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