X-Message-Number: 15090
From: "John de Rivaz" <>
References: <>
Subject: Re: destrying symbols of coercion
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 16:49:44 -0000

> Message #15083> From: "Dani Kollin" <>
> Subject: RE: CryoNet #15068
> Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 12:23:41 +0200


> And just to be clear, these are the tenets of ethical monotheism:
> There is a God.

This is not something that can be proved or disproved

> God's primary demand is ethics.

Really - what about the ethics of the world that we observe. Never mind
human beings, the ethics of the jungle. Mind you, I am not sure that anyone
can really define "ethics" in any absolute manner. Most people seems
distressed with scenes of cuddly little animals eating each other alive in
natural history films, so maybe that behaviour is unethical. Of course all
animals have to eat - they can't get their energy from clay and sunlight. I
recall reading C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters" as a child, and thinking
that the junior devil around which the book revolved  was created to eat
souls, he had no alternative. What else could he do?

> God without ethics leads to religious evil.
> Ethics without God produces secular evil.

And I would imagine that that requires a definition of "evil". Is it evil
for a cobra to eat a fluffy little lion cub? For a grown lion to eat a
graceful gazelle? For humans to feed their pets whale meat?


> Meanwhile I think I'll stick to my current slate of "activities", Plebian
> they may seem, thank you.
> Dani

feel free, because you are fee, just as are some of us are free to suggest
that maybe if there is a god worship is not the best way to treat someone
who made the world as it is. Although I would draw the line at destruction
of ecclesiastical premises - simply on the grounds of lack of efficacy which
I originally tried to explain. No doubt ethicists could draw up a case along
ethical lines, but I think the simple common sense of my argument against
burning churches stands.

Who Mourns for Adonis?


It could be and has been argued that creation is a continuous process, and
all the blood and guts and ageing and disease is merely a step on the way to
something better (for example planned bootstrapped evolution using nano).
However if the creator has to work that way because he can't do it any other
way then he is not omnipotent, ie he is not god.

The real wonder of the world, the one thing that doesn't seem to fit
everything else is the existence of the concept of a medical profession.
(Although it would be better if the hospitals were run with the same
attention to detail and level of safety as the airlines.) Cryonics is merely
an extension of this, and Fyodorov's concept of universal resurrection a
follow on from that. Maybe throughout the universe the real test for an
intelligent species is one that develops these concepts and eventually runs
the Fyodorov concept through to fruition.

Sincerely, John de Rivaz
my homepage links to Longevity Report, Fractal Report, music, Inventors'
report, an autobio and various other projects:
http://www.autopsychoice.com - should you be able to chose autopsy?

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=15090