Ethics as Warfare: Metaphysics and Morality of the Era of Transhumanism
I studied philosophy and wrote a book on the future of transhumanism and how it brings us away from Christianity. It's about 140 pages and available in PDF form for free.
https://dubioustunic.blogspot.com/2019/04/ethics-as-warfare-metaphysics-and.html
Ethics as Warfare is a book that describes the philosophical confrontation between transhumanism and the Christian tradition. In the Christian case, faith in the Word, who was incarnate as man, has us maintain the human species. In the non-Christian case, the human essence is no longer the ground of Natural Law. In fact, we are to become beings capable of sculpting Natural Law, like unto gods. This is the meaning of the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil." This god-potential of mankind is obviously a threat to the Christian tradition, as well as Enlightenment values; yet it is inevitable. So where will you end up?
Board index ‹ Morality
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Re: Ethics as Warfare
by jimwalton » Mon May 20, 2019 4:54 pm
I'll choose to focus my thoughts on "This is the meaning of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.'" Since this is not the meaning of that tree, your whole case comes under suspicion. The Tree was not an issue of sculpting natural law, like unto gods.
"The knowledge of good and evil" was a legal idiom in the ancient Near East for the ability for formulate and articulate a judicial decision (Gn. 24.50; 31.24, 29; Dt. 1.39; 1 Ki. 3.9; 22.18). It had nothing to do with natural law. In 2 Sam. 14.17, the phrase means to listen with discernment to the details of a case to as to judge the legitimacy of a claim. It refers to the human capability to be morally discriminating (2 Sam. 19.35; 1 Ki. 3.9; Isa. 7.15-16).
What was happening at at the tree was whether humanity would choose to be morally autonomous (I am my own master) or to be God-oriented (God is my source of order and wisdom)—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God. In order to be what he was created to be, humankind must continue to orient himself to the unwavering reference point rather than to an undependable one (himself). Much like sailing across the ocean, a sailor has a choice to orient to the stars or, say, to the clouds.
Since "the knowledge of good and evil" is a juridical idiom, humankind was being presented with a choice to judge the legitimacy of God’s claim upon him as his creator and moral ground. To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.
The tree had nothing to do with human essence, natural law, human essence as the ground of natural law, or becoming "beings capable of sculpting Natural Law, like unto gods."
By the time we get to Gen. 3.22, we learn more of the consequences of their actions. The fall is defined by the fact that Adam and Eve acquired wisdom illegitimately, thus trying to take God's role for themselves rather than eventually joining God in his role as they were taught wisdom and became the fully functional vice-regents of God involved in the process of bringing order. If humans are to work alongside God in extending order (1.28), they need to attain wisdom, but as an endowment from God, not by seizing it for autonomous use.
When Adam & Eve choose to take wisdom (the "knowledge of good and evil," Gn. 2.17) for themselves (autonomy from God), they simultaneously become like God and thereby inherit the responsibility to establish and sustain order. Consequently, they are sent out in to the world at large (to which they previously had access) and charged with setting it in order themselves, which they attempt to do by establishing cities and civilization, the structures that were thought to establish order in the human world throughout the ANE.
The verse, image, concept, and theology has no bearing or relation to transhumanism, natural law, or human essence, nor to the "god-potential of mankind is obviously a threat to the Christian tradition" or Enlightenment values. By a misunderstanding of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you've not only missed the entire boat, but even the ocean.
"The knowledge of good and evil" was a legal idiom in the ancient Near East for the ability for formulate and articulate a judicial decision (Gn. 24.50; 31.24, 29; Dt. 1.39; 1 Ki. 3.9; 22.18). It had nothing to do with natural law. In 2 Sam. 14.17, the phrase means to listen with discernment to the details of a case to as to judge the legitimacy of a claim. It refers to the human capability to be morally discriminating (2 Sam. 19.35; 1 Ki. 3.9; Isa. 7.15-16).
