I'm starting to question things to the point where I'd like to hear about clear delineations between science, religion, and morality.
Everything we do affects someone else. We (humans) are notorious for pinning our actions on forces outside us, to keep the blame off of ourselves. Science, religion, and morality are our own concepts (for all intents and purposes). They were erected in attempts to understand the world around us, and how we should reflect on our needs versus those of an others'.
Science and religion have thousands of years built upon them; while they were still concepts at their subject's conception, now they've become doctrines. People justify their own beliefs and actions with science and religion, and morality is looked at as being inherent either within the followed science or religion.
People who do this lack accountability for themselves; science and religion are just information databases, and neither in itself makes you act a certain way. Morality is a measurement of a person's motives, not the information they use to justify themselves.
I'm personally not religious. The close friends I've made throughout my life are have usually been religious, because their religion served as a support community that allowed them to prosper and make thoughtful decisions about the world.
I've also met close-minded people that defend their own feelings discomfort (i.e., with trans or homosexual people) on their religion to validate themselves. This isn't the religion--that is the person being unaccountable.
We defend our actions with science by picking and choosing which "science" we'll believe. This is demonstrated in marketing a lot, as the food industry likes to latch itself onto one obscure study that says something good about their product, all the while ignoring a mass index of peer-reviewed studies that could hurt their sales.
The morality of the person is always in question in these circumstances--it's how you act with information that makes you moral. Ignoring the people or things your actions affect to validate is immoral, regardless of the circumstances.
As far as transhumanism goes:
Cyborgs already exist; people missing a limb use prosthetics, and there are electronic chips you can put into your brain that help with things like severe epilepsy. Most people would agree these are good things--and I'm inclined to agree, because they help people live a better quality of life.
I think the dangerous thing is gene modification in the embryo. Sure, we're leagues away from being able to turn on and off any gene we like. However, there are many strides scientists have made on genes, so it's not inconceivable for embryonic gene therapy to become a thing withing the next few decades. In this case, the main question up for debate are what the doctor should tell the expecting parents, what they shouldn't, and how relevant the gene therapy would be for allowing the future-person to live a functioning life. People shouldn't get the option to off their child because they will turn out LGBT, not smart enough or not good looking enough.
I don't personally agree with AI becoming the means by which we live our lives...what would be the point of living then? There is a danger in too much specialization.
However, since I fear that no clear delineations exist since they converge in many areas, I'm kind of at a loss for how to feel assured in going about my life.
I understand this very much. There's so much information out there that it's easy to feel stranded in the middle of an ocean (who two boats, each that could save you, but they're not because their too busy screaming at one another about who has the better method of saving people). I think it's important to be kind to yourself and acknowledge your limitations--trust what you already know, and don't ignore incoming information. You free yourself to make your own ethical and rational decisions about life when you trust your own brain, eyes and ears.