to end up? This made me ponder... should Buddhism be maintaining the standards of living that existed at the time of the Buddha, or should it be adapting to remain relevant to modern Western society as to not be cut off from the general community? How far should this Asian religion compromise? In other words, is it okay to change the original Buddhist traditions in order to branch out and adapt to a Western context? To these questions, Bucknell proposed that scholars of Buddhism go from one extreme to the other. Some believe Buddhism should fully adapt to modern society, whilst others believe they should not have to adapt at all.

When it comes to Buddhist lay people wanting to become monks or nuns, it may be necessary for the future of Buddhism to adapt. To become a monk or nun, the novice must approach an assembly of ten monks or nuns who are respected for their virtue and learning. However, in remote places, these rules simply can no longer be kept because of the lack of numbers of respected elders. According to Bucknell, this is why some locations do not have any Buddhist nuns. It therefore almost seems necessary for the Buddhist tradition to adapt this rule in order to keep the religion alive and prospering.

In Bucknell's paper titled Conditioned Arising Evolves: Variation and Change in Textual Accounts of the Paticca-samuppada Doctrine, he notes a "process of transformation" (1999). In terms of the Paticca-samuppada Doctrine, or the Law of Dependent Origination, Buddhism demonstrates some adaptability to modern times. He highlights that there are four versions of this doctrine, with two of these showing evidence of being derived from a single earlier form (Bucknell 1999). So, in his paper, Bucknell demonstrates that Buddhism is capable of adaption and change. Maybe this "process of transformation" needs to be considered for the entirety of the religion as to adapt to modern times. Or, maybe simple, almost unnoticed transformations like the one aforementioned is all Buddhism needs to become more relevant to our contemporary world.

At this moment in time, Buddhism is somewhat of an alienated practice to people who are not Buddhist themselves or do not study religion. Thus, misconceptions of this Eastern religion are common. For instance, in senior schooling, Buddhism is contrasted with the Western religions, i.e. Christianity, Islam and Judaism, and is somewhat pictured as not a 'real' religion but rather a philosophy of life. However, in university studies, it becomes blatantly clear that it is indeed a real and existing religion. So, considering the future of Asian traditions, I wonder if Australia will be more understanding of Buddhism in the future? Will Buddhist practices become more common knowledge in the West, like that of Christianity?

Reference

Bucknell R. 1999. Conditioned Arising Evolves: Variation and Change in Textual Accounts of the Paticca-samuppada Doctrine. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 22/2: 311-342.

The Future of Christianity

When given the term 'The Future of Christianity,' the words 'thriving,' 'growth,' 'change,' and 'adaption' quickly came to mind. Pondering this thought thus leads to the question: is 'adapt or die' a true reflection of the future for the Christian Church? When looking at this question in light of theological reflection, the answer is 'yes.' In the contemporary world, theology has indeed thrived or adapted in relation to the secular.

In their book titled A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction, Palcher and Nelson highlight that, in recent decades, theological reflection has undeniably become more secular (2013: 266). Theology has become more closely related to the demands, thoughts and emergent issues of our modern culture. For example, there has been, and will continue to be, a coming together of theology with the studies of the mind, including neuroscience and psychology. This shows that Christians are open to change and are concerned about improving their world.

Theology has also engaged with the natural sciences. Trained scientists, being religious professionals, have found ways of relating Christian understandings of God's action to the natural world, including both physics and biology (Palcher & Nelson 2013: 266). Dialogue between theology and the secular have thus envisioned harmony between two ways of seeing the world (Palcher & Nelson 2013: 266). Placher and Nelson say "God can be just as present in the secular as in the religious realms of life (Palcher & Nelson 2013: 267).

It is very interesting to think that the future of Christian theology will adapt and work more alongside the secular sciences, bringing two completely separated worlds together closer together as one. In this case, it is possible that Christian theological studies must adapt to the advancements of the secular sciences or the religion will be left behind.

So, when it comes to theological reflection in relation to the secular, the future of the Catholic Church is to adapt. With the constant advancements of the sciences and knowledge in our developing society, Christianity must take these new findings into account when it comes to theology. 

Reference

Placher W.C. & D.R. Nelson. 2013. The Current Scene. In A History of Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Westminster: John Knox Press, pp. 263-274