Responding to the Immortality Machine
Lincoln Cannon is an American philosopher and technologist who co-founded the Mormon Transhumanist Association in 2006, serving as its president from 2006 to 2016. He is a leading advocate of technological evolution and postsecular religion, combining software engineering expertise with degrees in philosophy and business. ¶ Cannon is also a founder and board member of the Christian Transhumanist Association. He formulated the New God Argument, a logical argument for faith in God that has become popular among religious transhumanists. His academic work includes “Mormonism Mandates Transhumanism” published in Religion and Human Enhancement: Death, Values, and Morality (Palgrave Macmillan, 2017) and “Transfigurism: A Future of Religion as Exemplified by Religious Transhumanists” published in The Transhumanism Handbook (Springer Verlag, 2019). ¶ Mormon transhumanism, as articulated by Cannon, holds that humanity should learn how to be compassionate creators. This idea is central to the Mormon theological tradition, which provides a religious framework consistent with naturalism and supportive of human transformation. Cannon’s work bridges religious faith with scientific advancement, advocating for the ethical use of technology to extend human abilities in ways consistent with a religious worldview.
In January 2018, Plough published an article by Michael Plato, “The Immortality Machine,” criticizing Transhumanism and its relationship with theosis. I responded to that criticism in a letter to the editor, which Plough published in February 2018, along with some disappointing additional thoughts from Michael. Below is a record of the exchange, along with some of my additional thoughts.
Orthodox Christianity
Michael references theosis, the idea that humans will evolve into Gods, in a way that may lead readers to think it’s unique to Mormon theology. Although interpretations vary among sects and even among their adherents, theosis is an ancient and enduring doctrine among Christians that is broadly, even if sparsely, recognized or acknowledged among some sects.
Mormons call it “exaltation.” Eastern Orthodox call it “apotheosis.” Catholics call it “divinization.” And Christians of any sect that embrace theosis will rightly question the non-Biblical idea that any static conception of human nature is permanently good enough, when it wasn’t permanently good enough for Jesus, who exemplifies and invites our transformation into divine nature—to be one with him in Christ.
Almost all Mormon transhumanists would claim to have a goal of immortality. And almost all would claim that we might individually contribute toward achieving that goal. But almost all of us would insist that achievement of that goal also requires a power that transcends us.
No one self-attained the laws of physics, the evolution of complex intelligence, or the cultural and technological context that we’ve inherited. If it’s now possible for someone to contribute meaningfully toward a goal of immortality, the possibility itself is pervasive and persistent grace. As Jesus put it, “The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do.” And yet, “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”
Michael: While many Mormon apologists have argued that their understanding of theosis has roots in the church fathers and Eastern Orthodox Christianity, the equation does not hold up to scrutiny. Theosis, as it is understood in Mormon doctrine, conflicts with two central tenets of Christianity: monotheism and the doctrine that God created the universe ex nihilo [from nothing]. If we ourselves can become gods, then this denies the Bible’s repeated assertion that there is only one God. Similarly, the doctrine of creation ex nihilo asserts that there is a permanent difference between God and humans, creator and creature.
While some early church fathers such as Irenaeus, Athanasius, Justin Martyr, and Augustine made use of terms such as theosis, deification, and divinization, they meant something quite different. Deification means that we can participate in God’s glory, never that we become God in essence. (For a fuller explanation, see the Eastern Orthodox theologian Timothy Ware’s The Orthodox Church.) By contrast, Mormonism’s doctrine of men becoming gods is unique, and does not accord with orthodox Christianity.
As he might imagine, I disagree with Michael’s characterization of Mormon theosis and how it relates to the broader Christian tradition. It’s a straw man.
Christians generally (not just Mormons) have been interpreting the doctrine of theosis in diverse and sometimes conflicting ways for two millennia. Michael’s account of a few early Christians, and how their interpretations of theosis supposedly conform with orthodoxy and conflict with Mormonism, is too convenient. And of course neither Eastern Christians nor I grant him orthodoxy.
I wholly embrace the Biblical account of God’s unity, which the text clearly describes as more than a simple unity but rather one that admits of some sort of internal plurality. Trinitarianism, to use a non-Mormon example, would be nonsensical otherwise. And among Mormons, I’m far from unique in my position on this matter. Many other Mormons, probably most, believe similarly because our theology is perfectly compatible with, and even demands, an understanding of God that incorporates both plurality and unity.
Of course there are differences of interpretation. But they are not as simple as Michael has suggested.
Michael claimed that, “If we ourselves can become gods, then this denies the Bible’s repeated assertion that there is only one God.” Mormons aside, many other Christian authorities, from both the Eastern and Western traditions across two millennia, would disagree with him. A strong sampling may be found on the New God Argument website.
By the way, I’m a Mormon. But I’m not a Mormon apologist. In fact, most Mormon apologists that know me would laugh at that idea. I love my religion for many reason, but perfection is not one of them.
Plough originally published this article as “Readers Respond: Becoming Immortal.”
Syndicated from Lincoln Cannon.