Would you agree with the critics who argue that transhumanism is a form of neo-Gnosticism?
I would agree with the critics who point out that the things transhumanists believe are either:
(a) truisms you don't have to join a robot cult to believe
(things like: that humans are conditioned in deep, definitive ways by the historical circumstances, social, cultural, artifactual in which they live, as everybody in the humanities has known for centuries, and that, properly so-called, progress is both a technical and political struggle, as most contemporary secular progressive democrats will also already tell you)
(b) palpably false and even flabbergastingly silly ideas that only somebody dumb or panicky enough to join a robot cult would ever fall for
(things like: that somebody -- maybe quite soon! -- will create "intelligence" without a brain and then invest a Robot God with superintelligence that will solve all our problems for us, and that somebody -- maybe quite soon! -- will invent a way to make all the right people invulnerable and immortal by turning "us" into software and plugging into imperishable robot bodies or networks, and that somebody -- maybe quite soon! -- will create swarms of nanobots that will cater to our every wish and make all conflict a thing of the past).
Not to mention, transhumanism too often amounts to a variety of eugenicism, which may be even worse than the robot cult problem.
Pondering whether or not transhumanism looks neo-gnostic once we assume a vantage of sufficient abstraction above it looks to me true enough as far as it goes, but to be less useful when all is said and done than simply noticing that wherever transhumanism is not peddling itself as reasonable by re-inventing various wheels to no good purpose it tends instead to be advocating batshit crazy nonsense, and some of it in the service of ugly authoritarian notions.