The religeon of immortality

[Flatlander]

Is death an integral and necessary part of religeous philosophy?

"People who are born today will not die," (Jose Cordeiro) declares with unruffled certitude at the annual convention of the World Future Society in Chicago. (He is a member of the society's board of directors)*

If death is an integral and necessary part of religeous philosophy, what would the impact of human immortality be on organized religeon? Are the two concepts reconcilable?

* Quote taken from Macleans magazine, special edition "The Next One Hundred Years", Oct 10 2005.

 

[Ping898]

Depends on the type of death he's talking about, like the body may die, but the soul will live on and that could be interpretted in never dying...

 

[Flatlander]

No, he's referring to the advancements of science bringing us ever closer to actual immortality.

 

[Senjojutsu]

I always think of my friend "Governor Death" as a prophet in these predictions of human life-span expansion:

Elderly people who are terminally ill "have a duty to die," declared Colorado Governor Richard Lamm at a meeting of the Colorado Health Lawyers Association in Denver on March 27th, 1984.

"Like leaves which fall off a tree forming the humus in which other plants can grow, we've got a duty to die and get out of the way with all of our machines and artificial hearts, so that our kids can build a reasonable life."

Social Security (The Greatest Ponzi scheme of 20th century) is being exposed as the fraud it is because people are living just a couple of decades on it...

So let's have a scenario where we just triple (extend) "middle age life" so that now the average American has normal life expectancy of 150 years...

Can you begin to imagine the societal consequences and pending legal adjustments?

Here is just one example to ponder.
I take a job at age twenty-three as a "public servant" then do my 25 years of service and go out "on retirement".
Does this mean the taxpayers and worker bees in The Dreaded Private Sector will now support me for the next one hundred plus years as I drive around in my Winnebago??

 

[Brother John]

No, he's referring to the advancements of science bringing us ever closer to actual immortality.

I really don't think that science IS doing that. Prolonging cellular life? Sure.
But it's nowhere near actually cheating death or anything like it.
BUT: I hope that it does, well.... sort of .

Anyway: Yes, Death is an important aspect to consider in religious thinking. (theology/cosmology/philosophy)
NO.... I don't think that IF science actually achieved real human immortality that it'd have any effect on religious thinking, WHY should it???

Your Brother
John

 

[Flatlander]

Well, my thought here is that religeon philosophy kind of needs us to die, so as to complete the cycle and be in "God's house" or what have you.

Which is to say, if we can "create life" through genetic engineering, and have total control over when life ends, where does that leave the afterlife?

Or, in other words, would a devoutly religeous person choose to die if it became a choice?

 

[arnisador]

This is a very nebulous question. I need something more pecific!

 

[heretic888]

Is death an integral and necessary part of religeous philosophy?

No, its not.

Even if we humans were no longer under the thumb of biological death, suffering would still exist. In fact, this is the basic premise of Buddhism: that all life is suffering. As such, we would still seek freedom or release from suffering.

Furthermore, the greater existential questions of the meaning and purpose to existence would still plague human beings. Freedom from physical death would not fundamentally change that.

However, it would admittedly be quite a bite in the *** to fundamentalist literalists --- after all, you can't be condemned to a literal 'Hell' if you don't die.

Laterz.

 

[Brother John]

No, its not.

Even if we humans were no longer under the thumb of biological death, suffering would still exist. In fact, this is the basic premise of Buddhism: that all life is suffering. As such, we would still seek freedom or release from suffering.

Furthermore, the greater existential questions of the meaning and purpose to existence would still plague human beings. Freedom from physical death would not fundamentally change that..

WOW.... Good points "heretic".
But even IF science could keep our bodies from deteriorating, there'd still be disease, war and mishaps. AND: that BIG of a science surely wouldn't come cheap. WHO could live forever would depend on who could afford to pay for the procedures/treatments to get there. Doubt it could be global.
EVEN SO: There'd still be accidents too.

Does anyone know the statistic on how many people die of "Natural causes" vs those that don't? Because those that don't would still keep dying.

Death is, I think, a natural part of life. The two are inseperable.
BUT: Religion is WAY WAY more than just a mere "Do good and accept the TRUTH...so you don't suffer eternally."
That's so very minor that it's almost laughable. It's a factor, but only one out of MANY. The purpose of religion is about meaning and purpose in our lives.... the absence of Death wouldn't negate that at all. Might even make it more meaningful. I mean, I know I'd work harder to be a better person and try to make a positive impact on those around me and an impact in this world.....especially if I was going to be around these people and in this world FOR EVER.

Your Brother
John

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Is death an integral and necessary part of religeous philosophy?

It will be until that time that humans become immortal...or, at least, much more long-lived.

Assuming sci-tech advances progress as they are currently, we might well see humans turning back the clock and reversing aging, disease, and infirmity. Will it happen? Let's assume my optimism just for the sake of argument and say it will.

One would think that the resurrection and its karmic equivalent of re-birth would lose some steam. Offings of Allah and Paradise might lose appeal. Within a generation or two all this might well change. Death itself won't be ended, of course, but it will be for some a rare occurance. An after-life should have less market value if the demand isn't there.

