Transhumanism, which began to be voiced strongly toward the end of the 20th century and has been increasingly emphasized, particularly in the past two decades through various studies and research on its many dimensions, needs to be addressed within the framework of religion or religions due to its religiously tinged goals and aims concerning humanity. Transhumanism attempts to take the place of religion in the realm where religion defines the human being, by producing new definitions for humanity, drawing new future projections, and even claiming to “create” a “new human species” beyond the current one under terms like “trans-human” and “post-human.” It cannot be denied that what allows transhumanism to “dare” to position itself as a substitute for religion is the existence of a theological foundation that, from the transhumanist perspective, is remarkably strong and coherent. Although this theological ground is primarily rooted in Christianity, other religions, such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Taoism, are also examined and considered concerning transhumanism’s foundational concepts.
Within this framework, the interaction between transhumanism and religion both opens the discussion on the presence of religion within transhumanism and raises the issue of transhumanism’s foundations within religion itself. While the vast majority of transhumanists claim not to adhere to any religion, often identifying as atheists, deists, or agnostics, transhumanism nonetheless contains powerful religious motivations. Primarily, its statements concerning God, humanity, the universe, and the world to come (or the Hereafter) place it within the sphere of religious discourse. For instance, by promising to grant humanity immortality in this world, without tasting death, transhumanism enters the domain of religion, which asserts that such a promise can only be fulfilled after death and through divine intervention. In this way, transhumanism implicitly challenges both religion and God. Thus, like its predecessor, humanism, transhumanism engages with the realm of religion through its ideas on God, humanity, and the cosmos. At the same time, however, it positions itself in opposition to God and religion, seeking to deify itself by rejecting both. The question, “How can the rejection of religion and God turn something into a religion?” is, of course, a significant one. Essentially, transhumanism’s rejection of religion and God is not a mere act of denial. If religion is, in its simplest definition, “an effort to give life meaning,” and if its primary function is to provide meaning for the human experience, then transhumanism, by voicing a similar promise or claim, can also be said to fulfill that role. Therefore, in attempting to replace the void of meaning created by the denial of religion and God with a “new meaning,” transhumanism ends up assuming a religious character.
A significant portion of the religious undertones present in transhumanism can be found in its goals concerning the future of the world. Nearly every religion includes some vision of the end times—referred to by various names such as “the end/last times,” “Judgment Day,” “the Kingdom of God,” “the Day of the Messiah,” or “the Golden Age,” which correspond, in essence, to the peak of human and cosmic perfection. A similar eschatological conception exists within transhumanism as well. Within this framework, the concept of “singularity,” though initially associated with technology, takes on a distinct meaning and content within transhumanist thought, transforming into a crucial conceptualization that allows transhumanism to be placed within an eschatological context. Singularity, in essence, is an eschatological vision that enables transhumanism to be evaluated on a religious plane and even justifies its classification as a “religion”. The eschatological dimension of singularity serves as a powerful driving force within transhumanism, shaping individual goals, social concerns, and ethical considerations (Stephen Robert Garner, Transhumanism and The Imago Dei: Narratives of Apprehension and Hope, The University of Auckland, PhD Thesis, 2006, p. 226.). The goal of cybernetic immortality, present in transhumanism, turns it into a structure that possesses a soteriological yet secular form of eschatology (Mikael Leidenhag, “Saved Through Technology: Exploring the Soteriology and Eschatology of Transhumanism,” Religion Compass, Vol. 14, Issue 11, 2020, p. 7.).
The transhumanist concept of the singularity draws much of its inspiration from the eschatological visions of traditional world religions, especially Christianity. When the language used by both the Christian tradition and transhumanism is examined in terms of overcoming suffering and envisioning a transformed world, striking parallels are often found. Both visions strive to offer hope for life in this world, and in both, technology holds a valuable place as part of that vision (Garner 2006: 244–245).
