Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!nanotech From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin) Newsgroups: sci.nanotech Subject: Re: Is Cryonics a Religion ??? Message-ID: Date: 11 Aug 89 02:22:24 GMT Sender: nanotech@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: U. Texas CS Dept., Austin, Texas Lines: 43 Approved: nanotech@aramis.rutgers.edu In article , merkle.pa@xerox.com writes: The author argues that cryonics, unlike religions, hinges on a technical issue which will be resolved in the foreseeable future using techniques that are extensions of those current today. This, and some of the other points that the author makes, are quite good, but the posting underestimates the perversities common to religious discurse. The unknown future is one of the common excuses for religious faith. The common religion of our culture has always promised empirical verification Real Soon Now (before this generation passes away?) The below passage spurred me to write: > ... There are one of four possibilities: (a) cryonics works, and > they pursue it. Collect the brass ring. (b) cryonics works, and they do > not pursue it. Oh, well. (c) cryonics does not work, and they pursue it. > Lose the payments on a $35,000 to $100,000 life insurance policy. (d) > cryonics does not work, and they do not pursue it. No gain, no loss. ... There is more than a small amount of irony when a person uses Pascal's wager to argue for the practice of cryonics, and claims that this distinguishes cryonics from religion. Within the context of naturalism, this kind of argument is somewhat reasonable, since the common meaning of death is accepted. Outside such a context, Pascal's wager fallaciously opposes a religious belief to naturalism, but excludes without justification other supernatural ontologies. Pascal did not consider the possibility of a god that condemns only fideists to hell, nor does the author of the above passage consider a universe where freezing the brain holds the immortal soul in limbo. (There are science fiction stories with just this theme.) In the end, the author is right. Cryonics, unlike religious beliefs that we label supernatural, fits easily within a natural framework. This is what makes it not necessarily a religious belief, and within this framework, the above argument makes sense. But the distinction must be made at a more subtle level than arguments that promise eventual justification for one's hopes and practices. Russell