 I'd like to thank the MTA for inviting a universalist Buddhist transhumanist to share his thoughts at your Mormon transhumanist conference. On the 8th of July, 1741, the pastor John Edwards preached a sermon. The sermon was titled, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, and it sparked a fire that would burn for generations, a fire that we call today the Great Awakening. The sermon was subtitled, Mr. Edwards' Sermon on the Danger of the Unconverted. In his sermon, Edwards tells us that there is nothing that keeps the wicked man at any moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God, his arbitrary will. Arbitrary. His word, not mine. Edwards then goes on to describe the intense anguish of hell in terms of a fiery oven or furnace of fire and brimstone. Edwards tells us that God hates us and holds us in the utmost contempt. He says that you are 10,000 times so abominable in his eyes as the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. He claims that God will torture us for all eternity, and not only will he not pity us, but he will, quote, only laugh and mock at our suffering. This state of affairs, Edwards assures us, will continue for all eternity. It will be dreadful to suffer the fierceness and wrath of an almighty God for one moment, he says, but you must suffer it to all eternity. You must wear out long ages, millions and millions of ages in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty, merciless vengeance. And then when you have done so, you will now know that it is but a point to all that remains. Your suffering is eternal and infinite. Edwards says that the angels of heaven will look upon this scene and they will be so moved by its wonderfulness that they will fall down and adore the great power and majesty of God. Frankly, I think that I might be more moved to vomit. Edwards believed that the vast majority of the human family were expressly created just so that God could burn them in eternity. He believed that there were few saved and that the bigger part of men that have died here to for are gone to hell. Edwards explicitly claimed that this fate awaited our unconverted children as well. For Edwards, it is a belief in a specific Hebrew myth about a man who died for our sins and then came back to life that makes all the difference. Reject their hystericity of this myth and suffer, suffer for all eternity. Accept it as a historical reality and we can escape this fate. In fact, we are assured that rejecting this myth is in and of itself a form of wickedness. Edwards somewhat ironically concluded his sermon with the plea that, quote, everyone that is out of Christ now awake, awake and fly from the wrath to come, awake. And that is his call. The result of this sermon is now dubbed the Great Awakening. And yet, far from waking from anything, the best analogy I can imagine for someone being converted to this theology was coined by the Reverend Robinson, who described it as, quote, falling asleep in a perpetual waking nightmare. I do not believe the utter horror of this worldview can be overstated. Harriet Beecher recalled her mother's response to her father's reading of Edwards' sermon, thus, quote, Mr. Beecher, I will not listen to another word. Why? It is horrible. There's a slander on the character of my Heavenly Father and I will not listen to it. Most of you know that I am a utilitarian. Historically, in fact, that point has been mocked in this conference before. Historically, the first real example we have of utility theory was by this man, Pascal, who came up with what is now known as Pascal's wager. Pascal admits that we cannot in this life know the truth about God for certain. Therefore, we must wager or gamble. There are the payoffs in the gamble. In his mind, we must choose between one of two options. We can either wager for God or we can wager against God. In Pascal's wager, to wager for God is to accept the historicity of the Jesus narrative, in other words, to have faith. While a wager against God is to not believe, and in each case there are two possible results. Either God is real or he is a fantasy. If we wager for God and God exists, we go to heaven, an infinite eternal reward. If we wager against God but he exists, Pascal assumes with Edwards that the result will be an eternity of burning in hell, an infinite negative payoff. According to Pascal, if God does not exist but we wager for him, we might have some finite but negative reward through giving some up some earthly pleasures that we might have otherwise enjoyed. On the other hand, if we wager against God and God does not exist, we might find some small pleasures that we can now safely indulge ourselves in, some sins that we can get away with, you see, which is positive reward somehow. Pascal's central observation is simply that no matter what the probabilities are that we assign to the existence of God, the optimal strategy is still to wager for God, just in case. It is worth any temporary inconvenience to avoid even the slightest chance of ending up in Edwards burning eternal hell. There have been many accurate criticisms of this wager over the years, but perhaps the most salient is, which wager for God should I then take? The Quran describes a similar eternal heaven and hell, should we then be a Muslim? Or should we believe in the Bahad v'gita? Or the sutras of the Buddha? Or should I be a Jew? Or should we worship Isis and believe in the Egyptian Book of the Dead? And if we're going to be a Christian, what type of a Christian should we be, a Catholic? Or how about a Greek Orthodox? Or a Methodist? Or a Lutheran perhaps? Or Pentecostal? Or Mormon? Or Jehovah's Witness? The atheists argue that their gamble seems just as good as any other when the full range of choices are considered. If there is a true religion out there that we must believe in to avoid hell, then how should we find it? Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, grew up in the aftermath of Edward's great awakening. In fact, he lived in what has come to be known as the burned-over district because of the many revivals that took place there over the years and because of the propensity for those sermons to be filled with talk of fire, hell, and damnation. Joseph describes quite powerfully the emotional distress this environment created for him and for his family. Joseph recalled that the awakening created no small stir and division among the people. Joseph's own anxiety was quite acute. He recalled, my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness. So great were the confusion and strife among the different denominations. Who was right and who was wrong? What is to be done? Who of all these parties is right or if they are all wrong altogether? And if any one of them is right, which is it and how shall I know? Joseph is illustrating exactly what I mean by religious anxiety. He has been taught that there is some singular truth out there and that he has to be taught and he's been taught that escaping that eternal torments of hell depends on his finding it. Remember, both Edwards and Pascal thought that salvation from an eternal burning hell depended upon belief in just the right myths together with rejection of all the other false myths. No wonder Joseph's young mind was deeply concerned. Joseph tried many approaches to determine who was right. He studied their teachings. He attended their meetings. He read the Bible. Another cause of the Bible was not much help to him, of course, because, quote, the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible. In the end, Joseph concluded that he needed to ask God directly. What followed was, according to Joseph's own account, an extraordinary vision of God where Joseph's belief that there was a single truth to be found was ultimately confirmed for Joseph was told that, quote, we must, he must join none of the other churches for they are all wrong, all together, and their creeds are an abomination in God's sight, and all those professors, they're all corrupt. Later Joseph would found his own church and receive a revelation claiming that this new church was, quote, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth. Close, quote. And thus came the formation of a new truth that all must accept and upon which our eternal exaltation, if not our salvation, could now be hung. For certain Joseph's theology was kinder than that of Edwards. But I was keenly aware of the fact that if Edwards was correct, then avoiding eternal torment depended on my leaving the LDS church and joining an evangelical biblical church. But if Mormonism was true, then my eternal salvation depended on tying my life to the covenants of the priesthood of the house of God found only in the LDS church and nowhere else. So how should I actually play my Pascalean gamble for God? And how should I decide? It seemed to me that no other potential question was as important as this one was If I devoted my entire life to this one question alone, it felt like it would have been a life well spent. My father was a scientist. My mother, a returned missionary for the LDS church. So I was actively encouraged at home to seek learning by study and also by faith. Therefore I read everything I could find, the claim to provide evidence for what was religiously true. Growing up Mormon, Mormon apologetics were naturally my bread and butter, and yet doubts simply refused to go away. At BYU I took classes on biblical Hebrew, Middle Egyptian, New Testament Greek, Syriac, well anything that I could find, but study brought no clarity. The more I studied, the more options I found, not less. And the more unsure everything became. He nimbly described this situation perfectly when he wrote, quote, what is to be done, what is one to do, when there are as many interpretations of the scriptures as there are readers? If the Bible contained its own interpretation, the best and wisest of its readers would surely agree on its teachings. And yet those who study it hardest disagreed most widely about it. I have learned for myself the truth of this statement. The situation sounds, of course, much like the one described by Joseph. And when we realize that the Bible is just one of the many mutually exclusive religious texts that we could potentially trust and follow, the result might easily be complete and utter despair. Again, religious anxiety. But surely God would not save the best Bible scholar, but would provide a path for the humble seeker of truth, yes? I could do as Joseph did. I could ask God. And so my quest of study was coupled with a quest of fasting, prayer, and of hopeful faith. At times my prayers were answered by a profound silence. Like St. Augustine, I beg Lord, here are my ears. Speak to me. At other times I received what I thought were answers. I could feel the spirit at this meeting or that. And I convinced myself that this was God's answer to my prayers, and that now I knew that Mormonism was true. However, it soon became clear that these answers were untrustworthy. At times these feelings testified of truths that I later learned were false. At other times, they were simply self-contradictory. I also found quite early that I could feel the same or stronger spiritual promptings at one worship service from one church as I could at another. There was no extraordinary or special outpouring of the spirit at the LDS Church that I could not feel at the Catholic Church. Did these feelings mean that the Catholic Church was true when I felt them in the Catholic context? Ultimately, and reluctantly, I concluded that if there was a God, then God was simply unwilling to answer my question about which religious gamble I should take. But why? Why was God so uninterested in answering this particular question for me? Was it conceivable that God simply did not care what religious denomination I belonged to? Buddhist scripture tells a story of another people who lived in their own burned-over district. Many itinerant preachers passed through their town, each espousing their own dogma, as the only true teaching on earth, and claimed that the teachings of all the others were wrong, corrupt, and abominable. The Kalamas, excuse me, said, quote, they leave us absolutely uncertain and in doubt. Which of these teachers are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying? Of course, their question was my question and Joseph's question. The Buddha was just one more teacher, and they wanted to know why they should believe his teachings any more than those of any that came before. The Buddha's answer to this question is instructive. He taught them that they should not believe something just because it is tradition, nor should they believe something just because they are found at written in the sacred text like the Bible, Book of Mormon, or the Quran. But he said that they should also not believe just because it sounded like it had good logic behind it, or because it sounded good to us. Rather, we should believe something because we have tested it and shown that it works in our lives. To make our lives and the lives of those around us better. Furthermore, because there is no time to make all the mistakes in life, we have to share our own experiences and learn from the experiences of others. We should surround ourselves then with wise people, he says, who can share with us what they have found to work in their lives. Thus, there is a combination of both internal and external tests that we should apply when deciding what to believe. Tests drawn from our own direct experience tempered with heed to the experience of