What was happening at at the tree was whether humanity would choose to be morally autonomous (I am my own master) or to be God-oriented (God is my source of order and wisdom)—whether he would find his moral ground in self or in the character of God. In order to be what he was created to be, humankind must continue to orient himself to the unwavering reference point rather than to an undependable one (himself). Much like sailing across the ocean, a sailor has a choice to orient to the stars or, say, to the clouds.
Since "the knowledge of good and evil" is a juridical idiom, humankind was being presented with a choice to judge the legitimacy of God’s claim upon him as his creator and moral ground. To decide against that was to cut his ties to God and stand alone as his own Master of the Universe.
The tree had nothing to do with human essence, natural law, human essence as the ground of natural law, or becoming "beings capable of sculpting Natural Law, like unto gods."
By the time we get to Gen. 3.22, we learn more of the consequences of their actions. The fall is defined by the fact that Adam and Eve acquired wisdom illegitimately, thus trying to take God's role for themselves rather than eventually joining God in his role as they were taught wisdom and became the fully functional vice-regents of God involved in the process of bringing order. If humans are to work alongside God in extending order (1.28), they need to attain wisdom, but as an endowment from God, not by seizing it for autonomous use.
When Adam & Eve choose to take wisdom (the "knowledge of good and evil," Gn. 2.17) for themselves (autonomy from God), they simultaneously become like God and thereby inherit the responsibility to establish and sustain order. Consequently, they are sent out in to the world at large (to which they previously had access) and charged with setting it in order themselves, which they attempt to do by establishing cities and civilization, the structures that were thought to establish order in the human world throughout the ANE.
The verse, image, concept, and theology has no bearing or relation to transhumanism, natural law, or human essence, nor to the "god-potential of mankind is obviously a threat to the Christian tradition" or Enlightenment values. By a misunderstanding of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you've not only missed the entire boat, but even the ocean.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Ethics as Warfare
by Dubious » Tue May 21, 2019 9:17 am
Your matter-of-factness is off-putting. I basically agree with your account: all that is missing is for you to grasp the basic insight, that by achieving "knowledge of Good and Evil" outside the Logos, men are tasked not only with building civilizations, but orienting the ontology of the Cosmos. That is why the serpent said you will be like gods.
The era of transhumanism simply brings the problematic of humans having the "judicial power to order Nature" into the realm of the human essence, so that now we are freely orienting Natural Law -- the task of godhood.
So perhaps it would be better to say, "Transhumanism is the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in this technological era." Just as the building of the Tower of Babel may have been the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in a previous technological era.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think we are largely on the same page, except you are missing the crucial insight that to be like unto gods, knowing good and evil, precisely means sculpting the Natural Law by our own volition. In this technological era, that means altering human nature according to the power and wisdom we've acquired.
Since many of us, especially in the Enlightenment era, take human nature to be the ground of morality, to challenge human nature is essentially to "be like gods, knowing good and evil."
The era of transhumanism simply brings the problematic of humans having the "judicial power to order Nature" into the realm of the human essence, so that now we are freely orienting Natural Law -- the task of godhood.
So perhaps it would be better to say, "Transhumanism is the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in this technological era." Just as the building of the Tower of Babel may have been the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in a previous technological era.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I think we are largely on the same page, except you are missing the crucial insight that to be like unto gods, knowing good and evil, precisely means sculpting the Natural Law by our own volition. In this technological era, that means altering human nature according to the power and wisdom we've acquired.
Since many of us, especially in the Enlightenment era, take human nature to be the ground of morality, to challenge human nature is essentially to "be like gods, knowing good and evil."
- Dubious
Re: Ethics as Warfare
by jimwalton » Tue May 21, 2019 10:05 am
> Your matter-of-factness is off-putting.
Sorry. I didn't mean to create that reaction. But since your premise was based on a false interpretation, thus possibly undermining the very foundation of your argument, I felt that honesty and forthrightness were the best approach. My apologies if it turned out to be off-putting for you.
