Thanks Earnest and slimboyfat for the info.
This reminds me that the WT has long tried to back up its religious belief of physical everlasting life with scientific arguments and quotes from biologists. E.g. Watchtower 6/1 1964 (but earlier examples might certainly be found):
It is interesting that scientists do not view aging and death as inevitable, but rather as a disease they hope to cure. "I can see no reason," said biochemist William Beck, "why death, in the nature of things, need be inevitable." World-famous medical scientist Hans Selye pointed out that "aging can be regarded as a disease," and that, "like any other disease, it is probably preventable or curable." According to Nobel Prize winner Dr. Linus Pauling: "Theoretically man is quite immortal. His bodily tissues replace themselves. He is a self-repairing machine." Yet, despite the potential of endless life, men continue to die. Why?
In a sense these arguments have contributed to make the related scientific fields JW-friendly; but the technical pursuit of everlasting life could also be viewed as the utmost blasphemy (just like the UN was the ultimate tool of Satan, for trying to do what only Jehovah's Kingdom would do).
choosing life,
What I wonder, though, is whether you consider the possibility of some part of a person to live on, the soul, the conscience part, into another realm. Do you believe that ANY part of a person lives on? Not through what they leave behind, but rather what they actually take with them into another "world".
I certainly consider the possibility, but I feel that to even discuss it we have to shift to a register of language (which I might term "mythological") where practically everything is possible and nothing is "falsifiable". That's the reason why I prefer to focus first on the visible, phenomenal aspects of life (including nature and culture): from this angle every individual is clearly the continuation of many things (a biological, genetic, cultural, social, familial history) which goes on after him. A provisional compound, a form emerging from other forms and morphing into still other forms like a wave on the sea. This may not tell all the story -- the waves are but the surface. Otoh, this part of the story shouldn't be overlooked (as generally happens when "another world" becomes the focus).
However, religious beliefs about the afterlife (soul survival, reincarnation, metempsychosis, resurrection, even nirvana) can certainly be helpful to the individual consciousness (which is by definition at "wave" level) as they help "you" to relate to "beyond you" -- which only mythology can do. As I said before, when I construe myself as a provisional form between other forms in a way that allows "me" to relate to "beyond me" (by the wave illustration, for instance) I am also using mythological speech.
Again, what I think is important and valuable in traditional religious representations is that they do not deny death as a break in continuity. "You" do not access "beyond you" without a radical change (in Paul's terms, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"). To an extent, this is even true of JW beliefs about physical everlasting life inasmuch as they depend on divine intervention: death (especially as non-existence) and resurrection (or should I say re-creation) is a break from here to there; even Armaggedon is inasmuch as your fate at this point escapes you, although the prospect of never dying physicallycomes closer to a denial of death. Granted, it is also the case in other forms of Christianity (e.g. John 11:24f) but only because your death has been symbolically or ritually anticipated (you will never 'die' because you have 'died' already). It is a displacement rather than a denial of death.
paul from cleveland
Do we choose our desires... or just have them?
I would suggest a third option: influence. Interro-negative questions like "would you not want to live forever?" (which WT and other types of propaganda are full of) are a strong temptation, especially in view of the psychological difficulty of the alternative, i.e. facing your death.
Also, if my desires are not the same as yours, does that mean I'm vain, self-centered and ignorant?
No, it just means we disagree and there is always an unpleasant aspect to that, no matter how we may pretend to agree on disagreeing for the sake of political correctness. People like DeGrey would characterise my views as shameful and criminal, on top of regressive and idiotic (there is more potential violence in such a judgement imo). Others saw them as evidence of a lack of empathy. C'est la vie.
