[Recap]

Calvin Mercer asked “Cryonics and Religion: Friends or Foes?”  Cryonics, Mercer believes, will require support from more people than just scientists, including religious people.  How should cryogenics supporters present these ideas to religious people?

How the discussion will play out, according to Mercer, will include debates between liberal and conservative viewpoints, anthropocentric versus theocentric beliefs, materialism versus the supernatural, pragmatic versus dogmatic outlooks, and revisionists versus traditionalists.  This will show up as supporters and critics in the various Christian religions.

Mercer seeks to generate discussion about radical life extension among liberal religious people and someday among conservative religious people, starting with academics.  He provided two examples of success, including sessions at a conference and a book.

Liberal religious people are most concerned about issues of justice and fairness.  They worry that these technologies will not be available for everyone.  On the right are the conservatives, and Mercer said there are degrees of conservatism, but with common characteristics like belief in the supernatural and dogmatic thinking.

Mercer believes some conservatives will in fact embrace radical life extension.  They will be torn between their beliefs and their desire to get “being a good Christian” right to avoid going to Hell.

Christian faith includes the concept of the “miracle” of resurrection.  On the one hand there is resuscitation of the dead, like Lazarus. On the other there is transformation of the dead, like Jesus.  The dialog between radical life extentionists and religious people could be started around their ideas about “indefinite” lifespans and “infinite” existence, respectively.

[Commentary]

I would not expect an Alcor Conference talk about “Cryonics and Unicorns.”  I would not expect talks about “Cryonics and Astrology,” “Cryonics and Baseball Players,” or “Cryonics and Intelligent Design.”  However, I do understand that the majority of people are religious or spiritual.  Mercer presented this talk as an academic, rather than a theologist.

[Alcor Conference - Table of Contents]

[Recap]

Calvin Mercer asked “Cryonics and Religion: Friends or Foes?” Cryonics, Mercer believes, will require support from more people than just scientists, including religious people. How should cryogenics supporters present these ideas to religious people?

How the discussion will play out, according to Mercer, will include debates between liberal and conservative viewpoints, anthropocentric versus theocentric beliefs, materialism versus the supernatural, pragmatic versus dogmatic outlooks, and revisionists versus traditionalists. This will show up as supporters and critics in the various Christian religions.

Mercer seeks to generate discussion about radical life extension among liberal religious people and someday among conservative religious people, starting with academics. He provided two examples of success, including sessions at a conference and a book.

Liberal religious people are most concerned about issues of justice and fairness. They worry that these technologies will not be available for everyone. On the right are the conservatives, and Mercer said there are degrees of conservatism, but with common characteristics like belief in the supernatural and dogmatic thinking.

Mercer believes some conservatives will in fact embrace radical life extension. They will be torn between their beliefs and their desire to get “being a good Christian” right to avoid going to Hell.

Christian faith includes the concept of the “miracle” of resurrection. On the one hand there is resuscitation of the dead, like Lazarus. On the other there is transformation of the dead, like Jesus. The dialog between radical life extentionists and religious people could be started around their ideas about “indefinite” lifespans and “infinite” existence, respectively.

[Commentary]

I would not expect an Alcor Conference talk about “Cryonics and Unicorns.” I would not expect talks about “Cryonics and Astrology,” “Cryonics and Baseball Players,” or “Cryonics and Intelligent Design.” However, I do understand that the majority of people are religious or spiritual. Mercer presented this talk as an academic, rather than a theologist.

Headline on CNN.com: “Girl, 5, stumbles from woods to delight rescuers”

“Little’s husband, Brian, said parishioners have been “praying for his whole family.”"Obviously, we’re giving all the glory to God on this one,” Brian Little said.”

Obviously, the glory belongs with the smart little survivor, you awful people! You might as well give the glory to a unicorn or the Loch Ness Monster as well while you are disrespecting the little girl. Instead of praying for the whole family, why not get out there and search? Raise some money for a nice and expensive toy for the girl? I wish people would actually do something instead of their useless praying, and I wish news sites would remember what it means to be objective and quit including prayer quotes in ever freaking story.

But my wishing is just as effective as their praying.

This appears right now (around 11:30 AM PST on Monday, June 18, 2007) on Weather.com:

National Forecast
Prayers answered
2:00 p.m. ET 6/18/2007
Many southern communities have had prayer vigils for rain due to the drought. Their prayers may be answered Tuesday.

Weather is a science. The storm front is not an answer to prayers. It is not the result of some mystical being subtly manipulating the universe to bring relief. It is the result of physical processes at work on our planet.

“Prayer” is appearing far too in headlines and news articles. Instead of praying, read a book about weather, move, or take some action that might actually mean something.

Marshall Brain, founder of the website “How Stuff Works” and author of several books and futurist writings (”The Robotic Nation” and “The Day You Discard Your Body”) has launched a new site exploring the paradox of God. If medical miracles really happen, then why have amputees been ignored?

read more | digg story

Marshall Brain used his engineering and computer science experience to help an Internet audience learn How Stuff Works, and then turned his attention to exploring The Robotic Nation. While finding Robotic Nation Evidence everywhere and contemplating on how this may lead to The Day You Discard Your Body, Brain has also written several books, published online advice about How to Make a Million Dollars, distilled his knowledge about creating a website for profit, and lamented at how Sad Tech can look today compared to expected future technologies. Now Brain has turned his curiosity, insights, and approachable and easy-going writing style toward religion, by asking Why Does God Hate Amputees?

The title is immediately blasphemous to billions of humans around the globe that believe in God. Brain’s latest work emphasizes the troubling paradox of God – why does this entity, if He exists, allow pain and suffering? Brain is not content with the typical religious response that pain and suffering are somehow part of God’s plan. Instead, he begins by examining particular stories of horror in this world, each leading to the same paradox. Then he asks, in a world where the religious believe such pain and suffering can be vanquished through the power of prayer, why have there been no miraculous regenerations of amputated limbs? Of all equally as amazing supposed miracles documented throughout history, why have amputees alone been left out in the cold?

The answer, Brain argues, is that God does not exist.

Although some Christians may insist that his style is confrontational, Brain uses the trademark approachability of his previous works to carefully navigates from point to point toward his conclusions. The paradox of God is not new, but the illustration of this paradox using the plight of amputees and the lack of limb regeneration in the record of miraculous events sheds new light on the issue, leading to his blasphemous (to many) conjecture that God cannot exist.

Some might call Brain brave. I instead call him an epitome of the Cybernudist, that person who willingly and without anonymity exposes his memetic processes while releasing the resulting memes to cyberspace and to the larger noosphere. This is not at all like the majority of citizens in cyberspace who remain anonymous while spouting off their own opinions. Brain does not hide behind a handle – yes, Marshall Brain is his real name – and he does not rest on the laurels of his past achievements.

Rather, he emerges fully nude and fully named, Marshal Brain, an explorer utilizing cyberspace to both facilitate his exploration and deliver the fruits of that labor, who in the process exposes himself in a way that only the immediacy and pervasiveness of cyberspace can, unmatched by verbal communication, books, radio, television, or other traditional media alone.

Cybernudism requires ownership of your thoughts, just as nudism requires ownership of your own physical body. That Brain openly identifies himself does not prove that his work is the truth. However, it does show that he takes ownership of his thoughts, unlike many of his critics who, quite literally, have allowed themselves to be named “Anonymous” by the automated tools of Blogger.com. Those who hide in the shadow of their anonymity remain fully clothed and safe, and yet they shout the loudest. They do not deserve a listen.

Marshall Brain deserves a listen.