> by achieving "knowledge of Good and Evil" outside the Logos
What do you mean by this? Heraclitus used "logos" for the principle that controls the universe, but this would have been unknown and not part of the picture for the writer of Genesis. The Stoics used "logos" for the soul of the world; Marcus Aurelius used *spermatikos logos* for the generative principle in nature, but these things would also have been foreign to the perspective and worldview of the writer of Genesis and therefore anachronistic and moot. The Apostle John applied "logos" to Christ, in a manner incompatible with the Stoics, portraying Christ as the incarnate God, the union of deity and humanity. But that has no pertinence to Genesis 2 either. We have to take Genesis 2 from the mouth of its author, in its cultural river, for his intent. So, what do you mean by this?
> men are tasked not only with building civilizations, but orienting the ontology of the Cosmos.
There's no Genesis injunction to accomplish either of these. Men are not "tasked" with building civilizations, but instead with "filling the Earth and subduing it." The decree is to function as co-regents with God—a mandate of fruitfulness and stewardship (in care), better thought of in terms of privilege rather than obligation.
Similarly, there is no mention of being tasked with orienting the ontology of the cosmos. Instead, the humans take upon themselves the prerogatives that belong to God alone: the source of order and wisdom.
> That is why the serpent said you will be like gods.
When the serpent promises God-likeness (Gn. 3.5), it is to be understood in terms of wisdom (in the ancient world, an epithet for God). Immortality and godlikeness were attained by gaining wisdom, not orientating the ontology of the Cosmos. God was not against them gaining wisdom. His concern was that they gain it in the proper manner, not by mutinously usurping it as their own prerogative. The picture painted by the serpent is that they can gain wisdom (the knowledge of good and evil, the ability to decide) by reaching out and taking it, appropriating it to themselves. Instead, God has planned that they gain it via relationship with Him.
I don't see anything in the text leading one to the analysis or conclusion that they are tasking with orienting the ontology of the Cosmos.
> The era of transhumanism simply brings the problematic of humans having the "judicial power to order Nature" into the realm of the human essence, so that now we are freely orienting Natural Law -- the task of godhood.
I can see what you're saying here, but the era of transhumanism at this point is enhancement, or possibly even juxtaposition, not replacement. At this point in time, and for the far-foreseeable future, transhumanism is still under the sovereignty, so to speak, of human design and will. It is not a relinquishing of our judicial power to order Nature.
> So perhaps it would be better to say, "Transhumanism is the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in this technological era."
Uh, see, I don't agree with this either. The Tree of Knowledge was a mutinous usurping of divine prerogatives unto ourselves by inappropriate means. I just don't see where that has anything to do with transhumanism or our technological era. The rebellion at the tree of knowledge was a spiritual insurrection, a rebellion against God's explicit word and will, not an abrogation of judicial power to order nature.
> Just as the building of the Tower of Babel may have been the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in a previous technological era.
The point of the Tower of Babel is different than the Fall in the Garden, though related to it. The prime offense of the Tower scene was trying to reestablish God's presence with flawed motives. In the rhetorical strategy of Gn. 1-11, Adam and Eve lost access to the presence of God by presuming to make themselves the center of order and wisdom. In Gen. 4 the sacrifices and even calling on the name of the Lord didn’t reestablish divine presence. Here the builders take initiative to reinitiate sacred space through the abiding presence of God, but they do it through (1) encroachment on divine prerogatives (similar to Gn. 3), (2) violation of boundaries between divine and human identities, and (3) the encroachment of disorder on the ordered realm. The Babel project, motivated by the Great Symbiosis (the gods help us when we help the gods), represented disorder in the divine and human interrelationships and resulted in God’s interruption of order by the confusion of languages.
