|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
| |
Immortality, a
non-religious approach - - - Up to now, religions have owned the immortalitypromise. Their primary method, believe X (varies from religion to religion) and get it (or at least maximize your chances of getting it), disbelieve or doubt X, and either don't get it -or- get it in a very unpleasant way -or- get a chance to get it, later, if you pass some post-death test. What if everyone gets it, and what if immortality is simply another natural part of a mysterious natural adventure? What if immortality isn't neces- sarily better or worse, but instead, is simply a different naturalistic experience? Certainly, selling immortality as the ultimate drug, the ultimate high, the unltimate in pleasure, if you jump through the 'right' religion's hoops, that has enormous appeal. The threat side, not so much. But, is religion really necessary for immortality? What -if- immortality is as natural as any other event in this particular naturalistic realm we are familiar with, and it's not earned, and no one is excluded from it, and everyone and everything is a part of it? What if all that is natural is part of some naturalistic realm in which a continua- tion of possibilities is the ultimate reality? Just a thought, for those of you who, like me, find the immortality promise of religion to be its most seductive feature, but who have been taught that if you disbelieve or doubt, you either get eliminated from existence forever, judged and punished and eliminated from existence forever, or judged and punished forever. A naturalistic immortality, in my view, offers a far more attractive alternative to religion than has been posited 'til now not only by religions and their followers which equate naturalism with oblivion, but also by disbelievers and doubters who've bought into the religious argu- ment that's it's their way -or- no way, dismis- sing any possibility that a naturalistic immor- tality is even possible. Just saying, within the unknown realm of the totality of that which is natural, pondering a naturalistic immortality is a potentially power- ful concept, and worthy of consideration until or unless the totality of naturalism is known to exclude the possibility of *any* immortality. - - - A naturalistic immortality would encompass whatever naturalistic environment presented itself. From a physics standpoint, the universe we live in is stock full of dynamic possibilities, dependent in large measure on the type of planet one happens to be born on. As for other physics in other naturalistic environs, the possibilities are limited only by the ability to imagine the possibilities. Those with limited imaginations, therein is the limitation, although material is available which might open their mind to possbilities far beyond those which they're familiar with. Links to some possibilities: Life and what's up after ... http://tinyurl.com/2r9p4x Top Books/Videos for SHANANNAREEFERS (Immortality) http://prohuman.net/top_books_videos_immortality.htm Naturalistic Immortality Postulate http://tinyurl.com/2jpol8 Hope for a Pleasant Religious-free Immortality http://tinyurl.com/2tuoh6 Fear of Oblivion? http://prohuman.net/disbelief/fear_of_oblivion.htm - - - Someone responded: > [...] irreligious drivel [...] It would appear that for immortality to have substantive import for you (or for 'all', not sure who you're trying to speak for, there), it must fall 'neath the scope of religion, in general. Now, you've clearly stated that the reli- gion of Islam is simply a political false- hood. Would you be willing to add that in your opinion all religions differing from your own have futile immortality promises, or would you prefer to adopt the ecumenical stance that many religions are OK (and might give its believers immortality) so long as a religion is practiced in the 'right' way? If you're christian, believing Jesus came to earth, died, rose, and lived for a while before getting his immortality ticket is by most christians the critical factor to get immortality. Difficult to use the ecu- menical stance once you've chosen the christian exclusivity ticket, but hey, many christians try to do it, or at least like to act as if they're doing it when attending ecumenical conferences or when stating belief in God (any will do) is good. Naturalistic immortality? You appear unwilling to think about that. I would suspect that your unwillingness is due to your fear of the threat side of the christian faith, but if not, perhaps you can share why you feel a particular religion's (or many religion's) offer of immortality is real, but a natural- istic immortality is simply impossible. Do you feel that a supernatural force is required to bring about immortality, and by defnition, supernatural -and- natural are at odds with one another? Do you feel that promises (aka, seduc- tions) treating a pleasant immortality as reality are required to change the immortality from a mere possibility to an attractive or likely one? Do you feel you understand all there is to know about the natural universe (or universes) that exist? If so, your position differs from that of the scien- tific community, which by and large is still searching to discover all there is to know about the natural universe (or universes, opinions differ on that). - - - What does immortality mean to me? That we all want more time; and we want it to be quality time. -Joan D. Vinge I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve it through not dying. -Woody Allen - - - Someone responded, in reply to a poster who was critical regarding the religion of Islam: > What truly gets me is the way Islam is condemned for its > ridiculousness by people who believe the earth was created > in six days, that the most powerful and ominpotent being in > the entire universe had to rest after six days of work, that > trees were on the earth before there was a sun That poster's condemnation of Islam is based in large part on his rejection of incitement to violence that is present throughout the Quran and which con- tinues to be used in an anti-human way by many Islamic teachers/preachers in Islamic cultures. The guilt regarding christian and judaic incitement to violence is not present in many of the religious simply because, in the secular societies prevalent throughout the west, most live in denial regarding the more violent aspects of their ancient foun- dational texts. - - - Someone responded: > No religion that I have ever observed has any type of empirical > basis for its belief system; if you want to believe, then by all > means go ahead, it is your right; just don't try to sell your beliefs > as science or get mad at me when I laugh when you say your > ridiculous beliefs are less ridiculous than Islam's Not sure what you're referring to, there, as the naturalistic possibilities for immortality are not a belief, but are simply a reflection of possibilities within what we know regard- ing the scope of what we don't yet know. Concepts like quantum consciousness and multiple dimensions and big bang causality transpiring in a pre-big-bang naturalism are naturalistically grounded, as are theories involving the particular universe we happen to inhabit being cyclic in nature. On a much easier to grasp level, simply en- tailing near-immortality in this particular instance of existence, the following is one of many expositions regarding what may soon be a much much longer life for up- coming generations: - - - Born: Immortal baby? 30 Dec 2007 Times of India http://tinyurl.com/2rcxpy - - - Complete article: There is a good chance that therapies to extend lifespans will be available to those born in 2008. Aubrey de Grey, a Cambridge researcher who has been working on anti- ageing therapies, says that there is a 50% chance that rejuvenation therapies - that can delay ageing - would be developed by 2040. Which means that those born in 2008, who would be in their 30s by then, can utilise these therapies to stay one step ahead of ageing. Eventually there would come a time, says de Grey, when ageing would become a dispensable act and finally, it would be possible to eliminate ageing from the human system altogether. Although researchers are working to make that day a reality, immortality, as and when it happens, won't be an overnight process. Instead, it will be a step-by-step process. For instance, initially there will be treat- ments that repair molecular and cellular damage so that we can continue to live another decade or two, following which we get the treatment again to remove the new damage, and so on. With new advances, these treatments will become more effective and lifespans will continually get elongated. However, im- mortality would not necessarily denote invulnerability. Disease, accidents and natural disasters would all take their toll. Also, a future where death is indefinitely delayed would bring its own set of problems, like over- population, for instance. In spite of all this, the promise of beating death is one that is greatly alluring, and one that is propelling anti-ageing researchers towards their goal. If scientists are able to manage a break- through, even a few decades from now, it would clearly mean that children of the future would be born with a definite ad- vantage - of being in a position to delay death as long as they want to. And be almost immortal. - - - end of article - - - - - - |
|
|
| |
|
|
 |
