Introduction

On 17 October 2025, ISCAST published Humanity 2.0? Christian Perspectives on Transhumanism.^[1] Through eight chapters and about 140 pages, this discussion paper’s ten authors explore the nature, history, and possible outcomes of technological enhancements to human beings. Along the way, they document many of transhumanism’s technical, ethical, and theological challenges.

In his introduction to Humanity 2.0?, ISCAST Executive Director Chris Mulherin states, “Transhumanism raises important questions about human dignity, technological advancement, and the future of humanity. This ISCAST Discussion Paper encourages Christians, and others, to carefully consider these issues.”

Responding to this encouragement, this essay offers a brief review of Humanity 2.0? before offering an extended—though not comprehensive—critique of chapter 6, “Christian Transhumanism: History and Prospects.” This chapter argues that “transhumanism and Christianity are substantially compatible.”^[2] Against this, I show that “Christian transhumanism” minimises Scripture and the gospel of Jesus Christ. In its place, it promotes a reductionist parody of Christian salvation, achieved by human ingenuity, science, and technology. God’s plan to reconcile with sinners through Christ, as it is revealed in Scripture, is left behind.

Background

For over fifteen years, my research interest has been how Christianity relates to technology. In 2010, near the end of my government career, I began studies at Virginia Tech in Science and Technology in Society (STS). My attention was drawn to transhumanism. It seeks fundamental improvements in human life through technoscience, with many interesting connections to religion. Many leaders of the transhumanism movement are atheists, but others see it as a religious enterprise and even as a spiritual pursuit. From my Christian worldview, I studied the religious nature of transhumanism. My 2016 dissertation analysed the complex links between Christianity and transhumanism.^[3]

In 2015, a new Christian Transhumanist Association (CTA) was formed.^[4] I joined in hopes of Bible-based conversations about technology and its possible convergence in transhumanism. Unfortunately, its founders chose not to adopt a Christian statement of faith, a serious mistake. A fundamental question of sociology is, “What binds groups of people together?” Lacking an up-front unifying commitment to biblical Christianity, I could only see trouble ahead. Ignoring my warning, the CTA moved ahead without a firm Christian foundation; its only unifying commitment was transhumanism. So I dropped my membership.

Since then, my concerns about Christian transhumanism have only grown. After years of following the CTA and interacting with its leaders and members, I concluded that it is “a transhumanist advocacy organisation, and Christian in name only.”^[5] My blunt CTA assessment could be interpreted as an attempt to end discussion of Christian transhumanism, but that is not the case. Instead, I hope this article inspires others to consider transhumanism and other technological matters from a biblical perspective, seriously and at length.

Work to produce Humanity 2.0? began in spring 2022 when ISCAST sought volunteers to write a transhumanism green paper. I volunteered, and through that summer I exchanged messages with project coordinator Paul Sheehan. A notional list of chapters emerged, and author assignments followed. At my suggestion, CTA Vice President Jonathan Gunnell was assigned to write about Christian transhumanism. In turn, I was to write a Christian critique of it.

Agreement on goals is important for any project’s success, so I asked questions about the project purpose. Specifically, I wondered if the green paper would seek a consensus view of transhumanism, or would it present differing views, perhaps a collection of essays, letting readers judge the results? Reaching a consensus would, I knew, be difficult. However, before the end of 2022, I left the project for the rest of the team to complete. So, now that Humanity 2.0? is done, what are my thoughts on the final product?

Discussion Paper Review

Chapters 1–5 of Humanity 2.0? describe how futuristic science and technology could transform human life. Summarising ongoing discussions of transhumanism, they lay a solid, yet concise, foundation for the following analytic chapters. There are enough details that readers may recognise transhumanist themes in science fiction and movie plots, as well as some (dis)connections with Christian thought.

In chapter 6, Jonathan Gunnell introduces “Christian Transhumanism: History and Prospects.” As vice president of the CTA, he is well placed to describe its work in contrast to secular forms of transhumanism. My in-depth critique follows.