The tower builders conceived of sacred space as focused on themselves—a repetition of the Garden of Eden scenario—thus forming an inclusio to Gn. 1-11. The motivation of the building project was for order determined by them and built around them.
> you are missing the crucial insight that to be like unto gods, knowing good and evil, precisely means sculpting the Natural Law by our own volition.
You are correct that we are in wide disagreement about this observation. to be like unto gods, humanity attempted to take upon themselves the divine prerogatives of being the source of order and wisdom. In the Scriptures, it had nothing to do with sculpting natural law.
> Since many of us, especially in the Enlightenment era, take human nature to be the ground of morality,
Yeah, and I don't. This position (human nature as the ground of morality) is very close to the mistake in the Garden: we take to ourselves what belongs only to God. Understanding human nature as the ground of morality is opposite the teaching of the Bible, which places the source of morality outside of humanity.
> ... to challenge human nature is essentially to "be like gods, knowing good and evil."
...which makes this incorrect as well, from a biblical viewpoint.
I don't see where "we are largely on the same page." In my perspective, the position you have taken is not one held or taught by the Bible or understood by Christian theology, and yet you have embedded it in Scripture. To me, as you can tell, this is both a distortion and a mistake, making Scripture say what it never intended to say and endorsing the opposite of what it actually attests.
Sorry. I didn't mean to create that reaction. But since your premise was based on a false interpretation, thus possibly undermining the very foundation of your argument, I felt that honesty and forthrightness were the best approach. My apologies if it turned out to be off-putting for you.
> by achieving "knowledge of Good and Evil" outside the Logos
What do you mean by this? Heraclitus used "logos" for the principle that controls the universe, but this would have been unknown and not part of the picture for the writer of Genesis. The Stoics used "logos" for the soul of the world; Marcus Aurelius used *spermatikos logos* for the generative principle in nature, but these things would also have been foreign to the perspective and worldview of the writer of Genesis and therefore anachronistic and moot. The Apostle John applied "logos" to Christ, in a manner incompatible with the Stoics, portraying Christ as the incarnate God, the union of deity and humanity. But that has no pertinence to Genesis 2 either. We have to take Genesis 2 from the mouth of its author, in its cultural river, for his intent. So, what do you mean by this?
> men are tasked not only with building civilizations, but orienting the ontology of the Cosmos.
There's no Genesis injunction to accomplish either of these. Men are not "tasked" with building civilizations, but instead with "filling the Earth and subduing it." The decree is to function as co-regents with God—a mandate of fruitfulness and stewardship (in care), better thought of in terms of privilege rather than obligation.
Similarly, there is no mention of being tasked with orienting the ontology of the cosmos. Instead, the humans take upon themselves the prerogatives that belong to God alone: the source of order and wisdom.
> That is why the serpent said you will be like gods.
When the serpent promises God-likeness (Gn. 3.5), it is to be understood in terms of wisdom (in the ancient world, an epithet for God). Immortality and godlikeness were attained by gaining wisdom, not orientating the ontology of the Cosmos. God was not against them gaining wisdom. His concern was that they gain it in the proper manner, not by mutinously usurping it as their own prerogative. The picture painted by the serpent is that they can gain wisdom (the knowledge of good and evil, the ability to decide) by reaching out and taking it, appropriating it to themselves. Instead, God has planned that they gain it via relationship with Him.
I don't see anything in the text leading one to the analysis or conclusion that they are tasking with orienting the ontology of the Cosmos.
> The era of transhumanism simply brings the problematic of humans having the "judicial power to order Nature" into the realm of the human essence, so that now we are freely orienting Natural Law -- the task of godhood.
I can see what you're saying here, but the era of transhumanism at this point is enhancement, or possibly even juxtaposition, not replacement. At this point in time, and for the far-foreseeable future, transhumanism is still under the sovereignty, so to speak, of human design and will. It is not a relinquishing of our judicial power to order Nature.
> So perhaps it would be better to say, "Transhumanism is the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in this technological era."
