X-Message-Number: 26493 Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 20:42:03 +0200 From: Eivind Berge <> Subject: Pizer's Folly David Pizer asks for more arguments against suing religion. A lot of people have supplied plenty of excellent reasons why this is a bad idea, which is what I believe too. Not just because it would imperil cryonics, but because the whole idea is utterly senseless and silly. Society is already overregulated and overly litigious; we need less of that, not more. Adding insult to injury, I find the notion of suing or coercing someone ostensibly for their own good, extremely offensive. This is the kind of logic that gave us concepts like mental illness, which is a framework for social control. I strongly detest authorities that seek to make me change "for my own good"--this is far more pernicious than outright persecution. It is unfortunately permissible to force consensus reality on people, even if they have committed no crime. Mr. Pizer wants to expand this control to include forcing his particular logic on religions. Their claims may be insane, but so be it. Expanded government powers are far more scary. Actually in this case it is not so much scary as laughable (unless you are a cryonicist). America is already famous for absurd lawsuits; this would be the funniest one yet. A uniquely American approach to a very unAmerican purpose. And so what if religions had to include a disclaimer? I think normally intelligent people already understand that when religions speak of eternal life and heaven, they are in fact referring to belief, not assurances. Caveat emptor. Just who are they to know the absolute truth, anyway? Religious zealots are a dime a dozen. At least from the perspective of someone considering joining some religion or another, the various options are just competing claims to inherently unverifiable knowledge. Having the government tell you this would be insulting people's intelligence. Accepting a faith is more like love or a job interview. *Of course* I am the right person for the job; *of course* I am the one you should marry--having the government intervene here with mindless disclaimers is just plain silly. Logic isn't everything; what's correct isn't always appropriate or right. Besides, many religious people, it seems to me, don't view their faith as a mere selfish measure to extend their life. Religion is not a technology designed to provide eternal life; it has more to do love, among other things. I don't understand how because I've never felt anything like it, but many religious people seem to actually love God and derive something very meaningful from this relationship. And then there is the duty to obey God, duty for duty's sake; so appealing to the selfish desire for more life is of limited utility. People make unpleasant sacrifices even for religions that have no concept of personal immortality. Forget this lawsuit and look for ways to promote cryonics in ways that are compatible with, not adversarial to, religion. Or at least if you want to take on religion, you should be a full-fledged religion first, comparing like with like and leveling the playing field, as David Stodolsky is suggesting. I dislike his social-democratic bent but here he is onto something; I wonder why that hasn't been tried already. Eivind Berge Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26493