Chapter 7, “What Does It Mean to Be Human? A Christian Perspective on Technology,” expands the inquiry. Beyond transhumanism, it looks for the place of technology in human life and society. From the title onward, its authors ask questions: “[I]s there such a thing as ‘human nature’?” and “If so, how malleable is it, and how malleable should it be?” All these questions are important, but they are far too important to be answered in a seven-page chapter. With no firm answers, chapter 7 offers ways Christians can wrestle with human nature and technology. Unfortunately, the chapter is misplaced. It would have been better if its critical questions had been asked earlier in the discussion.

Finally, in chapter 8 Paul Sheehan addresses “Secular Transhumanism,” concluding:

From the perspective of the Christian tradition, the transhumanist desire to transcend existing biological limitations using technology is a rejection of the giftedness inherent in both the world and human nature. On this basis secular transhumanism would seem to be essentially consistent with an atheistic, existentialist mindset and a secular humanist and materialistic philosophy that has its origins in the Enlightenment understanding of nature and the human person as nothing more than raw material open to manipulation.

I agree with Sheehan’s critical conclusion. My only concern is that it is not critical enough. Secular transhumanism rejects traditional forms of theism. It rejects Christianity. It rejects the creation of human beings “in the image of God.” In the process, it subverts human dignity. To transhumanists, these foundational concepts of society are only “useful fictions.”^[6] Indeed, transhumanism explicitly positions itself as a secular replacement for religion. Atheist Max More states: “[T]ranshumanism (like humanism) can act as a philosophy of life that fulfills some of the same functions of religion without any appeal to a higher power, a supernatural entity, to faith, and without the other core features of religions.”^[7]

In this way, secular transhumanism offers a post-secular technoscience “parody” of salvation through Jesus Christ.^[8] Lacking a transcendent reference, it is a last-gasp response to what Graham Ward called “the imploding world of secular reasoning.”^[9] Hope and meaning are necessary for a fulfilling life. Science alone cannot supply either.^[10] So, at best, transhumanism offers people hope for much longer and better lives; it gives their existence some purpose. Apart from faith in God, what other hope is there? But without God, what meaning can be found?

At worst, secular transhumanism promotes idolatry, dressed up as a rational and scientific faith. Surely, modern experimental science and its applications have produced wonderful things. However, pretentious scientism would eliminate religion even as it promotes religious faith in science as the final authority for all things. Consider Mary Midgley’s study of Science as Salvation, or J. D. Bernal’s thought that in the distant future, an “aristocracy of scientific intelligence” would selfishly “emerge as a new species and leave humanity behind.”^[11]

Worse yet, there is Terasem, “A transreligion for technological times,” founded and bankrolled by transhumanist Martine Rothblatt.^[12] Seeking “diversity, unity and joyful immortality everywhere,” it is committed to “making God as we are implementing technology that is ever more all-knowing, ever-present, all-powerful and beneficent.”^[13] Against the eternal and self-existent God of the Bible, “Terasem is God-in-the-making because Terasem is becoming all-knowing, all-good and all-powerful, and is partially so now.”^[14]

To Accept, Reject, or Redeem?

Presented with the world’s ways and goods, Christians have three options:

• First, they may reject them as incompatible with faith. This is an easy call for things that are clearly against God’s law, but judgement is required.
• Second, Christians may accept the world’s produce as neutral or beneficial. Again, judgement is required based on some biblical worldview, one that other Christians may reject. So, for example, the computer I use for writing consumes electricity, but many Amish communities, for the sake of their community life, reasonably decide not to have electricity in their homes.
• Third, and most challenging, is to redeem some of what the world offers as results of common grace. God has blessed all people with minds and talents, so should not believers enjoy the benefits of such blessings? There are, of course, moral limits to what can be redeemed, but within those limits, Christians will judge based on any number of criteria.

So, the key question is whether, and to what degree, Christians should redeem transhumanism.

