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.