The transhumanist concept of singularity, in fact, closely resembles the Messianic expectation of the end times, which is shared across many religions, sects, and spiritual orders. In traditional religious beliefs, the idea of a Messiah or Mahdi, who promises to improve the future of humanity and the world, is centered around a savior figure who will lead humanity into a better age. Similarly, transhumanism presents a set of goals or promises that claim to deliver humanity to a state of salvation, much like these religious traditions. Because of these parallels, transhumanism increasingly appears to necessitate being considered a technoeschatological movement with religious content. Furthermore, some have argued that transhumanism could even be regarded as a religion in its own right, given its assertions about the ultimate purpose of the world and human nature, and its functional resemblance to religious traditions. Like those traditions, it promises a more perfected phase of existence and fosters a sense of belonging through a community united by that shared goal (Leidenhag 2020: 7).
Given the reality that religion holds intrinsic and spiritual value for its followers—and indeed produces such value for human beings—it becomes a matter of debate whether transhumanism, in this very first quarter of the 21st century, has generated or will be able to generate meaning and value for humanity. In today’s “new techno-digital world order,” where artificial intelligence-based technologies are now employed across nearly every sector; where digital, mechanical, and robotic machines and devices are being developed to ease human life and extend its capacities; and where the elements that constitute human beings (such as soul/mind and body) are being treated as independent and redefined as the sole criteria of human existence—there is growing curiosity about what inner or spiritual value transhumanism might offer to qualify as a religion.
Given its perspectives on God, the universe, and humanity, perspectives that bear the characteristics of theological norms, it is to be expected that transhumanism might offer standards of meaning and value for human life concerning these very matters. In fact, one of the features that could elevate it from being merely a philosophical thought or ideology to being considered a religion is whether or not it possesses such frameworks of meaning and value. Transhumanists claim that traditional religions have become outdated in constructing meaning and are no longer sufficient for people today. They argue that more scientific and technologically grounded narratives are now necessary ( John G. Messerly, “The End of Religion: Technology and the Future,” December 21, 2015. Accessed November 1, 2021. https://archive. ieet.org/articles/messerly20151221. html). In an effort to make this claim more coherent from its own perspective, transhumanism confers religious significance upon technology, while simultaneously secularizing traditional religious themes, concerns, and aims (Hava Tirosh-Samuelson, “Transhumanism as a Secularist Faith,” Zygon®, 2012. Accessed November 1, 2021. https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ abs/10.1111/j.1467-9744.2012.01288.x, p. 710).
Considering that one of the defining elements of religion is the presence of a “community of believers and devotees,” it appears unlikely that transhumanism will be able to gather around itself a mass of committed followers based solely on its claims about meaning and value. The key promises transhumanism offers to humanity, such as “freedom from disease,” “longevity,” and “immortality,” while potentially compelling at first glance, are also offered by traditional world religions, albeit through different means, methods, contexts, and content. However, while traditional religions attribute the realization of these promises primarily to God, the Creator, transhumanism assigns all authority, power, and responsibility to the human being. In traditional faiths, God plays an active, intervening role in granting these gifts, whereas in transhumanism, the human is depicted as the agent of these outcomes, endowed with genuine creative capacity. Here, the human is not merely created, but is positioned as a creator, responsible for achieving these goals through their own knowledge and capabilities. In traditional religions, God is always the “Creator”, and the human is the “created”, dependent and in need of value. God is also the source and producer of intrinsic and spiritual value. In contrast, transhumanism shifts the role of the human from one who is “in need of value” to one who “produces or creates value”. This raises a critical question: If, in transhumanism, the human becomes the sole source of value, then for whom is this value being created? This very question underlies the earlier claim that transhumanism is unlikely to form a true community of believers. By removing the human from the category of the created and redefining them as a quasi-creator, transhumanism essentially distances itself from the religious foundation and renders the classification of itself as a “religion” nearly impossible. Therefore, although transhumanism contains within itself a religious framework and content, the role it assigns to the human being, who is the principal subject of religion, renders its claim to be a religion inherently void.
