X-Message-Number: 26460
Date: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:18:04 -0700
From: Mike Perry <>
Subject: Religion, Liberty, Eternity, Finances
References: <>

>On the other hand, maybe it is time that rational,
>scientific people turn the tables on the mystics by
>going on the offensive. Why shouldn't they be  held to
>the same standards of proof that "mere" secular
>organizations are held to? After all, if they are so
>moral and pure, then surely their promises can easily
>withstand the same demands of reasonable proof that
>mere secular, non-divine corporations and individuals
>are held to on a daily basis.

It is already happening--the mystics *are* being held to rigorous standards 
of proof--in the free marketplace of ideas. In the US this is enforced 
through the First Amendment, but not through legislation (unlike with 
secular organizations). The question can be raised of how far legislation 
and thus government intervention should go (and taxpayer money be used) in 
enforcing standards of proof and such--and how much is best left for the 
free market to handle, without government getting involved. My feeling is 
that, in the case at hand at least, it is better that government *not* be 
involved. Getting it involved could *well* become a slippery slope that 
could backfire against us in numerous ways. To consider just a few: on one 
hand, religious groups themselves are numerous and powerful and if 
sufficiently aroused might find their own ways, also through the legal 
system, to effectively eliminate our small movement. (This seems to have 
been tried already, in connection with the Williams case, as has been 
noted.) On the other hand, I think there is also strong *non-religious* 
sentiment against cryonics among certain scientific skeptics, and this 
could backfire against us too, if the principle of liberty (including 
religious liberty) and individual choice were challenged too much. (Is this 
to some extent what has already happened in British Columbia?) The existing 
legal system seems to be directed (in the US at least) against *provably* 
false claims only. A guarantee of eternal life is not in this category, and 
I think that is a reason why legislation should not apply in these 
cases--let them be handled instead as matters of free choice.

The issue has been raised in turn that if we do *not* aggressively combat 
the dogmatic claims, including use of litigation and all it implies, many 
will needlessly suffer near-term, eternal oblivion. Well, this may be the 
price of freedom, and may also be false for one reason or another. The 
whole attitude seems to rest on the premise that cryonics, though it may 
not work, is essentially the only *possible* road to "salvation" or a life 
beyond the biological limits. I'll call this the one-chance view. Though it 
is very widespread in cryonics, many in this movement too do not accept it. 
The non-one-chancers or plural-chancers include both theists and atheists, 
and at least some of them, in addition, find the one-chance view egregious 
and offensive. This is not a reflection on those who hold this view, who 
generally are sincere and may strongly wish they could believe otherwise, 
but find they cannot.

At any rate, to attack traditional religions as has been proposed, through 
litigation, would, as I see it, amount to strongly endorsing the one-chance 
view. If the one-chance view is true, it could be argued that life would so 
far lose its meaning that the loss of people that might result from 
doubting it would not really be a great loss, since life itself is not that 
great. I expect that many plural-chancers would take this position, which 
will, incidentally, tend to strengthen their own, alternative view for, if 
nothing else, they can say that they do not have that much to lose by it if 
they are wrong. (Yes, I am suggesting that even spending eternity in the 
charnel house that would follow if the one-chance view is true and those 
once truly dead have no way back, ever, would not be that inviting. This is 
a difficult issue of course but, confronted with it, some have found that 
with relatively minor adjustments in previous thinking they can endorse a 
plural-chance position, and even develop some robust arguments in its 
favor.) Plural-chancers who also endorse cryonics are less absolutist than 
their one-chance colleagues, but not necessarily less committed to 
cryonics, and sometimes are very strongly committed. They do indeed hope 
people will consider cryonics but are not so eager to launch lawsuits 
against those who promise things that could diminish interest in it. Once 
again, the free marketplace of ideas is the best forum for sorting out 
these issues, not the courts or other government institutions.

Another issue raised is that many cannot afford cryonics anyway. In more 
developed countries this problem is not so acute because there are ways 
that persons of modest means but in good health can make 
arrangements--mainly through life insurance. Still, it certainly is an 
issue. Litigation as has been proposed would be expensive--perhaps some of 
the funds could be used in some way to help the needy who would choose 
cryonics but are financially unable. Or, once again there is the free 
marketplace of ideas where promotional efforts, again requiring funds, will 
pay off--though we must not expect too much too soon. But just because our 
efforts have not lived up to our hopes so far does not mean that a radical 
assault--litigation--would. I think that the limited success of our efforts 
shows how ready the public is and is not to take a strange, radical idea 
like cryonics seriously. I don't think litigation would end up convincing 
them they need cryonics more than they would concede otherwise. What will 
be needed, I think, is major technological advances, maybe along many 
fronts. This suggests another avenue for directing funds, that is to say, 
toward research.

Mike Perry

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26460