X-Message-Number: 26671 Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:36:36 -0500 From: Jeff Dee <> Subject: Re: Religion, me, new friends and the media References: <> In message #26661, Marta Sandberg <> wrote: >I have been off the internet for the last month and I am only starting to go >through the backlog of messages, but the argument of religion has upset me >so badly that I want to respond even if the topic have disappeared off the >radar. > >Please, do not continue the attacks on religion and people who hold faiths. > >It is ill-mannered. > I agree that *attacks* are ill-mannered. However, I do not agree that an open and honest discussion about the shortcomings of religious belief constitutes an "attack". All people, when faced with clear evidence that their own deeply held convictions are (at best) unjustifiable, tend to react as if they were under attack. This is unfortunate, because it makes it difficult for us to see our own mistakes, and take steps to correct them. But the fault here lies with human nature - NOT with those who present the logical counter-arguments based on the known facts. >There is no way anyone can use words like dogma , indoctrination and > delusion to describe a persons faith without intending to be rude. > The words "dogma" and "indoctrination" were coined *by* religionists, for the express purpose of discussing the inner workings of their own religion. Now, you may argue that those words have been mis-applied recently in comments made on this list. If so, it would be helpful of you to cite specific examples. But to imply that the mere use of those words automatically proves an intent to insult, and NO interest in actually understanding the nature of religious faith, is unfair of you. >It is also ill-informed. > If you are suggesting that dogma and indoctrination do not occur in any religion, nor have any relevance to any individual religionist's beliefs, then I think you are the one who is ill-informed. Again, you may argue that those words have been misused in recent posts. If so, please respond to specific examples. Please do NOT attempt to ban the use of certain words. >Please don t make judgement about people because of YOUR preconceptions >about why they hold a faith. > I don't make "judgements" about other people, but I do try to understand them and their motivations. I recognize that I will not always be correct, but that is not a good reason to refrain from the attempt. I do know that banning the use of words which accurately describe certain aspects of religious practice will make that effort harder, not easier. >Faith isn t about living forever. Most people >of faith (that I know) are not all that concerned about eternal life, that >is mainly a faulty perception by people who look at religion from the >outside. > Agreed. Faith is a method of belief; it's not necessarily about believing any particular thing. Religious faith is the practice of believing religious teachings despite the lack of supporting evidence and valid rational argument, or in the face of disconfirming evidence and valid rational counter-arguments. This may not be a definition of which religionists would approve. But having been a religionist myself, and having discussed these things at great length with many religionists for the past several years, I stand by its accuracy. And on that basis, I further assert that this method of belief called "faith" deserves a certain amount of criticism. >When outsiders make sweeping and faulty assumptions about cryonics, we tend >to become indignant. Surely, we can learn from this. > I think the best lesson we can learn is that being indignant is not an argument. We may *feel* that their assumptions are faulty, but we do not prove they're faulty by saying, "We feel indignant, therefor you must stop saying such things." It would certainly not help our case if we responded by prohibiting them from using the words "nanotech" or "uploading" when discussing the views of cryonicists. Nor do religionists prove anything when they take offense. If the assumptions of outsiders are indeed faulty, a rational examination of the facts will prove them so. Our response should be to inform the outsiders of the facts, and help them to grasp our rational conclusion. *We* can do this, because there *are* rational evidence-based arguments in favor of cryonics. Religionists are not so lucky when it comes to their own beliefs, which I think goes a long way toward explaining why they offer so little in defense of their own beliefs besides mere indignation. >As I have reasonable high media profile in Australia, I get a steady stream >of letters from members of minor religious groups, such a Jehovah s Witness. > They are always polite and concerned letters and I always answer them >equally politely by pointing out that I don t think I will live forever even >if cryonics works just for a few centuries. This has lead to several >(polite) letter exchanges and one good lasting friendship. In the end, we >agree that there are some topics we will disagree on, but that does not have >to stop us from otherwise enjoying each others company. > I admit I haven't read every single recent post on this subject, but I don't recall seeing any which state that the company of theists cannot or should not be enjoyed. >In fact, I find it >easier to talk about cryonics and death in general with people of faith, >than with atheist. > Okay. That is not my experience, but I'm in no position to dispute yours. >From these exchanges I have learnt a deep respect for >people who hold a deep faith. On the whole they tend to be generous and >involved people. > If you lived here in the States, you might prefer for them not to be quite so "involved" ;-) As I said, I haven't seen any posts stating that religionists are horrible people. But we each have our own personal standards by which we decide whom to respect. >Religion is not the main obstacle for the spread of religion. > >Think about it. There are only about a thousand cryonicists world wide. >There are many, many millions of atheists. They are not queuing to sign up. > Not that any serious effort is being made to reach them. For what it's worth, I gave a presentation on transhumanism to the Atheist Community of Austin which was extremely well recieved. But I am only one person, and a layman at that. If anyone reading this post can put me in touch with a speaker who'd like to give a presentation in Austin Texas, I'd greatly appreciate it. > Obviously religion isn t the biggest hurdle to accepting cryonics. > Haven't you heard how the religious right in the United States supports a total ban on stem cell research? You *must* have heard of the travesty they made of poor Terri Schaivo's remains. These people are Luddites. The only reason they're not clamoring for a ban on cryonics is that it's not a big enough headline yet. -Jeff Dee Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26671