Religious Transhumanism as a New Religious Movement: Sketching a Model of the Development of Religious Transhumanism

Abstract

This essay proposes a new model for understanding religious transhumanism by extending existing frameworks that have been useful for predicting the success of new religious movements (NRMs). This paper focuses on the Mormon Transhumanist Association as a case of religious transhumanism that is incongruent with existing models of NRMs, thereby highlighting the limitations of these models. First, I demonstrate how the Morman Transhumanist Association challenges religious scholars’ conventional concepts for understanding NRMs, particularly within anthropology, cosmology, and eschatology. Then, I present a model that effectively accounts for the unique characteristics of religious transhumanist groups, thereby demonstrating and addressing the field’s current lack of an explanatory framework.

1. Introduction

Mikael Rothstein states that “no religion of the modern world will successfully be able to claim authority without some kind of scientific legitimization”.1 If this is true, then religion and science can no longer be conceptualized as separate domains. At the very least, scientific validation for emerging religions is an important feature to consider when predicting the likelihood of whether an emerging religion will persist. Recent literature in the academic study of religion confirms this much. For example, Wesley Wildman and Kate Stockly’s book, Spirit Tech: The Brave New World of Consciousness Hacking and Enlightenment Engineering (Wildman and Stockly 2021), covers the “intensifying interaction between technology and spirituality—specifically, brain-based technologies designed to trigger, enhance, accelerate, modify, or measure spiritual experience”.2 Wildman and Stockly’s work demonstrates that current artificial intelligence and data science provide new tools for accessing the sacred. For reasons that will become apparent below, artificial intelligence and data science are now being used to create, as opposed to being merely used for accessing, the sacred, as is the case with Mormon Transhumanist theology. Furthermore, some emerging academic journals focus on the intersection of science and religion; for example, recent work on new religious movements (Zeller 2010; Bigliardi 2023) shows the impacts of science on emergent religious organizations.3 I will demonstrate that religious transhumanist groups exemplify Rothstein’s claim. To foreshadow my arguments, here are my main objectives: first, I argue that the Mormon Transhumanist Association (and similar religious transhumanist groups) challenges traditional concepts within the religious scholar’s theoretical toolkit. Second, I develop a speculative—although reasonable—model that can effectively account for the unique characteristics of religious transhumanist groups, addressing the current lack of an explanatory framework in this field.

Rodney Stark’s contribution to our understanding of new religious movements attempts to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the success of new religious movements (NRMs) and is a paradigmatic model for NRM scholars.4 If religious transhumanist groups are NRMs, then we should expect our model to predict the success of the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA).5 However, this model is insufficient in predicting the success of the MTA and unlikely to predict the success of religious transhumanist groups broadly. I briefly discuss transhumanism (Section 2), then the Mormon Transhumanist Association (Section 3). In Section 4, I consider Stark’s model and apply it to the Mormon Transhumanist Association, demonstrating how it is insufficient in this case, and provide motivation for extending Stark’s model to sufficiently predict the success of the MTA. Section 5 is a first attempt at sketching a new model for studying religious transhumanist groups. In the final section, I raise some objections and limitations of this paper and highlight some further implications of this inquiry.

2. What Is Transhumanism?

Transhumanism postulates that the utilization of science and technology is morally imperative for augmenting the human condition, with many proponents contending that transhumanism embodies the objectives commonly associated with religion.6 According to one scholar: “Transhumanism is the aspiration that, and the agitation for, anticipated forms of new technology that would so change the human condition that the beneficiaries of that technology would in a very real way no longer be human”.7 This affirmation has several consequences, such as cognitive enhancements (especially improved memory and intelligence augmentation) and bodily transcendence (i.e., prosthetics). Philosophers grappling with transhumanist ideas have seen a surge in the academic literature on transhumanism during the past two decades. This is not surprising given that we are living in the age of information, with the exponential growth of the tech sector.8 A crude, but helpful, way of understanding this literature is by introducing two categories: techno-optimists and techno-pessimists. Techno-optimists like Ray Kurzweil advocate for humans merging with technology because the benefits of such a merger outweigh the consequences. The potential benefits of technology produced by exponential growth in the tech sector is the emphasis for techno-optimists. For example, if certain technologies could allow humans to live one hundred more healthy years—known in the transhumanist literature as radical life extension—we ought to provide this opportunity, thereby increasing individual autonomy on end-of-life decisions. In contrast, Nick Bostrom emphasizes the existential risks associated with these emerging technologies and advocates stalling some of these technologies until safeguards are developed and implemented.9 Furthermore, recent attention by anthropologists (e.g., Abou Farman) and rigorously researched books for a general audience (e.g., Mark O’ Connell, Elise Bohan) have produced ways for scholars to enter this academically rich, ethically saturated, and socio–politically important topic.10 However, only recently have scholars of religion entered this domain, with the dominant approach being Abrahamic Monotheistic perspectives.11 Finally, the academic literature on the relationship between new religious movements and transhumanism is scarce. While some deny the claim that transhumanism is a religion, I align with scholars who consider these groups as new religious movements and will assume this claim throughout this paper.12

