New God Argument Version 4.0

Lincoln Cannon
Lincoln Cannon

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.

The New God Argument is a logical argument for faith in God, based on moral and practical assumptions that are consistent with current science and emerging technology trends. It doesn’t prove that God exists. Rather, it proves that if we trust in the superhuman potential of our civilization then we should also trust in that which may qualify as God. And atheism may entail distrust in our compassionate and creative superhuman potential.

The Computation of Humanity

For the last few years in conversations and presentations, I’ve been tailoring formulation adjustments to the New God Argument, aiming to improve accessibility and decrease frequency of common misunderstandings. This has resulted in version 4.0 of the argument, as presented below. Changes include the “Courage Assumption” as a new name for the “Faith Assumption,” references to “human civilization” and “superhuman civilization” in place of some references to “humanity” and “superhumanity,” and explicit reference to “alignment” and “singleton” along with “decentralization” as named parts of the Compassion Argument. Although some words have changed for clarity, none change the intended meaning of the argument.

Generalizing Compassion

Before sharing the new formulation, I want to call attention to an observation about the Compassion Argument that I haven’t previously put in public writing. No part of the New God Argument has changed more, over time, than the Compassion Argument. I originally formulated it as three Charity Arguments, pruned it to one Benevolence Argument that focused on destructive capacity, renamed it to the Compassion Argument, qualified destruction in terms of decentralization, and then generalized destruction to power. Some might reasonably imagine these changes to mean that old formulations were simply abandoned because they were altogether incorrect.

However, a more accurate understanding would be that old formulations of the Compassion Argument were, in various ways and to varying degrees, weaker special cases of the new formulation. Put differently, the new formulation is a stronger, more generalized, and more prescriptive expression of the practical relationship between decentralized power and compassion. But an appeal to that practical relationship was already nascent. Let’s take a look at each of the old formulations.

  1. Charity Argument from Angels: If any advanced civilization probably can stop the advance of any less advanced civilization in reach then the extent of our advance probably indicates the minimum benevolence of any advanced civilization in reach. Here, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
  2. Charity Argument from Faith: If any advanced civilization probably has increased in destructive capacity faster than defensive capacity then we should trust any advanced civilization probably is more benevolent than us. Here, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally.
  3. Charity Argument from Creation: If any advanced civilization probably creates many worlds like those in its past then any advanced civilization that created our world probably acts toward us with at least as much benevolence as it expects any advanced civilization that created its world should act toward it. Here, I again appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
  4. Benevolence Argument: If posthumans probably have increased faster in destructive than defensive capacity then posthumans probably are more benevolent than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Charity Argument from Faith, renamed and using “posthumans” for “advanced civilizations.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally.
  5. Compassion Argument 3.0: If posthumanity probably will connect experientially with its creations then posthumanity probably is more compassionate toward us than we have the capacity to imagine. This was an experimental formulation of the argument, renamed. In it, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between minds.
  6. Compassion Argument 3.1: If superintelligent post-humanity probably would have more destructive capacity than humanity then superintelligent post-humanity probably would be more compassionate than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Charity Argument from Angels, renamed and using “superintelligent post-humanity” for “advanced civilizations.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
  7. Compassion Argument 3.2: If superintelligent posthumanity probably would have more decentralized destructive capacity than us then superintelligent posthumanity probably would be more compassionate than us. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.1, using “decentralized” explicitly. Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
  8. Compassion Argument 3.3: If superhumanity probably would have more decentralized destructive capacity than humanity has then superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.2, using “superhumanity” for “superintelligent posthumanity.” Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.
  9. Compassion Argument 3.4: If superhumanity probably would have more decentralized power than humanity has then superhumanity probably would be more compassionate than we are. This was essentially the same idea as the Compassion Argument 3.3, using “power” explicitly. Again, I appealed to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power between civilizations.

In the new version of the Compassion Argument, below, I return to the most general formulation (like the Charity Argument from Faith and the Benevolence Argument), appealing to compassion as an explanation for decentralized power generally, whether conceived as within or between civilizations. I also return to using “civilization” (like the Charity Argument from Faith) while maintaining use of “superhuman” (like the Compassion Arguments). Finally, I explicitly use “centralize” and “singleton” as the opposition to decentralization, to clarify one of the failure scenarios. As mentioned previously, I intend all of this to make the formulation stronger, more generalized, and more prescriptive without changing the fundamental meaning.

Courage Assumption

The Courage Assumption is a proposition that we, as a human civilization, will not become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization. The proposition may be false. However, to the extent we do not know it to be false, we may have practical or moral reasons to trust that it is true⁠—even to make it true. In any case, the Courage Assumption is a common aspiration among secular advocates of technological evolution, and it may be consistent with the religious doctrine of theosis, also known as deification: the idea that humanity should become as God.

[CA assumption]

we, as a human civilization, probably will not become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization

(Courage Assumption)

Compassion Argument

The Compassion Argument is a logical argument for trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are. It doesn’t prove compassion. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization and decentralize power. If so, because superhuman decentralization would cultivate and depend on cooperation at extents practically indistinguishable from compassion, we should also trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are.

[AA assumption]

EITHER we, as a human civilization, probably will become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization (Extinction Hypothesis)

OR we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will centralize power (Singleton Hypothesis)

OR superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are (Compassion Hypothesis)

(Alignment Argument)

[DA assumption]

we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will decentralize power

(Decentralization Assumption)

[COC deduction from CA, AA, and DA]

superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are

(Compassion Conclusion)

Creation Argument

The Creation Argument is a logical argument for trust that a superhuman civilization created our world. It doesn’t prove creation. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization and create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history. If so, because creation of many worlds would result in emulated histories that vastly outnumber others, we should also trust that a superhuman civilization created our world.

[GSA assumption]

EITHER we, as a human civilization, probably will become extinct before evolving into a superhuman civilization (Extinction Hypothesis)

OR we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will not create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history (Abstinence Hypothesis)

OR a superhuman civilization probably created our world (Creation Hypothesis)

(Generalized Simulation Argument)

[FA assumption]

we, as a superhuman civilization, probably will create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history

(Fecundity Assumption)

[CRC deduction from CA, GSA, and FA]

a superhuman civilization probably created our world

(Creation Conclusion)

God Conclusion

The God Conclusion is a logical deduction for faith in God. It doesn’t prove that God exists. Rather, we may have practical and moral reasons to trust that our human civilization will evolve into a superhuman civilization, decentralize power, and create many worlds that emulate our evolutionary history. If so, we should also trust that superhuman civilizations would be more compassionate than we are and a superhuman civilization created our world.

[GC deduction from COC and CRC]

BOTH superhuman civilizations probably would be more compassionate than we are (Compassion Conclusion)

AND a superhuman civilization probably created our world (Creation Conclusion)

(God Conclusion)

New God Argument

The New God Argument has evolved since Joseph West and I first formulated it in 2008. Along the way, I've simplified its language, published numbered versions, presented it at conferences, and responded to critics. The articles below trace that evolution in chronological order. I maintain the latest public formulation of the argument on the New God Argument website.

Syndicated from Lincoln Cannon.