Uh, see, I don't agree with this either. The Tree of Knowledge was a mutinous usurping of divine prerogatives unto ourselves by inappropriate means. I just don't see where that has anything to do with transhumanism or our technological era. The rebellion at the tree of knowledge was a spiritual insurrection, a rebellion against God's explicit word and will, not an abrogation of judicial power to order nature.
> Just as the building of the Tower of Babel may have been the meaning of the Tree of Knowledge in a previous technological era.
The point of the Tower of Babel is different than the Fall in the Garden, though related to it. The prime offense of the Tower scene was trying to reestablish God's presence with flawed motives. In the rhetorical strategy of Gn. 1-11, Adam and Eve lost access to the presence of God by presuming to make themselves the center of order and wisdom. In Gen. 4 the sacrifices and even calling on the name of the Lord didn’t reestablish divine presence. Here the builders take initiative to reinitiate sacred space through the abiding presence of God, but they do it through (1) encroachment on divine prerogatives (similar to Gn. 3), (2) violation of boundaries between divine and human identities, and (3) the encroachment of disorder on the ordered realm. The Babel project, motivated by the Great Symbiosis (the gods help us when we help the gods), represented disorder in the divine and human interrelationships and resulted in God’s interruption of order by the confusion of languages.
The tower builders conceived of sacred space as focused on themselves—a repetition of the Garden of Eden scenario—thus forming an inclusio to Gn. 1-11. The motivation of the building project was for order determined by them and built around them.
> you are missing the crucial insight that to be like unto gods, knowing good and evil, precisely means sculpting the Natural Law by our own volition.
You are correct that we are in wide disagreement about this observation. to be like unto gods, humanity attempted to take upon themselves the divine prerogatives of being the source of order and wisdom. In the Scriptures, it had nothing to do with sculpting natural law.
> Since many of us, especially in the Enlightenment era, take human nature to be the ground of morality,
Yeah, and I don't. This position (human nature as the ground of morality) is very close to the mistake in the Garden: we take to ourselves what belongs only to God. Understanding human nature as the ground of morality is opposite the teaching of the Bible, which places the source of morality outside of humanity.
> ... to challenge human nature is essentially to "be like gods, knowing good and evil."
...which makes this incorrect as well, from a biblical viewpoint.
I don't see where "we are largely on the same page." In my perspective, the position you have taken is not one held or taught by the Bible or understood by Christian theology, and yet you have embedded it in Scripture. To me, as you can tell, this is both a distortion and a mistake, making Scripture say what it never intended to say and endorsing the opposite of what it actually attests.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Ethics as Warfare
by Dubious » Tue May 21, 2019 11:37 am
You come so close to seeing my point, and then you (arbitrarily) disregard it because of your obsession with your own knowledge-base.
The wisdom and power of Godhood is precisely to sculpt Natural Law. Therefore, to be like unto God(s) is to gain this judicial power over the Cosmos.
The wisdom and power of Godhood is precisely to sculpt Natural Law. Therefore, to be like unto God(s) is to gain this judicial power over the Cosmos.
- Dubious
Re: Ethics as Warfare
by jimwalton » Tue May 21, 2019 11:38 am
Whoa. Just to be clear: I am nowhere near close to agreeing with you. And it's an insult that you accuse me of *arbitrarily* disregarding it because I have an obsession. Wow. First of all, I was very thorough in my response. There was nothing arbitrary about it. Second, I didn't disregard it, but refuted it. Third of all, we have to stay true to the text. We are not free to manufacture interpretations. Knowledge is a very reputable path to truth.
How would you like to discover the truth of the meaning of the Bible if not through knowledge?
> The wisdom and power of Godhood is precisely to sculpt Natural Law.