According to the American Academy of Religion: “‘Transhumanism’ or ‘human enhancement’ refers to an intellectual and cultural movement that advocates the use of a variety of emerging technologies. The convergence of these technologies may make it possible to take control of human evolution, providing for ‘desirable’ physical, moral, affective, and cognitive enhancements and the amelioration of aspects of the human condition regarded as undesirable”.13 Transhumanism is often introduced in the same vein as posthumanism: the idea that the human species is merging with technology to such a degree that humans will eventually evolve beyond the human species and into posthuman(ism). Both -isms claim that our species has not reached its full potential and that technology provides humans with the means to transcend our biological limitations. The more contentious transhumanist ideals are curing death, mind uploading, and perfect simulation. For this paper, the main takeaway is that advancements in science and technology have resulted in a new epistemic landscape that impacts nearly all areas of society—including religion. This new landscape opens new avenues for collaborative and multidisciplinary work. Thus, religious transhumanist groups ought to be of particular interest to those scholars working in the areas of religion and science, new religious movements, the philosophy of technology, and the intersection of these fields.

3. Mormon Transhumanist Association

The Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA) is an organization that was founded in 2006—making it “both the largest and longest-running religious transhumanist movement”.14 Mormon transhumanists support the Transhumanist Declaration, itself shared by secular transhumanist organizations, such as Humanity+, and the Mormon Transhumanist Affirmation.15 Members are mainly located in three areas: Provo, Utah; California’s Bay Area; and Seattle, Washington. Given the affiliation with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), and the West Coast housing much of the nation’s tech industry, these locations are unsurprising.16 Central to the MTA’s mission is the belief that technology and science can be used to improve human life and that the pursuit of these goals is in harmony with LDS orthodoxy, with some members of MTA believing that “Mormonism actually mandates Transhumanism”.17 However, “one major difference between mainstream Mormon thought and MTA is that the latter allows for the possibility of God being a great programmer, thereby endorsing a technological account of Mormon theosis”.18 The MTA believes that the use of technology to enhance human abilities, extend human life, and eliminate suffering is consistent with LDS teachings that emphasize the potential for human progression towards salvation. Additionally, there is a deep desire amongst MTA members to use evidence-based science to live longer and healthier lives. “Mormon Transhumanism is thus an imaginative project that answers the problem of religion and technology by aspiring to collapse that distinction; thus, it breaks the grammar of Mormonism and Transhumanism, being entirely new while at the same time being wholly Mormon and Transhumanism”.19 These ideas will be further developed and clarified as we introduce, expand upon, and reframe existing models of new religious movements.

4. Modeling NRMs

Rodney Stark (1996) argues for a necessary and sufficient model predicting the success of NRMs. Since its publication, this model has exerted a profound impact on NRM research.20 This is especially the case when we consider the model’s impact on the study of religions that emerged out of the 19th and 20th centuries.

Empirical evidence for the merit of Stark’s model is given by referencing such religions as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Seventh-day Adventist Church. For the reasons given below, Stark’s model is sufficient for explaining how these three religions have grown from fringe groups to a global presence. The model is not only applicable to American Christian groups, having been applied to the Unification Church, for example, but has also been applied to religions outside of the Christian context (e.g., Scientology, Theosophy, and Raelianism).

Stark proposes several conditions of which the following three factors are most pertinent to this inquiry: (1) the presence of a charismatic leader, (2) a high fertility rate, and (3) a motivated volunteer force focused on imparting proper education to their youth and attracting new converts. These have yielded valuable insights into understanding the success of the aforementioned religions.

However, when it comes to religious transhumanist groups, particularly MTA, these conditions prove inadequate for scholars of religion due to the unique nature of such groups. For example, our current technological environment enables proselytizers to share knowledge about religions in new ways that go beyond the traditional proselytizing methods used by NRMs in previous centuries. Furthermore, the examination of MTA and religious transhumanism reveals novel applications of technical terms within the academic study of religion, including anthropology, cosmology, and eschatology, consequently necessitating scholars to reevaluate foundational concepts in this field. Evidence for this claim is provided in the following section.

5. Sketching a Model of Religious Transhumanism

Emerging religions today—more broadly, in the 21st century—have different challenges than world religions. “Just as all of the world’s religions were once on their respective cultural fringes, a new religious movement that revolves around the future of robots and AI might someday become fully mainstream”.21 As an emerging religion, the MTA is not exempt from being forced into taking a stance on emerging technologies that are influential and controversial in society. The remainder of this section sketches a sufficient model that accounts for the successful growth of religious transhumanism. Specifically, I reconceptualize Stark’s model by outlining four conditions, which appreciate the nuanced complexities of contemporary religious transhumanist groups, and I argue that these conditions provide insight into the likelihood of a group’s persistence.

5.1. Proposal

5.1.1. Maintains a Certain Degree of Coherence and Consistency within the Prevailing Religious Framework

In the American context, this condition draws out the importance of whether or not a religious transhumanist group corresponds to Christianity since the Christian demographic is a dominant force within American society, thus assisting in predicting the success of transhumanist groups that appeal to Christian-identifying individuals.22 If public perception shows that religious transhumanism and Christianity are compatible, the consequence of this may be an increase in emerging religious transhumanist groups. This is because humans are inherently social beings and sufficient social pressure can require individuals to conform to certain group identity traits or norms. If an individual fails to conform, they risk ostracization from their communities or their families. So, if religious transhumanism is compatible with Christianity, individuals could remain integrated into their social networks, which is often essential to their overall wellbeing.23 While many members of MTA were once members of the LDS, it is not unusual for individuals to hold concurrent affiliations with MTA and LDS,24 and, according to Bialecki, many of the members were conflicted by science and wanted to reconcile this with their religion. Religious transhumanism is then, for many, the solution to this conflict.

A part of successful religions is being able to satisfactorily articulate their concepts and metaphysical frameworks. Research into the cognitive science of religion shows that religious concepts that historically have high persistence rates are cognitively optimal. Religious transhumanist groups that invoke scientific methods, theories, and concepts may have a cognitive balancing effect on the intuitive and counter-intuitive spectrum argued for by Pascal Boyer.25 In other words, utilizing science as a background may provide a cognitive balance to the counterintuitive elements of religious beliefs.26 In the cognitive science of religion, this is referred to as the minimally counter-intuitive (MCI) theory. Although this literature is unsettled on this point, religious concepts and worldviews that have similar characteristics cross-culturally may indicate that MCI concepts have a mnemonic advantage.27 For religious transhumanism, I suspect that the successful groups articulate their concepts and metaphysics in ways that are cognitively easy to grasp, relatable to a general audience, and cognitively catchy, in order to recruit new members. Moreover, it is well founded that humans have confirmation bias, with humans easily accepting evidence supporting their already-established beliefs. If this is true, then we are unlikely to accept evidence that challenges our established beliefs. In the American context, this means that individuals will be more likely to accept religious transhumanism (and/or conform to a particular transhumanist religion) if it can be shown to align with Christianity (i.e., the religious establishment). In other words, this new belief is compatible with an already established belief, and it is not a completely new belief formation.28

5.1.2. Positing a Strong Relationship between Science and Technology and Strategically Emphasizing Certain Technologies within Its Worldview

What specific technologies do groups emphasize (e.g., biotechnology such as human enhancement, informatics, virtual reality, etc.)? Early transhumanist research focused on cryonics, and although this technology has gained some momentum, it has not taken off nor appealed to the public. For example, currently, there are reproductive technologies (i.e., embryonic stem cell therapies, gene editing, etc.) available, but the ethical challenges associated with these technologies are strong enough to deter most people from using them at this time.29 The future of reproductive technologies will no doubt capture the minds of the masses, and I predict that religious transhumanists will enter these controversial debates and take authoritative positions on such matters that may have consequences for the group’s overall success rate.

Virtual reality will play a substantial role in the formation of new religious transhumanist groups in the future. The COVID-19 pandemic transitioned religious services to virtual modalities, such as observing sacraments (e.g., baptisms) being conducted in virtual spaces. Although the authenticity of these actions has been called into question, virtual reality is here to stay, and religious transhumanist groups will be a step ahead of established religions that are not as technologically progressive.30 Furthermore, religious robots are another type of technology that religions have only recently begun to utilize. Puzio’s (2023) work explores the question of whether robots can have religious functions and explores the more ethically saturated question of whether religious robots should have religious functions. As is the case with virtual reality technologies, “it is highly probable that religious robots will induce a transformation in religious practices, leading to new forms of spirituality”.31 Thus, the meaningful interactions that virtual reality spaces and religious robots provide for some may be difficult to reconcile with traditional religious frameworks but could be an area in which religious transhumanism thrives. As Geraci notes about virtual spaces, “Virtual reality becomes the sacred world of meaning, the world that many users wish to occupy full time”.32 So, a transhumanist group that focuses on the right technology at the right time, I contend, will have a higher rate of success.

Doctrinal exegesis in religious transhumanist groups often posits an alignment with science. Therefore, contrary to the belief that the validity of doctrine requires faith, that is, divine knowledge outside the boundaries of the empirical sciences, religious transhumanist groups believe that their religion is consistent with a scientific worldview. MTA expresses this point emphatically. Stemming from the traditional LDS cosmology in which “matter and spirit are not just similar eternally; they are ultimately two manifestations of the same reality or substance,” MTA borrows this monist metaphysics.33 This allows MTA to proclaim a physicalist worldview congruent with LDS. The fact that MTA members believe their doctrine is empirical (i.e., endorsing physicalism) is an extremely influential feature of the group because it allows members to maintain their prior beliefs about science and empiricism in conjunction with their religious beliefs. I argue that this metaphysical view plays a significant role in the persistence of MTA. This point highlights a gap in Stark’s model, particularly because Stark argues that religions with non-empirical doctrines positively contribute to the persistence of new religious movements. Ultimately, MTA and the religious transhumanists of the future will understand the empirical sciences differently than those religions that emerged prior to the digital revolution. These groups will use technology and empirical data to justify their doctrines in ways that will be highly sophisticated and scientifically technical, and therefore go beyond using a text (i.e., the Bible) to interpret the world. Are these religions compatible with the empirical sciences or are they merely positing ‘science’ as a means to authenticate their theology? This remains an open question, but Bigliardi nicely articulates this nuance by stating, “NRMs will tend to affirm science, although, as we have already observed, not necessarily in a way that would be universally subscribed to by scientists”.34

5.1.3. Promise Something Only Achieved by the Intersection of Religion and Technology

Religions have traditionally appealed to their members by promising something desirable, such as an afterlife achievable within the religious system. This commitment to an afterlife is foundational and serves as a major attraction for adherents. What are religious transhumanists going to promise their members that individuals cannot merely achieve from utilizing technology or subscribing to the orthodoxy of traditional faith groups? Any answer to this question at this time would be highly speculative. Therefore, I will restrict my commentary to how MTA (and religious transhumanists broadly) reinterpret the relationship between technology and religion, thereby showing the importance of this intersection to the group’s overall success. Ultimately, the promise of an afterlife is more nuanced for religious transhumanists.

Throughout history, religions have predominately engaged with technology to enhance the human condition. The MTA, and religious transhumanism, are integrating technologies into their religion, thus redefining what it means to be a religion. The utilization of technology to advance the human condition is being used in a drastically different sense than traditional religious establishments. For example, Mormon transhumanists are using technology in the cosmological sense. They leave open the possibility that our world is ruled by a God who is an advanced programmer, a concept which, they contend, is consistent with the plan of salvation in traditional LDS doctrine. Ultimately, some Mormon transhumanists think technology is an efficient means for carrying out the aim of perfecting oneself to become “exalted” and live in the Celestial Kingdom, with the difference between LDS and MTA being that the latter think humans have a more active role to play concerning eschatology. Specifically, Mormon transhumanists believe they can use technology to become more advanced or perfect beings, thereby taking a more active role in realizing their afterlife destination.

Ultimately, religions have used technology as a means to some further end. For the MTA, the desired afterlife is only accessible via technology—in contrast to faith or one’s individual actions—so members of MTA must take steps to develop, encourage, and implement advanced technology to bring about the desired end. The future of religious transhumanist groups must promise something that cannot be achieved by religion or technology alone, and thereby, the focus is on the intersection of these domains. What this “promise” is, though, we can only speculate at this time.

5.1.4. Converting Members from an Established Likeminded Group—Thus, It Is an Outlet for Those Who Are Unfulfilled or Unsatisfied with the Conventional Norms of the Dominant Faith

Religiosity remains prevalent worldwide, necessitating successful groups to attract converts from established religions by appealing to individuals dissatisfied with their current religious institutions. As already shown, MTA provides new meaning to concepts that are commonplace in the scholar of religion’s conceptual toolkit. Alternative interpretations of the human condition, cosmology, and eschatology present new and exciting ways for potential members to bring meaning to one’s life that is consistent with a scientific worldview.

Additionally, MTA has been an outlet for LDS members who are unfulfilled by the Church’s fundamental positions concerning gender, patriarchy, taking ownership of past harms, and overall outdated religious beliefs. Religious transhumanist groups that apply probabilistic reasoning to their religious beliefs (i.e., adopting Fallibilism) will cause the group to become amenable to challenges that they will inevitably face as new scientific discoveries cast doubt on previously held views. Furthermore, highly advanced technologies often cause a shift or completely change human and societal values.35 For religious transhumanist groups to survive in a changing religious economy, it may be in their best interests to allow for updating their universal claims.36

Related to this, Stark notes the importance of having motivated members who are willing to volunteer and proselytize for the religion.37 This criterion is an important aspect of a religion’s ability to grow its membership. The newness of religious transhumanism means that membership is low in the MTA, though this may be a result of recruitment not being a point of emphasis. However, MTA seems to attract members from LDS by appealing to those who are unsatisfied with mainstream rituals and the Church’s inability to take responsibility for some of its historically controversial events.38

MTA began as a virtual, online platform. In fact, transhumanists have found a home on Internet forums, causing methodological issues for researchers. For instance, recent technology has allowed virtual social platforms to reach a global audience in a mere instant. As a result, the intensity of religious proselytizing may be less important than the mode of the proselytizing. This is distinct from some of the successful emergent religions of the past couple of centuries (especially those mentioned in Section 4 above). Reorienting Stark’s criterion to appreciate the above distinction will help us understand the future of emerging religious transhumanist groups. Within Stark’s model, the religious economy referred to was pre-Internet. The Internet, especially social media, has drastically altered the religious economy, and failing to account for this change has produced a criterion that is underdetermined. So, since religious transhumanist groups are tech-savvy and affirm transhumanist ideals concerning technology, a model of religious transhumanism is likely to be different from historically influential models of new religious movements.

These four conditions constitute a model that is provisional, meaning that the categories presented are corrigible, reasonably speculative, and open to revision. Internal operations of religions have drastically changed in the 21st century. The Internet, social media, and globalization have extended our notions of religious community, rituals, relationships, etc. We need a model of religious transhumanism that represents the uniqueness of Internet-based groups and draws out the important ways these groups are creating virtual sacred spaces, engaging with virtual avatars, and conducting religious activities between people from across the globe. Ultimately, this should come as good news for the scholars of NRMs because it is an opportunity to (1) apply traditional theories to new cases (i.e., religious transhumanism), which—as I have shown—reveal the limitations of these theories, and (2) extend our theories and concepts to account for religious transhumanist groups. If Moore’s law is correct and technology continues to grow exponentially and religious transhumanists continue to align their beliefs and practices with emerging science and technology, then the theories that we develop in the academic study of religion best be quick if we aim to truly understand these fascinating and influential groups we label “religious transhumanists”.