On the other hand, religions often adapt themselves to circumstances and contexts--Christianity has been remarkably adept at this as one example--and religions might merely change to fit the needs of the times. Perhaps death, in its coming rarity, will become a greater mystery. Cults of death might form. People might elect to die when life itself need not be terminated.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Brother John]

Death itself won't be ended, of course, but it will be for some a rare occurance. An after-life should have less market value if the demand isn't there.

Interesting observations Steve.
But: I'd think that if death wasn't negated, just put off for a long time... that death would be, in many cases, feared more. The more we cling to something (Life) the more we try to escape it's natural end (Death).

I think that I'd rather pay attention to filling my days with good work and finding a depth of meaning and purpose while I am here...than to just extend the number of days I'm taking up space.

Your Brother
John

 

[heretic888]

John,

Yes, as I argued beforehand, suffering would still exist even if we somehow gained immunity to biological death. There are overt examples of this in the form of war and poverty, but there are also the more subtle examples that we face every day. This inevitably overlaps into the existential questions that I mentioned before, and this is where religious thought can shine.

Laterz.

 

[Brother John]

inevitably overlaps into the existential questions that I mentioned before, and this is where religious thought can shine.

Good call.

The "Why are we Here?" that religious thought delves into would need to extend into "Why are we STILL here." We'll need a good existential excuse for going on 'existing' longer than a normal life span.

Me? I'm looking forward to a good long rest.
But I'm putting it off until absolute last...........

Your brother
John

 

[Bigshadow]

I think some religions require death because they have cornered the after-life market. Basically, for the right amount of money THEY can ensure that you will be safe "Just give us money and do as we say, we have it all figured out. Oh, here is some Kool-aid to sip on while you wait." This doesn't speak for ALL religions, but that is how I see those that I have been around.

I think death is the natural balance of life (some religions follow this I would guess). I think death is important, it is natures way of controlling the resources available and our persistance on this planet. If we were to be able to eliminate death, then we would have to control life or the production of it, to regulate the resources. Could you imagine the kind of society we would be living in? Orwellian for sure! I could see wars fought like that one old Star Trek show where they just line up and go into a termination machine.

Additionally, I think that in essence we never die. Our bodies die, but scientifically, there is a finite amount of energy in the universe, all it does is change state, energy never dies. In my opinion we just change state.

Lastly, all that being said, I think someone wanting to live forever is being selfish. Sure, I don't want to hasten it but I don't think I would want to live forever.


Just my thoughts.

 

[heretic888]

Outside of the purely philosophical question of whether religious thinking requires biological death or not, there is the further dimension pertaining to whether 'cheating' death is even a good idea.

Think of the magnitude of issues that this would complexify --- life insurance premiums, medical care, overpopulation, senior citizen benefits, social security, and so on. I think you could make a compelling argument as to why it is not a very practical solution to make such technology readily available.

Indeed, the world's governments may choose to ban the technology altogether.

Think about it.

 

[Andrew Green]

Religion would definately change... as it does with other changes in society.

No death = no afterlife

no afterlife = no going to hell if you don't follow the rules and no going to heaven if you do.

Good people, when they die, are supposed to go to a "better place", if they never die how do they get there?

Maybe the rule against suicide would change... Once a person reaches a certain age they are supposed to end there life and go to heaven.

Which would in a way make sense, if we became immortal, we'd have some very serious population control problems. People either need to die, or stop having kids.

 

[Brother John]

Religion would definately change... as it does with other changes in society.

No death = no afterlife

no afterlife = no going to hell if you don't follow the rules and no going to heaven if you do.

I don't really see how that'd have to change "religion" per say. I understand what you are getting at, but really that whole "Carrot and Stick" aspect of "Be good or else" is pretty minor in the scope of all that religion covers. Death would still happen a plenty..
Besides, if it's Christianity you are speaking of....EVEN if Death could be done away with, you'd still have the issue of the 2nd coming of Christ in which, as most Christian Theology states, the end of THIS world will come and reward/punishment be doled out to all.

Your Brother
John

 

[Andrew Green]

Well, looking just at Christian style beliefs...

Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden because God was afraid they would eat from the tree of life as well and become immortal. Wonder how that would fit into things...

 

[Brother John]

Well, looking just at Christian style beliefs...

Adam and Eve got kicked out of Eden because God was afraid they would eat from the tree of life as well and become immortal. Wonder how that would fit into things...

Depends really. Not all "Christians" believe that the story of Eden, or even that of exactly HOW God created things, is Literal... many believe it to be an allegory for deeper truths...something more applicable to life.

According to the same story you sight, the "First parents" also ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil...and thus learned right from wrong...

I'd say mankind is Still trying to comprehend THAT lesson.

Your Brother
John

 

[Andrew Green]

Depends really. Not all "Christians" believe that the story of Eden, or even that of exactly HOW God created things, is Literal... many believe it to be an allegory for deeper truths...something more applicable to life.

Which, in itself is a change from a few hundred years ago

As science advances our understanding of the physical world religion adapts to fit the spiritual, any future big scientific advances are going to do the same thing.

Coppernicus did it, Gallileo did it, Darwin did it, anyone that can make us live for ever will do it too.