others. This test, of course, does not determine the historicity of certain myths. It doesn't tell us if a man sailed to America in 600 BC, and it doesn't tell us if Jesus rose from the dead. But it does tell us for certain that certain behaviors lead to happiness or misery in this life. But then the Buddha makes what I believe is the most profound of observations. He says, quote, if there is a world after death, if there is a fruit of actions rightly and wrongly done, then this is the basis by which, with the breakup of the body after death, I will reappear in a good destination, the heavenly world. That is the first assurance that a man who follows the Dharma or teachings acquires. But if there is no world after death, if there is no fruit of actions rightly and wrongly done, then here in the present life I look upon myself with ease, free from hostility, free from ill will, free from trouble. This is the second assurance a man who follows the teachings acquires. We could call this the Buddha's wager. And it differs from Pascal's wager in several truly important ways. First, the wager for God is something we believe. And it is replaced by living the Dharma, something we do. Next, notice that unlike Pascal, the Buddha assumes that there is no advantage in breaking the Dharma in this life. Even if there was no rebirth or karma in the next. According to the Buddha's wager, the actions that bring rewards in the next life are the exact same actions that bring rewards in this life. And it is this congruence of rewards that leads to what the Buddha calls assurance. And notice, there is no eternal punishment or reward for whether or not we believe in the historicity of any given myth or join any given religious sect. In fact, whether or not we believe in God is utterly irrelevant. The entire formulation flies directly in the face of biblical verses like Hebrews 11.6, quote, but without faith, it is impossible to please him. For he that cometh unto God must believe that he is and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek them. No, no, no. According to the Buddha, God, the universe, karma, or whatever you want to call it, does not care when wit whether we believe in him or not. And perhaps that's why he chooses not to tell us. All that matters is how we act. And acting to make this world better is also to act to make the next life, if there is one, better too. This world view requires something that Edwards does not. It requires that we actually think that God, if there is a God, is a decent moral being. For it truly would be immoral for God to refuse to tell us what to believe with sufficient evidence that we would believe it and then burn us forever because we did not believe just the right things. Here's the Buddha's wager compared to Pascal's wager. And my slides have decided to die. OK, it's all right. I don't need my slides. In conclusion, religion is a form of social technology. And it evolves over time. Religion forms mental health, encourages group cooperation, promotes given aesthetic, and it promotes a strenuous mood. And yes, it even organizes, systematizes, believe the future of humanity if humanity is to have a future is unlikely to be one holy without any form of religion. But what if we are to survive and flourish? What will that future religion of humanity look like? I propose that such religion will involve some of these four elements first. I propose that the religion of the future must espouse good epistemology. It will adapt to new evidence. It will recognize the beauty and wisdom of early traditions, for sure, and draw upon the best ideas from each of them. But it will also maintain the freedom to recognize errors in those traditions. And it will not dogmatically hold any given idea just because it is found written in any book. Thus, it will be a religion that approaches the search for truth in a similar way to the one suggested by the Buddha when speaking to the Kalamas. Second, I believe that religion will reject the idea that faith in any given historical myth or legend, whether they actually are true or not, belief in them is unnecessary for either salvation or for exaltation, including that includes belief in faith in Christ and his sacrifice. I believe that it will also reject any notion of any single one true church that all must believe in, accept, and join in order to either be saved or exalted. If there is such a true church, it is God's job to show us with enough evidence that it will convince the average standard seeker for truth, the average standard honest seeker for truth. It is his job to tell us not ours as long as we accept the fact that he is moral being. Third, I propose that the religion of the future will need to reject all ideas of an unethical or of an unloving God. Faith in the existence of a God may not be needed for salvation, but if there is a God, we can have faith, I believe, that this God is ethical, moral, and good. Lincoln Cannon has made many reasonably good arguments for why this would be so. I did as well in a talk two years ago at this conference when I argued that there is a possibility for the existence of God based on the ideas of evolution. However, that existence is based upon a belief that complexity evolves through cooperation, specialization, and trade. Therefore, love, compassion, and cooperation. This last point of the belief in the ethical and moral and loving nature of God is essential, I believe, for religion to build a sort of mental health that will make it a truly beneficial thing for its users, since we are certain to worship our God at least by emulation. To emulate Edward's God is to be evil ourselves. To emulate this God is to become a better being through our emulation. Finally, I believe that this belief in a good God would also necessitate the belief in the eventual salvation and exaltation of the entire human family. In short, I believe this religion of the future will be universalist. As in the Bodhisattva vow, I vow, beings are infinite. I vow to save them all. Yes, eventually to save them all. I frankly admit that I do not know if there is a God or an afterlife or not. I believe it is possible, and I've argued here for why that may be so, but I do not know. But I'm no longer in any fear that this admission will cause me to burn in any eternal fire forever. Similarly, I do not know if Jesus died for my sins, but I'm not afraid that my lack of faith in Jesus will result in any loss of exaltation, salvation, or any other blessings, including my family and my family connections, now or in the eternities, because for the first time, I actually trust in the true goodness of a loving God. And the result is finally an end to religious anxiety, and the result is finally peace. Therefore, I invite all to join me. Thank you.