This is indeed what you keep saying, but there is nothing in the Bible that leads to this conclusion. You are welcome to hold this opinion, but it's illegitimate to tie it in with the biblical teaching about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you want to take a religious perspective that claims "the wisdom and power of Godhood is precisely to sculpt Natural Law," you're free to do that. What is irresponsible and illegitimate, however, is to claim that's what the Bible is saying and to tie your position with biblical teaching.
> to be like unto God(s) is to gain this judicial power over the Cosmos.
There is nothing in the Bible that takes us to this conclusion. There is not even any reference to it on examination of Genesis 2-3. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but this is not a biblical teaching or position. There is no text, either in Gn. 2-3 or elsewhere, that gives humanity judicial power over the Cosmos. If you have one, let's talk about it. If it's just your interpretation of the Tree of K of G&E, you have to substantiate this position from the text, showing how the text verifies that this is what it is talking about (as I showed you that in the Bible the K of G&E pertained to "a legal idiom in the ancient Near East for the ability for formulate and articulate a judicial decision." I showed you about a dozen texts. Then please do the same for me if yours is a valid direction or interpretation.
How would you like to discover the truth of the meaning of the Bible if not through knowledge?
> The wisdom and power of Godhood is precisely to sculpt Natural Law.
This is indeed what you keep saying, but there is nothing in the Bible that leads to this conclusion. You are welcome to hold this opinion, but it's illegitimate to tie it in with the biblical teaching about the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. If you want to take a religious perspective that claims "the wisdom and power of Godhood is precisely to sculpt Natural Law," you're free to do that. What is irresponsible and illegitimate, however, is to claim that's what the Bible is saying and to tie your position with biblical teaching.
> to be like unto God(s) is to gain this judicial power over the Cosmos.
There is nothing in the Bible that takes us to this conclusion. There is not even any reference to it on examination of Genesis 2-3. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but this is not a biblical teaching or position. There is no text, either in Gn. 2-3 or elsewhere, that gives humanity judicial power over the Cosmos. If you have one, let's talk about it. If it's just your interpretation of the Tree of K of G&E, you have to substantiate this position from the text, showing how the text verifies that this is what it is talking about (as I showed you that in the Bible the K of G&E pertained to "a legal idiom in the ancient Near East for the ability for formulate and articulate a judicial decision." I showed you about a dozen texts. Then please do the same for me if yours is a valid direction or interpretation.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Ethics as Warfare
by Dubious » Tue May 21, 2019 4:27 pm
> "Ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
What I've done is taken the prophecies of Christian Steve Quayle (which connects transhumanism to the Tree of Knowledge and the temptation to become as gods) and connected it to the theory of Nietzsche.
What I've done is taken the prophecies of Christian Steve Quayle (which connects transhumanism to the Tree of Knowledge and the temptation to become as gods) and connected it to the theory of Nietzsche.
- Dubious
Re: Ethics as Warfare
by jimwalton » Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:51 pm
I'm not familiar with Stephen Quayle, but **RationalWiki" says he's "Steve Quayle is an extreme right wing conspiracy theorist, pseudohistorian, religious fundamentalist, doomsday fearmonger, gold bug, and radio kookbabbler." Hmm. That doesn't motivate me to respect his perspective. His website (http://www.SteveQuayle.com) looks like something out of the National Enquirer. And you used him as source material? I'm not familiar with him, but it raises lots of question marks and yellow warning lights in my mind.
And then you used Nietzsche—atheist, "death of God" guy??? No wonder I find little ground of agreement with you. Well, I guess that explains a whole bunch.
I guess I still stick to what I've been saying: you're welcome to your theories, but please don't connect them as if they are any kind of valid contact point with the Bible.
And then you used Nietzsche—atheist, "death of God" guy??? No wonder I find little ground of agreement with you. Well, I guess that explains a whole bunch.
I guess I still stick to what I've been saying: you're welcome to your theories, but please don't connect them as if they are any kind of valid contact point with the Bible.
Last bumped by Anonymous on Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:51 pm.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
8 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest