 Dorothy is a Methodist who came to God late in life and her study of the historical Jesus is what led to an awakening experience that initiated her spiritual journey. And she is currently in the process of getting her Masters of Applied Theology from Merrill Hurst University. Dorothy, thank you. It's an honor to be here today. I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. I am a Methodist, but I must stress at the outset that my views do not reflect the views of the Methodist denomination. A key question for us here today is what does spirituality mean? Is an electronically or pharmacologically induced religious experience the same as spirituality? Both may give us a sense of euphoria. Both may allow us to step outside our own egos, to observe our own neurotic behaviors. Both may trigger feelings of unity. So what's the difference? A drug wears off. Spirituality is incorporating insight from peak experiences into our everyday lives. Spiritual engagement is ongoing, allowing access to that part of us that is more fundamental than the I, that which creates the we. It teaches that our lives are interconnected with the lives of others. It reshapes our being so that we strive not simply to repeat the peak experience, but to live up to and into those images of ourselves and others. It is not simply a feeling, but a call to action and interaction. Spirituality is the growing realization that we are connected to all of humanity and that to do harm to others is to do harm to ourselves. The uniting role of spirituality is borne out by science. Neuroscience, with the discovery of mirror neurons and other processes, is beginning to support the idea that empathy is a part of our evolutionary development. We are actually softwired for sociability, attachment, affection, companionship, and the first drive is to actually belong. Through brain research, we're able to see the biological processes underlying our experiences of transcendence and our connections with others. According to the Neuro Revolution, how brain science is changing our world. In studies done by Dr. Newberg, with people having mystical experiences, the conclusion is, it wasn't an either or situation, but rather two different and non-conflicting ways of describing the same experience. Western culture, rooted in dualism, poses false choices between belief systems, such as religion versus science, free market versus justice, and mysticism versus biochemical reaction. We are biological beings, and as such, we experience everything, even our most profound of experiences through our bodies. Because we understand how the machinery works, does not negate the importance of what that experience means. It is becoming clear as we move further into the 21st century that humanity has within reach the ability to alter the body human and to influence the trigger points of life itself. What is less clear is whether our ethical, moral, and spiritual development can keep pace with our technological prowess. While some religious sects still deny the validity of Darwin's great contribution, our scientific and medical communities are bringing about what transhumanists refer to as the next stage of evolution, but which is perhaps more accurately described as human 2.0. It is not so much evolution as industrialization applied to biology. As spiritual transhumanists, we must be very cautious of the symbols, images, and language we use. Referring to evolution and a new species may have an unintended consequence of positioning unenhanced human as inferior and outcast. In looking at evolution, Jeremy Rificense's empathy as a critical aspect of our human development. He notes that we went from blood ties to religious affiliation to nationalism. And currently emerging is the extension of empathy to the biosphere. What we are seeing are two paradigms happening concurrently. The natural evolution paradigm driving us towards one's biosphere that is radical cooperation and the transhuman evolution that without attention to spirituality and its emphasis on interdependence will take us someplace altogether different. Theologian Ted Peters addressing the question of whether or not transhumanism is playing God rights. We play human in the Amago Dei sense. That is, we should understand ourselves as created co-creators and press our scientific and technological creativity into the service of neighbor love of beneficence. Paul Tillich, a Christian existentialist theologian, used the term theonomous creativity to describe creativity in line with the law of God. It is not the technologies that represent the risk. It is how we develop and apply the technologies. I'd like to repeat that. It is not the technologies that represent the risk. It is how we develop and apply the technologies. Living a life of spirit provides comfort in times of crisis, solace in times of loss, gratitude in times of joy. Thanking God reminds us that there is always an element of luck or chance in our good fortune. Spirituality replaces meritocracy with grace. The spirituality debate and transhumanism is currently loudest among the puritanical faith groups on the one hand and the social Darwinism atheists on the other. Both are necessary voices. The puritanical opponents remind us that of the importance of the sanctity of life, but they risk going too far by trying to halt scientific exploration and innovation. It's foolish and it prolongs suffering. The atheists in the transhumanist movement remind us that the importance of critical thinking, the need to live a life without delusions and the power and beauty of the scientific method, but risk dismissing the need for doing the greatest good for the greatest number. That is why this association is so important. It is vital for spiritual transhumanists to have a voice, to be the third way between fundamentalism and creation without God. We are living in times when giving into either or thinking, either science or spirituality can have dangerous social consequences. One suggestion is to encourage faith communities to evolve their perceptions of God and to re-embrace the sacred. Here are just a few reasons why God remains relevant in a transhumanist movement. Andrew Newberg and colleagues and why God won't go away concludes religious beliefs and behaviors turn out to be good for us in profound and problematic ways. Second, it's in our own best interest. The debate about stem cell research, this debate that won't seem to go away, is about the value of life, it is about human dignity. So long as transhumanism is perceived as a threat to faith and to humanity itself, resistance will only grow and evolved spirituality will build a bridge to show transhumanism for what it has the potential to be, the human being, a theonymous co-creator. An evolved theology will help ensure the future we develop is in fact in line with the law of God. The theologian Gregory Peterson argues that while theology is literally talk about God, it is not unusual to speak of the task of theology more broadly as encompassing questions of ultimate concern. Theology asks questions not fully addressed in other disciplines. Why am I here? Where do I come from? Where am I going? Transhumanism poses many bioethical challenges following our three areas where transhumanism bumps up against human dignity and where spirituality would be a tempering force helping us to make the theonymous decisions. First is the advent of humanized animals. For years we have been using genetic engineering to design animals where specific genes have been either added or taken out producing what is called transgenic animals. Transgenic animals are patented and trademarked. Human non-human chimera are created by using a process to add human DNA. These include goats whose milk produces an anticoagulant and other animals whose organs can be used for transplant. These are truly blessings for those in need of the byproducts. Where the issue gets squishy is when we add human neurons to create neural chimera. To paraphrase Bonnetal, how many neurons does it take before the animal becomes self-aware? A second issue concerns the development of artificial intelligence. One question concerns moral agency. Wendell Wallach and moral machines makes the point that we want artificial intelligence to take into account the same values and laws that we expect humans to make when making decisions. Also whose intelligence does AI-AGI reflect? Does it mirror the diversity of personality types and cultural perspectives or does it exclude the values of large segments of the population? A third aspect is availability and access to enhancements. We must realize that as we move further and further into personalized medicine that many, if not most, people will not benefit from transhuman technologies. With the enhanced living side by side, the unenhanced, how do we ensure beneficence rather than indifference, compassion rather than exploitation? Each person and each denomination will need to examine what evolving theology means. For me it includes the following. A move away from religion while simultaneously re-embracing concepts of the sacred. Keeping the concept of mystery but losing the idea of supernatural. God may be larger than our scientific understanding but God is not in opposition to our scientific understanding. For me evolving our theology means putting the wisdom teachings forward and using the stories and personalities only as support. It also may mean breaking away from exclusivity and embracing the vast diversity of beliefs, actions, and places where the sacred is found. Evolving theology reintroduces a reliance on paradox. Morris Berman in Wandering God is studying nomadic spirituality, discusses paradoxes, being able to hold contradictory propositions or emotions simultaneously. It is the opposite of certainty. The role of spiritual guides is to replace dogma with questioning, to provoke seekers to examine their belief systems, and to ask larger questions. Part of evolving spirituality is paying attention to how we image God. God may be imagined within a model from concrete to conceptual. In such a model, God at the tangible concrete end is imagined as an entity, the creator. Humans today are in the role of creator of life with the ability to create new life forms and synthetic DNA. For non-theists, such an image of God sidelines spirituality, dismissing it altogether. If we move further down the continuum, we might imagine God as a force that which unifies the universe and connects humanity with the cosmos. Those who seek meaning from God may think of this as order and chaos, flow, or the rightness of the universe. From a human created standpoint, such a force may be perceived as the singularity, the joining together of human machine consciousness. As we move away from the concrete to the conceptual, God may be perceived as experience. The miracles in the New Testament may be read as exaggerated examples using story form of the ways in which God is expressed in our lives. God moments may be those times when our hearts or minds have been reshaped, transformed. God is that which creates a change of perception. Steven Spielberg showed this in the film, Schindler's List, when he showed Liam Neeson's change of heart by demonstrating one small child wearing a red coat in an otherwise black and white film. The world and circumstances remain the same, but there is a shift within us, within the way we perceive the world that forever alters our lens and changes the trajectory of our lives. It is this ephemeral, intangible experience that will challenge the AI world. We must not only create consciousness, but we must create consciousness that has the ability to experience paradigm shifts in perception as well as intellect. At the furthest end of the God continuum is the purely conceptual. At this end, God may be imagined as compassion, as agape, selfless love for the other, human dignity, or the interconnected web of life. The root of all faiths, what they all have in common, is the golden rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The need and purpose of God, the one that is enduring and will not become obsolete, is the one that embodies the concept of interconnectedness. Spirituality is needed to engage in a daily practice of checking our own hedonism and our own hubris in deference to something greater. It reminds us that our deficiencies are also gifts. Herbert Mohler, in his work The Uses of the Past, said, Our business as rational beings is not to argue for what is going to be, but to strive for what ought to be in the consciousness that it will never be all that we would like it to be. Transhumanism has not one predestined future, but multiple possible futures and multiple paradoxical futures. The question of whether or not God is relevant depends on which future we are heading towards, which future we are creating, and which future we are embracing. If transhumanism is a movement of the elite, for the elite, then the path is clear. The self-proclaimed super-species will be dominant. By blurring the lines at the bottom end between human and animal, as we are seeing now, transhumanists are in the midst of creating not H plus, but rather H minus. Once the line between human and animal is blurred and human and machine is created, then the morality for treating human sans enhancement becomes one of commodity and exploitation. It is technological empire creating a biological caste system. There is not only no need for God, there is no room for God. If, however, transhumanism is the transfiguration of humanity, a movement that seeks to eradicate suffering that gives equal attention to eliminating the plagues of the developing nations as it gives to cosmetic neurology, then it is in concert with divinity. If it believes the singularity is the tapping of all ingenuity, all knowledge, all gifts, including the Dalit of India, including the artist, including the unenhanced, then God is glorified. If transhumanism seeks to find a way augmented by AI, AGI, and the other tools to develop multiple interacting forms of economic systems, allowing most to thrive at some level above subsistence, then God is manifest. If transhumanism is truly human plus, so that the human potential that is currently laying fallow is uplifted and nurtured, then transhumanism is realizing the vision of the kingdom. God is relevant because God remains as God always was, the whole, the entirety, the unity of creation. So my role here today, among those who are my scholarly and academic superiors, is to ask, which transhumanism are we creating?