• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Klein & Mitchell -- Book Reviews


  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Bruce Klein

  • Guardian Founder
  • 8,794 posts
  • 242
  • Location:United States

Posted 22 March 2005 - 11:29 PM


Simon Smith, with Betterhumans.com has kindly allowed Ben Mitchell and I to review books. As you may see below, we're not in total agreement.

Enjoy.

Bruce Klein


---

Posted Image
Credit: Immortality Institute - Infinitely one-sided: Almost no space is given to arguments against immortalism in The Scientific Conquest of Death, says C. Ben Mitchell

An Apologia for Immortalism
The Scientific Conquest of Death adequately articulates the immortalist vision, but a lack of self-criticism makes it more advertising than argument

By C. Ben Mitchell
Special to Betterhumans
3/22/2005 2:11 PM


Having just turned "the big 5-0," I find the subject of an infinite lifespan increasingly intriguing. And, now that I must wear glasses to assist my failing vision, have one knee that is afflicted with osteoarthritis, and have family members with Alzheimer's, the subjects of aging and death have taken on new urgency. My interest is piqued.

Published by the Immortality Institute—whose stated mission is "to conquer the blight of involuntary death"—The Scientific Conquest of Death is a collection of 19 essays organized around three themes: science, perspectives and resources. As with any anthology, the essays are quite mixed in quality, but together they provide a helpful profile of the immortalist movement.

The Institute cannot be faulted for publishing an apologia or even an advertisement for immortalism. After all, every movement needs to articulate its vision, make its affirmations and denials, and offer reasons why it thinks its way of inhabiting the world is at least as plausible as possible contenders. One could wish, however, that there was more interaction with the contenders. The collection is hardly self-critical and almost no space is given to grappling with arguments against "the scientific conquest of death."

Continued: http://www.betterhum...ID=2005-03-22-2


------

Posted Image
Credit: Eerdmans - Immortalist strategy: Without evidence for God or an afterlife, says Bruce J. Klein, we should strive for more life through technology, not religion

Misplaced Faith in Religious Bioethics
While addressing important topics, Aging, Death and the Quest for Immortality compromises rationality for religion

By Bruce J. Klein
Special to Betterhumans
3/22/2005 1:56 PM


Aging is a most tragic problem. More than 30 million people die each year from aging. Countless lives will be saved when we find a cure. But would such a cure be ethical? And what do we do in the meantime?

To address such questions, The Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity—which "exists to help individuals and organizations address the pressing bioethical challenges of our day," has relationships with such religious groups as the Christian Medical and Dental Society and sponsors conferences such as The Christian Stake in Bioethics—has published 13 essays in a book entitled Aging, Death, and the Quest for Immortality that aims to "bring together an array of writers to address important bioethical issues from a forward-looking Christian perspective."

With this book, the Center should be commended for choosing to focus on important topics. Many of the book's contributors, however, have for the most part compromised rationality for religion. This is unfortunate because the best way to solve the problems of aging and death are with science and reason, not faith.

Continued: http://www.betterhum...ID=2005-03-22-1

#2 John Doe

  • Guest
  • 291 posts
  • 0

Posted 23 March 2005 - 12:13 AM

Nice. I'll read these immediately.

#3 reason

  • Guardian Reason
  • 1,101 posts
  • 284
  • Location:US

Posted 23 March 2005 - 05:59 AM

Good job. Gave it a link from Fight Aging!

http://www.fightagin...ives/000429.php

Oh, and gently reminding Glenn Reynolds got a link, so that's a good step:

http://instapundit.c...ives/021953.php

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#4 DJS

  • Guest
  • 5,798 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Taipei
  • NO

Posted 23 March 2005 - 06:52 AM

Ben Mitchell

Only a purely naturalistic worldview could lead one to the conclusion that humans are not immortal already


I proudly identify myself as a naturalist, but this is really besides the point. Do you have proof of an immortal soul Mr. Mitchell? Didn't you ever take a logic class where they warned you about making unfalsifiable claims? I'm becoming tired of debating ethics with such short sighted people. They have all of the evidence right there in front of them and they still come to the wrong conclusions. They try to make it seem as if their opposition's thinking is inflexible when it is really their own which is. What makes you so sure that there is an immortal soul Mr. Mitchell? Where is your proof? Without proof why should I believe you? Why should I take the chance that my fate after death is oblivion?

#5 walter

  • Guest
  • 2 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 April 2005 - 08:23 PM

i will read these books my eyes and ears are open

#6 advancedatheist

  • Guest
  • 1,419 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Mayer, Arizona

Posted 01 April 2005 - 08:54 PM

Only a purely naturalistic worldview could lead one to the conclusion that humans are not immortal already


It doesn't follow that a "supernaturalistic" worldview, if Mitchell proposes one as an alternative, guarantees that human immortality does exist. It's not logically incoherent in a supernaturalistic philosophy, assuming that reality does work that way, for humans to exist temporarily.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users