Humanity 2.0? rejects secular transhumanism, appropriately enough, but is it possible to redeem it? Should it be redeemed? Or should Christians reject so-called Christian transhumanism, as they should reject the worldview of a “Christian Bank Robber Association”?

Unfortunately, while Paul Sheehan’s chapter 8 rejects secular transhumanism, it does not assess the chapter 6 arguments for a Christian transhumanism. This is a serious omission, leaving readers with incomplete information. This essay seeks to fill this gap, arguing that the CTA is not, in any meaningful sense of the word, Christian. Instead, redefining transhumanism and other important terms, the CTA minimises what it means to be a Christian. Against the fullness of the Christian life, as it is described in Scripture, humanity is diminished.

Note that my “Christian in name only” view of the CTA applies to the organisation only, not its leaders or members. Even so, it is necessary for Christians, fallen yet redeemed, to reflect on their thoughts and actions.^[15] Otherwise, our self-deception superpower would regard everything we do as “Christian.” Self-deception can become wilful. On that path, we risk profaning Christ and his church.

Where Has Christian Transhumanism Gone Wrong?

CTA membership is diverse, with many perspectives on Christian faith and transhumanism. However, for discussion purposes, let us assume chapter 6 is authoritative, presenting a unified CTA view of Christian transhumanism.

Early on, chapter 6 defines terms important to the CTA argument. Accurately, given the divided global church, it states “To describe anything as ‘Christian’ requires judgement.” It claims correct judgements are to be found at “the intersection of biblical, church, and cultural thought.”^[16] So far so good. The Bible, the church, and host cultures are significant in the theology and practice of every truly Christian organisation, whether Reformed, Wesleyan, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or otherwise. Looking deeper, we might ask how the CTA balances biblical, church, and cultural sources of information.

And here, problems begin, rooted in the CTA’s habitual reductionism. Christian? So that its religiously diverse members can get along, it minimises doctrines at the core of Christianity. Transhumanism? It is adapted and redefined to fit CTA tastes, denying anything edgy. The result misrepresents transhumanism as the new normal of life in today’s scientific age. Association? Yes, but to avoid difficulties, the CTA requires members to affirm the CTA’s minimalist Magisterium. What are its core elements?

As noted, the CTA, unlike most Christian organisations, has no statement of faith. Its leaders claim one is unnecessary since the CTA is not a church. Of course, most parachurch organisations—like ISCAST or the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA)—publish statements of faith as standard practice.^[17] How else would people know whether to support them?

Pressed for clarification, the CTA established a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ).^[18] One version, posted on the CTA’s Facebook page on 8 September 2018, consisted of six key questions and concise answers:

Q. What is a Christian?

A. A disciple of Christ (Acts 11:26).

Q. What is a Transhumanist?

A. Someone who seeks to use science & technology to transform the human condition.

Q. What is a Christian Transhumanist?

A. Someone who seeks to use science & technology to transform the human condition—in a way consistent with and as exemplified by the discipleship of Christ.

Q. What is the Christian Transhumanist Association?

A. An ecumenical organization seeking to promote positive engagement between Christianity and the leading edges of scientific & technological thought.

Q. What do Christian Transhumanists think about X?

A. There are almost certainly a number of different opinions. That’s a good thing! If we knew all the answers, we wouldn’t need to have the conversation.

Q. What do Christian Transhumanists oppose?

A. Most notably, versions of transhumanism that seek to lift up some at the expense of others.

Altogether, including the Q, A, and X abbreviations, the FAQ offered 149 words as an informal CTA statement of faith. It specified what a Christian is in four words, with one Bible reference. It never dealt with basic church doctrines, such as the Trinity, the deity and humanity of Christ, the bodily resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, etc.^[19] So, the FAQ list was less about Christianity than a techno-theology hybrid, a new form of Christian syncretism.^[20]

Since Humanity 2.0? was published, the CTA website has been revised, and the FAQ list consists of 11 questions and answers. The additions draw a closer connection between Christianity and transhumanism. Certainly, this is a step in the right direction, but important matters remain vague. For example, one addition asserts that “Above all, Christian Transhumanism keeps Christ—the beginning and end of our faith—at the center of every technological imagination and action.” In Christianity, the centrality of Christ is essential, but the CTA leaves the person, nature, and work of Christ undefined, together with its sources of information (for example, Scripture) on core doctrines.

More important and enduring as a de facto CTA statement of faith is The Christian Transhumanist Affirmation:^[21]

As members of the Christian Transhumanist Association:

1. We believe that God’s mission involves the transformation and renewal of creation including humanity, and that we are called by Christ to participate in that mission: working against illness, hunger, oppression, injustice, and death.
2. We seek growth and progress along every dimension of our humanity: spiritual, physical, emotional, mental—and at all levels: individual, community, society, world.
3. We recognize science and technology as tangible expressions of our God-given impulse to explore and discover and as a natural outgrowth of being created in the image of God.
4. We are guided by Jesus’ greatest commands to “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength … and love your neighbor as yourself.”
5. We believe that the intentional use of technology, coupled with following Christ, can empower us to grow into our identity as humans made in the image of God.

In this way we are Christian Transhumanists.

To be a CTA member, an affirmation of faith in Christ the Saviour is not required. Judgement of whether one is a Christian—a disciple of Christ—is left for members to decide. I have observed, and personally experienced, that true, deep, biblical faith in Christ as Saviour is optional, but seldom welcomed. By contrast, assent to the Affirmation is mandatory; CTA members must be Christian Transhumanists, defined in the FAQ as “Someone who seeks to use science & technology to transform the human condition—in a way consistent with and as exemplified by the discipleship of Christ.”

But do not all Christian engineers satisfy this definition? In the United States, there are dozens of engineering schools at Christian liberal arts colleges and universities; I have taught at three. None, to my knowledge, have any commitment to transhumanism; few administrators, faculty, staff, or students are even aware of it.

Until recently, I taught engineering at Indiana Wesleyan University. The university is committed to producing “world changers” in many disciplines, even establishing a Society of World Changers.^[22] None of its members, as far as I know, have given any thought to transhumanism.

What about Christian doctors? Surely, they practise scientific medicine, seeking to transform their patients’ conditions, “in a way consistent with and as exemplified by the discipleship of Christ.” Again, I am unaware of any doctors or medical schools committed to transhumanism.

The same might be said of Christian airline pilots, bus drivers, veterinarians, housewives, plumbers, and many others. So, the FAQ definition of a Christian Transhumanist applies to any working Christians who take their faith seriously and seek to follow the second Great Commandment. In other words, it is practically meaningless.

The first Great Commandment? Regarding love for God, the CTA is silent, leaving this central matter to the transhumanist conscience.

Biblical, Church, and Cultural Influences?

Setting this fundamental disconnect aside, does the CTA regard Scripture as authoritative? It cites Bible verses, using Acts 11:26 as a minimalist reference for Christians as disciples of Christ, and the Great Commandments are cited as guiding principles. Other biblical references appear when they serve CTA purposes. However, I cannot find a CTA endorsement of Scripture as either authoritative or worthy of serious consideration. As important as Scripture is to Christian faith, the CTA seems to take no position on it. This leaves the definition of “Christian” to the church, the culture, or some combination.

Chapter 6 reduces Dallas Willard’s critique of evangelicalism to an either-or comparison of “sin management” with a “gospel of the kingdom.”^[23] There are several problems here. First, has not Willard’s argument been taken out of context? Second, is it not demeaning to reduce the work of Christ, including his death on the cross, to a “sin management” task? And third, does not the Willard citation offer a false dichotomy? In my experience, churches and other Christian organisations pursue both good works and evangelism. I think Scripture is clear that the gospel involves both salvation from sin and good works; they are not competitors but complementary.^[24] Unfortunately, chapter 6 proceeds based on Willard’s either-or gospel. The Bible’s both-and gospel is never considered. And finally, the reconciliation of sinners with God through Christ is left behind.

So, according to chapter 6, traditional Christian churches and denominations are in the “sin management” business. The CTA, by contrast, has better things to do, confirmed by the statement, “To Christian transhumanists, the gospel is best described as the advancement of the kingdom of God or, as some put it, the ‘reign of Christ’s principles.’”^[25] That sounds good, but as usual, it is dangerously vague. Where can those principles be found? In what direction should the kingdom advance? Who decides? How?

Perhaps “the church” could serve as the CTA’s compass? But here again, the CTA takes no position on creeds or practices that have unified (or divided) Christians for centuries. Unlike ISCAST, the ASA, or a host of other Christian organisations with statements of faith, there is nothing to ensure a “reign of Christ’s principles” is put into action or even defined in any objective way.

Neither is the CTA responsive to criticisms by other Christians. Chapter 6 discusses “Christian Critiques of Transhumanism and the CTA.”^[26] However, instead of faithfully presenting and documenting alternative views, it presents caricatures, setting them up for ad hominem attacks. In the end, the text deflects criticism without answering it. This follows the pattern I have often experienced when I have questioned the consistency of Christian transhumanism with Scripture or salvation through the gospel of Jesus Christ.^[27]

Transformation or Conformity?

The CTA claims to offer “Transformative Theology,” but ends up transforming theology, conforming it to their transhumanist aspirations. In the process, the CTA does not answer criticism on biblical, theological, philosophical, historical, social, economic, and other grounds. Instead, it steadfastly deflects criticisms, and in the process, it conforms to the religious commitments of secular transhumanism.^[28]

H. Richard Niebuhr’s classic, Christ and Culture, develops five ways Christians have dealt with the “enduring problem” of how Christianity should relate to civilisation. The CTA falls very much into his “Christ of Culture” category.^[29] Seeking to transform the world, but on its terms, and with little regard for Scripture, the CTA blends in with the world’s rebellion against God. All that Niebuhr warns against is realised: reason is elevated above revelation; sin and its relevance is denied; self-reliant humanism reigns; and grace is no longer the basis for our salvation but reduced to something that is demeaning and discouraging to human effort.

Bodies? Transhumanism, secular and Christian, finds them problematic and even unnecessary. Suffering and sacrifice? They are overrated. Holiness? Surely science will take us beyond sin and its effects. Discernment? Conforming to the world, the CTA imagines it is in good company. Paul and Romans 12:1–2 are left behind:

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.^[30]

An oft-quoted truism is that “change is inevitable, but progress is optional.” Consistent with vector definitions, progress requires both movement and direction. To be progressive, change must be in a positive direction, but changes can also be regressive. The CTA is all about change. It wants changes in human lives, epistemology, and theology, and in relationships between Christians. Proud of its focus on more than “theological correctness,” the CTA has no way to judge change as progress or regress.^[31] Without an objective standard of right and wrong, the CTA can only lapse into Nietzsche’s “will to power.”

God and Other Illusions?

With Scripture reduced from divine instruction to a take-it-or-leave-it relic, the CTA reduces the Christian life. Instead of it being a joyful exercise seeking after God, life unfolds as a subjective experiment in truncated reason. Scripture asserts that Christians can know things that are critical to our well-being by faith.^[32] That does not accord with secular epistemology or scientific reasoning. As a result, the CTA looks to critical rationalism—the thoughts of David Deutsch,^[33] Karl Popper,^[34] Philip Hefner,^[35] and others—to show the way to truth.^[36] In the process, biblical truths are reduced to archetypes, following the path of Gnosticism. Never mind John 14:6, which proclaims Jesus as the way, the truth, and the life. Never mind its grim conclusion: “No one comes to the Father except through me.” And never mind two thousand years of theological study of truth in view of revelation and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Continuing its downward path, the CTA reduces God from the self-existent creator and sustainer of the universe to some sort of computer programmer. The CTA seeks to “acknowledge and engage with” Bostrom’s Simulation Argument. It was extended by CTA board member Lincoln Cannon, a founder of the Mormon Transhumanist Association, as the New God Argument.^[37] Unfortunately, the CTA forgets to seriously “acknowledge and engage with” divine revelation. Reality is reduced to an elaborate computer simulation. People created in the image of God are reduced to computational phenomena; their faithful deeds and sins are rendered meaningless. The incomprehensible God of the Bible, coming to redeem humanity in the astounding incarnation of Christ, is reduced to a “sin management” illusion. Seeking a rational alternative to faith, independent of special revelation, overblown simulation rhetoric parodies what God reveals at the beginning of John’s gospel:

In the beginning was software, and the software was with the programmer, and the software was the programmer. All things were simulated through software, and without programming there was not anything that was simulated. In software was life, and software was the light of simulated life.

Participation?

A full exploration of CTA errors is beyond the scope of this article. However, a root problem seems to be a misunderstanding of participation. Under the simulation hypothesis, nothing is real. If they play along, Christians build the kingdom of Christ. Their participation is a matter of volition and action. Orthopraxy is greater than orthodoxy.

But participation is ontological first: it is who we are, not only what we do or believe. The God in whom we “live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28) is beyond our contributions. By our mere existence as creatures in relationship with the self-existent Creator, believers participate in the kingdom, the church that Jesus Christ is building (Matt. 16:18).

This misunderstanding is often displayed in the CTA fondness for Philip Hefner’s description of human beings, based in open theism, as “created co-creators.” This view elevates human beings, while the God in whom “all things hold together” (Col. 1:17), is left to simply react to what happens. The created co-creator idea is a temptation to pride as people presume they are free to “play God.” By contrast, J. R. R. Tolkien described people as “sub-creators,” maintaining the creator–creature hierarchy.^[38]

Consequences?

From its founding, the CTA has welcomed members with no commitments to biblical and mainstream Christianity. Many members and even leaders belong to non-Trinitarian groups, such as the Latter-day Saints or Jehovah’s Witnesses, which do not accept the Nicene Creed and other doctrines that protect the church from heresy. Perhaps the CTA avoids Scripture and core doctrines to maintain peace with unbelievers. This seems likely.

Sometimes CTA leaders claim a sort of evangelical exemption from firm doctrine commitments. Their openness, they say, allows them to discuss the Christian faith with people of diverse religious commitments. Surely, such discussions are good; evangelism is a task all Christians should pursue. But without a commitment to Scripture, is it possible to proclaim the gospel?

The CTA’s minimalist and gospel-free worldview distracts Christians from Scripture, and its faith in technoscience discourages faith in Christ. After all, in the transhumanist view, aren’t God’s promises achievable through human ingenuity? By technoscience?

Conclusions

So, what should Christians—people committed to living their lives in accordance with the Bible’s core doctrines—make of transhumanism?

First, they should recognise that transhumanism is unworthy of redemption. It is based on pride in today’s pervasive technoscience, rooted in uncritical love for this world. Against its heresies, Christians must exercise caution, keeping 1 John 2:15 in mind: “Do not love the world or anything in the world.” Transhumanism should be seen as a “different gospel,” a parody of the promises God has made to believers through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Transhumanism’s gospel is worthy of Paul’s harsh condemnation in Galatians 1:6–9.

Second, Christians should recognise that to the degree that the CTA does not embrace the true gospel, its use of “Christian” in its name is inappropriate. After closely examining chapter 6 of Humanity 2.0?, my assessment remains: the CTA is “a transhumanist advocacy organisation, and Christian in name only.”^[39] I would be delighted to learn that I am mistaken.

The CTA was established with the best intentions. However, minimising Christian commitments puts unnecessary obstacles in front of the CTA’s goals as they are listed in the revised FAQ list:

1. A conversation between Christianity and the leading edges of scientific & technological thought.
2. An emerging theology of technology within the Christian tradition.
3. A voice for positive, relational values within the broader transhumanist project.
4. A positive religious vision that calls Christians to serve on behalf of the world.^[40]

I am fully committed to understanding technoscience within a Christian worldview. The CTA could help work toward this goal. However, it is critical for its transhumanism studies to begin and end with Scripture. Starting from scratch is foolish; the Bible has been given serious study for two thousand years, yet it continues to shed light on new developments. Let the CTA commit to Scripture as its authority. Let it adopt the Nicene Creed as its ecumenical statement of faith. Until it does, the CTA’s attempt to redeem transhumanism, by redefining it, renders the term meaningless.

Third, Christians should recognise that biotechnology, nanotechnology, information and communication technology, neuroscience, and robotics—transhumanism’s constituent technosciences—have no need for the transhumanism label. Their developers have no use for its metaphysical baggage. So, rejecting transhumanism, let Christians focus on the kingdom of Christ, including roles that science and technology might serve in God’s plan. Perhaps the CTA could rebrand itself as a Christian Technoscience Association, with the Nicene Creed as its statement of faith? At least then the word Christian would have meaning. Otherwise, the CTA will continue minimising the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Finally, note how the leading organisation promoting secular transhumanism operates as Humanity Plus.^[41] Christians, and especially the CTA, should vigorously oppose its atheistic claims to fundamentally transform life. Apart from the world’s technosciences, 2 Corinthians 3:18 tells us: “And we all, who with unveiled faces contemplate the Lord’s glory, are being transformed into his image with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.”

This indeed is the Christian life—transformation occurring as God’s beloved walk in the Spirit; technological enhancements are unnecessary. In view of this fullness of the Christian life, it is tragic that the CTA reduces our existence as new creatures in Christ to humanity minus.

© 2026 David C. Winyard. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) licence, except where otherwise stated.

Scripture quotations taken from The Holy Bible, New International Version® NIV® Copyright © 1973 1978 1984 2011 by Biblica, Inc.™ Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

Notes

[1] ISCAST, Humanity 2.0? Christian Perspectives on Transhumanism (ISCAST, 2025), https://iscast.org/transhumanism/.

[2] Humanity 2.0?, 75.

[3] My dissertation, “Transhumanism-Christianity Diplomacy: To Transform Science-Religion Relations” (PhD diss., Virginia Tech, 2016), http://hdl.handle.net/10919/73484.

[4] Christian Transhumanist Association, https://www.christiantranshumanism.org/.

[5] “ISCAST 2020 Conversations #12 – Jonathan Gunnell – Christian Transhumanism?,” ISCAST, YouTube, 3 December 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnVmiP7OHww. ISCAST Executive Director Chris Mulherin invites me to comment at the 58:00 mark. My three-minute response begins at 59:00, and the quoted sentence occurs at 1:01:46.

[6] See Martine Rothblatt, Virtually Human (St. Martin’s Press, 2014), which deals with religion, law, free will, and other concepts as “useful fictions” that, for now, function as organising myths for civil society.

[7] Max More, “The Philosophy of Transhumanism,” in The Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science, Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, ed. Max More and Natasha Vita-More (John Wiley & Sons, 2013), 8.

[8] Many features of modernity offer parodies of God and what he has instituted. See James K. A. Smith, “Postmodern Parodies,” in Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (Baker Academic, 2004), 125–141.

[9] Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy, 69, citing Graham Ward, “In the Economy of the Divine: A Response to James K. A. Smith,” Pneuma: The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 25, no. 1 (2003): 117.

[10] For a discussion of efforts to give objective and scientific meaning to life apart from religious transcendent reasoning, see James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky, Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (Yale University Press, 2018).

[11] Mary Midgley, Science as Salvation: A Modern Myth and Its Meaning (Routledge, 1992). The J. D. Bernal quote is from The World, the Flesh and the Devil (Cape, 1929), 68–73, cited by Midgley in Evolution as a Religion (Routledge, 2002), 39.

[12] Martine Rothblatt, formerly Martin, a lawyer and businessperson, founded Sirius Satellite Radio and other diverse enterprises. For Rothblatt’s argument for “morphological freedom,” see From Transgender to Transhuman: A Manifesto on the Freedom of Form (Ingram Content Group, 2024).

[13] “Terasem: Live Happily & Forever,” Terasem, https://transreligion.org/.

[14] Truths of Terasem (Terasem Movement Transreligion, 2024), sec. 5.7.6, https://transreligion.org/beliefs/.

[15] Recall the disciples’ soul searching when Jesus tells them one will betray him, John 13:21. Or consider 1 Corinthians 11:28, which calls Christians to examine themselves before taking communion.

[16] Humanity 2.0?, 76.

[17] “ASA Statement of Faith,” American Scientific Affiliation, https://network.asa3.org/page/ASAbeliefs.

[18] The CTA occasionally updates its FAQ list, with the current version at “Frequently Asked Questions,” Christian Transhumanist Association, https://www.christiantranshumanism.org/faq/. In fall 2025, the FAQ link was broken, and the 2018 Facebook list was reposted on 19 November, 2025.

[19] For a short list of core doctrines, and why they matter, see Greg Koukl, “Essential Christian Doctrines,” Stand to Reason, 20 February 2013, https://www.str.org/w/essential-christian-doctrines.

[20] For comparison, the Nicene Creed runs around 224 words, there being some longstanding differences in wording. The Apostles’ Creed is 100 words shorter. Accepted by most Christians as summaries of what the Bible teaches, they are Christianity’s primary ecumenical creeds.

[21] “The Christian Transhumanist Affirmation,” Christian Transhumanist Association, https://www.christiantranshumanism.org/affirmation/.

[22] “Society of World Changers,” Indiana Wesleyan University, https://www.indwes.edu/about/community-impact/sowc#what.

[23] Humanity 2.0?, 76.

[24] See Eph. 2:8–10.

[25] Humanity 2.0?, 76.

[26] Humanity 2.0?, 88–90.

[27] Through the years, as I offered criticisms of transhumanism, I have been called a “troll,” a “dinosaur,” and a “Luddite.” How strange it is to teach engineering and be called a Luddite!

[28] “Transformative Theology,” CTA, https://www.christiantranshumanism.org/mission/theological/.

[29] See H. Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (Harper & Row, 1951), chaps. 1 and 3.

[30] This and other Scripture quotations are from the New International Version, the NIV.

[31] Humanity 2.0?, 76.

[32] This is the substance of the Reformed epistemology of Alvin Plantinga, especially the conclusion of his “warrant trilogy,” Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford University Press, 2000).

[33] David Deutsch, The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World (Penguin Books, 2012).

[34] An STS classic, Karl Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959; repr., Routledge, 1992).

[35] Philip Hefner, The Human Factor: Evolution, Culture, and Religion (Fortress Press, 1993).

[36] Humanity 2.0?, 82.

[37] Nick Bostrom, “Are You Living in a Computer Simulation?,” Philosophical Quarterly 53, no. 211 (2003): 243–255, https://simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf. Bostrom’s idea is extended by Lincoln Cannon’s “New God Argument,” https://lincoln.metacannon.net/new-god-argument.html. Simulation arguments are useful to the extent they show, by referring to information technology, that the existence of God is plausible. However, based in materialism, they are inherently reductionistic.

[38] See J. R. R. Tolkien, “Mythopoeia,” in Tree and Leaf (HarperCollins, 2001), 85–90.

[39] “ISCAST 2020 Conversations #12,” at 1:01:46.

[40] “Frequently Asked Questions,” Christian Transhumanist Association, https://www.christiantranshumanism.org/faq/.

[41] Humanity Plus, https://www.humanityplus.org/.