X-Message-Number: 4025
From:  (Ken Wolfe)
Newsgroups: sci.cryonics
Subject: Re: Church of Cryonics
Date: 15 Mar 1995 02:08:57 GMT
Message-ID: <3k5i7p$>
References: <>

In <>  (Brad Templeton) writes:

>Imagine a group of people with the following attributes:

>a) They believe strongly in the possibility of life after death,
>   indeed this belief is the central reason for the group's existence.

I don't believe in life after death, but I do believe in life after 
cryopreservation, just like I believe in life after sleep, coma or 
anaesthetization.

>b) They believe that what you do in this life (this animation) can
>   strongly affect your chances of literal resurrection into a second life.

No, but I certainly do believe that what I do now can affect what will 
happen to me later in life, whether or not that life includes a period of 
cryopreservation.

>c) After they die, a procedure far stranger than any burial ritual of any
>   known religion is performed by trained and certified upper level
>   members of the group.  The procedure is exacting, gruesome and usually
>   involves decapitation.

You should be accurate and state 'after legal death'.  The word 'death' 
by itself is nebulous, the exact meaning has changed as medical 
technology has changed.  As for the procedure, why is it more wierd than 
planting somebody in a great huge wooden box six feet in the earth, or 
burning somebody until their head explodes from the pressure?  You want 
wierd, look at how the Pharaohs were buried (no, I won't even describe 
it, look it up if you dare).  Besides, cryopreservation is not a burial 
ritual anyway, it is a medical procedure like anaesthesia.

>d) All members of the group make regular payments to those in charge, in
>   order to improve their chances of life after death.  Many believe that
>   the more they contribute, the better their chances.

Sounds like health insurance.  You pay so that in the eventuality of 
accident or illness, you will be taken care of until you can be cured.  
Same idea.

>e) Members believe their resurrection will be acomplished by a future
>   technology so advanced it is indistinguishable from magic.

Clarke's Law: any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable 
from magic.  Our current technology would look like magic to somebody 
from just a few decades ago, that doesn't mean that it IS magic.  And its 
not resurrection any more than waking from a coma is resurrection.

>f) While most members feel their beliefs in this life after death are based
>   on rational principles and arguments, they will also generally admit
>   that many of the most important principles are far from certain and
>   that their probability and even possibility must be taken on faith.

No doubt, Cryonics is a calculated risk with a lot of unknowns.  That 
doesn't make it a religion, it just means there's more work to be done 
and more answers to be found.  If there is any faith, the faith is in 
human ingenuity, which is not a bad thing to bet on.

>g) In spite of the claim of rationality, members are few in number, and
>   thought to be odd or fringe people by those in the mainstream.  In
>   many cases the families of members object to their membership, and
>   the burial procedure in particular.

The idea of Cryonics challenges a lot of our most basic assumptions about 
life and death, about the human condition.  Regardless of what facts and 
logic you present to people, they are not going to give up those 
assumptions in a hurry, if at all.  

>h) The group wishes to evangelize its believes to those in the mainstream,
>   and convert them to members of the group.

How does encouraging people to join in on what we think is a good idea 
constitute evangelizing?  Do insurance companies evangelize when they 
encourage people to participate in group health insurance?  Do hospitals 
evangelize when they encourage people to make use of their diagnostic 
procedures?

>i) The group has a "burial ground" with tanks with they believe literally
>   contain the stored consciousnesses of the dead.  They treat these dead
>   as actually still alive, and hold them as sacred as they do the living.
>   The burial ground is protected, and desecration of it would greatly
>   offend members of the group.  They will go to great lengths to protect
>   it, and the dead within it.  They will resist the efforts of the
>   justice system to gain access to or custody of the dead members remains.

It is not a burial ground, it is a facility for keeping patients in 
suspension.  It is well protected because it must last for decades at the 
very least, and a failure of the equipment could cause the patients to 
truly die.  Again, you should be using the term 'legal death' instead of 
'death' to clarify what you are really talking about.  The fact that 
these patients were put in suspension when such an act constituted legal 
death is just a historical accident. 

>j) The group is highly interested in the question of the nature of life,
>   being and consciousness, and whether or not the soul exists.  The
>   presence or lack of a spiritual nature to humanity is of the keenest
>   interest.

It's a shame more people aren't interested in dealing with those 
questions in a rational way.

>I could go on, but doesn't it strike you that such a group meets many
>of the standards by which mainstream society might call it a religion?

Yes.  I need hardly point out that what mainstream society believes and 
what is the truth are two different things.

>In fact, if you take clause (f) in particular, even those here might
>agree it is a religion.  There is a large element of faith involved
>in cryonics.  Not faith in a god, but faith that certain things can and
>will be done, that the universe will unfold as it should.

>And why would it want to be a religion?

>Well, if a group is a religion, contributions to it can be tax deductable.

>That could make a big difference.

>For example, if you are a person in good health in your 30s, you can get
>a $50K life assurance policy for about $7,000 today one time cash payment.
>In addition, you might have to pay a few hundred per year for an
>emergency response fee.  What if these were tax deductable?  The life
>assurance would not be, so it would have to be done self-insured, but this
>could cut that one time cost down to about $4,000 after tax, which might
>mean a lot more people would be able to pay it.

>I can understand why Alcor doesn't want to be the insurer, some of those
>reasons financial and some legal.  But with this benefit...

Interesting idea.  Just what is the necessary criterion for becoming a 
tax-excempt religion?

Ken Wolfe

-- 
Ken Wolfe                    |  Fax:        I hate fax machines
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada   |  Compu$erve: 
        |  GEnie:      



Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4025