6. Objections and Limitations

I was explicit in acknowledging that the model I have attempted to develop is speculative. Given this, there are objections that can be raised, and this kind of inquiry has limitations. I will reveal some of these issues here.

First, my use and critique of Rodney Stark’s model is a strawman. Additionally, Stark’s model is only applicable in a post hoc analysis and given the relative newness of religious transhumanist groups (particularly the MTA), it is too early to know whether MTA will be a success according to his model.

The motivation for using Stark’s model in this paper is to reveal my own personal sentiment. Namely, Stark’s model has helped me extract, explain, and evaluate pre-digital revolution new religious movements. Hence, Stark’s model has been a great asset to me. However, when applied to religious transhumanist groups emerging from the post-digital revolution, the model does not have the same analytical appeal. This should not be conceived as a critique of Stark’s work. The appropriate inference to make is that religious transhumanist groups are unique compared to religions that emerged prior to the 21st century. Additionally, this is not to claim that Stark’s model does not have merit when applied to religious transhumanism because it clearly does track certain aspects of religious transhumanism. Stark’s model, as is the case with other models attempting to explain why religions persist, is going to have a series of propositions that can be worked through which will reveal the validity of the model. Stark frequently makes hypotheses about the start of new religious movements in different historical contexts that he thinks are generalizable. This is a fruitful strategy, but my claim is that recent technological advancement has fundamentally changed our environment, thereby making our historical context fundamentally different. I suspect that Stark would not have any qualms with this inquiry given that he wants scholars to act more like hard scientists in religious inquiry.

Also, regarding Stark’s model, it could be the case that 100 years from now, scholars of religion will see the MTA as a successful religion, and Stark’s model will be fruitful in explaining why. Namely, a reasonable critique of this paper is to claim that we cannot know whether Stark’s model is inadequate in explaining the MTA and similar groups; determining whether Stark’s model is applicable is premature at this time. There is no way around this objection. However, I hope to have gone some way in explaining why this objection does not seem to be a problem given the uniqueness of religious transhumanist groups.

A limitation of this paper is the model I am proposing. Specifically, an objection could be as follows: your model only purports to explain certain aspects of MTA and fails to mention other religious transhumanist groups and other aspects appear to be important to include in a model. This is a good objection and clearly demonstrates a limitation in my analysis. However, I have developed a few conditions that appear to be necessary, but not sufficient, for explaining the persistence of religious transhumanist groups. Additionally, an indirect goal of this analysis was to show the avenues where interdisciplinary work is required. To understand religious transhumanist groups like the MTA, we need insights from various fields. Scholars of religion, particularly those specializing in NRMs and digital religion studies, as well as philosophers with expertise in the philosophy of technology and bioethics, are essential. A multidisciplinary approach is necessary to grasp the nuanced complexities of these groups, as no single discipline can provide all the answers.

7. Conclusions

Why study religious transhumanist groups? This demographic is sparse, and these groups appear to have an unsubstantial influence on the wider community because of minimal membership. There is a parallel here with Benjamin Zeller’s work on UFO cults. Zeller asks why someone would study a UFO cult whose members eventually departed their physical bodies, causing the end of the religion. Despite the inherent value of researching a fascinating group of people and telling their stories, the members of Heaven’s Gate represented a large part of the cultural milieu of the 1960s–1970s. Thus, according to Zeller, in addition to learning about Heaven’s Gate, studying a specific UFO cult can also inform our understanding of the broader American culture of the time. Does religious transhumanism represent a large part of the cultural milieu of the 21st century? I suspect it does. Researching religious transhumanist groups has the potential to inform our understanding of our current ethos and help scholarly analysis of individual and collective constructions of meaning in our highly digital and social media-obsessed world.

Ultimately, the study of religious transhumanism presents a fertile and compelling domain of academic investigation that warrants the attention of scholars in the field of religious studies. This paper demonstrates that scholars specializing in NRMs possess the necessary tools to engage in the development of a model for religious transhumanism. Such a model would facilitate the assessment of the viability and potential outcomes of existing and future religious transhumanist movements.