X-Message-Number: 10498 From: "Scott Badger" <> Subject: Re: CryoNet #10491 - #10496 Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:25:18 -0500 On Tue, 29 Sep 1998 18:21:12 -0500 (CDT), George Smith wrote: >There seems to be a general consensus that cryonics is "acceptable" to most >religions. Is it really? Is it, in fact, just lucky to be ignored thusfar? >Or, as I have suggested, is it ripe for the picking by some already >established relgious movement? > >What do you think? > >-George Smith Question 41 of the Cryonics Survey I recently conducted reads: I would feel more favorably toward the idea of cryonics if a human were revived. 1 = strongly agree 2 = agree 3 = unsure 4 = disagree 5 = strongly disagree 513 respondents were categorized by religious affilitation: Category Frequency Mean 1 = agnostic 94 2.01 2 = atheist 32 1.90 3 = buddhist 17 2.53 4 = christian 281 2.69 5 = hindu 8 2.75 6 = jewish 22 2.59 7 = moslem 5 2.60 8 = taoist 54 2.37 Running a one-way ANOVA using a p value of .05, The F ratio was found to be significant. The post hoc Tukey's HSD procedure was used to identify which groups had significant mean differences. Results indicated that agnostics (2.01) and atheists (1.90) had signifcantly lower mean values than christians (2.69). It appears that there probably would have been significant differences between groups 1 and 2 and all the rest of the groups fi the numbers had been larger. To address George's question directly, it should be noted that all of the values for all groups fall below 3.00 suggesting that overall a relatively positive attitude towards cryonics may develop once a human being is actually revived. As a side note, I don't believe the responses to this question alone supports Saul Kent's hypothesis regarding the public perception that cryonics lacks credibility. Other questions in the survey would have to be examined to properly address that particular position. Best regards and long life, Scott Badger Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=10498