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