X-Message-Number: 26533
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 10:33:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: Scott Badger <>
Subject: Re: Pizer vs. Religions

David, 

Thanks for your reply.

My problem with your persistent use of the word  guarantee  is that, in
the minds of most, the word evokes the idea that there should be some
form of remedy offered if the customer is dissatisfied with the product
or service. That seems different to me than claims, assurances, or even
promises. In your opinion, they re saying something  to the effect  of
it being a guarantee. Why be so picky about these various terms, you
ask? Because the courts will likely be even pickier.

David said:
>I actually have two arguments. The first one is that there is a wrong
being done.<

Actually, you re argument is that there  may be  a wrong being done. If
the religion is true, no harm is being done. Of course, this can
neither be confirmed nor disconfirmed which is exactly what would make
your court case so weak.

I previously said: >Another big problem with your argument is that you
assume that this alleged guarantee is THE reason people choose to be
religious, but that's a fallacy. There are many other factors that
contribute to religiosity which you are not taking into consideration.>

David replied:  Example:  If you already have a guarantee that your
mother will have dinner on the table when you get home tonight for you
and all your family, then it is logical that you will not stop at
Jack-in-the-Box on the way home and buy dinner for you and all your
family.

All due respect, but I think this is a bad analogy. Most religions
encourage their members to honor their bodies by seeking necessary
medical attention when needed and staying healthy so that can better
serve their families and their communities. Cryonics is just another
example of a medical procedure. The fact that our case isn t strong
enough to convince people of this yet is pretty much our fault. I think
when cryonics is demonstrated to be a medically valid procedure,
Christians will flock (pun intended) to our doors just like everyone
else.

However, I expect the cure for aging to come about long before the
technology needed to reanimate suspendees. It s interesting to think
about what will happen then. Will religious people take advantage of
life extension technologies, or will they be so anxious to  head on
home to their mother s cooking  that they opt for an early (natural)
death? I imagine a movement will develop urging Christians to reject
artificial life enhancement. It ll be called blasphemous . . . playing
God. But isn t choosing to not use life extension technologies
equivalent to pulling the plug on patients using life support? A life
could have been saved with either one. As Bob Ettinger said,  We re all
sick.  Some are just sicker than others.

Even for those who take advantage of LE, I suspect most are going to
eventually choose to  pass over  and join their God. Regardless, my
guess is that, the world will eventually be a much more secular place
to live in.

Finally, your analogy doesn t really address my point that there are
many other factors besides the promise of a heavenly afterlife that
affect religiosity. The need to explain the universe, the need for a
forgiving father, the need for a powerful intermediary to intercede on
our behalves in dire times, the need to relieve our feelings of grief
when loved ones die, the need to know that those who get away with
murder will ultimately be punished, and on and on.

My real point in the previous paragraph is that those who are drawn to
cryonics tend to score relatively LOW on a religiosity scale. Even if
you forced churches to provide a caveat that they  might  be wrong, all
the other factors that contribute to making a person religious
(possibly even including their personality type) would still result in
them tending to score relatively HIGH on a religiosity scale.

It s just not where our market is. 
Or as the salesman would say,  Those leads are cold! 

Best wishes,

Scott Badger

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26533