What If God Approves?

Biostasis and the Surprising Openness of Judeo-Christian Religions

“God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living. For he fashioned all things that they might have being…” (Wisdom 1:13-14)

Is radical life extension – including biostasis -- compatible with western religions? This seems like a single question, but we can ask it in three ways depending on whether we are thinking about the content of religious texts, the declarations of religious authorities, or the attitudes of most religious people. The three of these may not always be the same.

The case against compatibility

One reason you might think biostasis is incompatible with religion is that religion appears to make the biostasis pointless. If a religious belief includes a belief in an afterlife – as it usually does – why bother attempting to extend your life, whether through ending aging or by being revived from biostasis after the aging problem has been solved? Lazy religious people might also reflexively come out with the old “You’re playing God!” response.

No incompatibility exists here in theory. You could believe in an afterlife and still want to live longer here in the physical world. According to John 14:2, “In my Father’s house are many mansions.” But what if you like the house you live in and the people you live with? You might be wary of a radically changed afterlife. You might at least not be in a hurry to get there. (Will your afterlife be with new people? Or will you have to put up with thousands of generations of ancestors?)

You might also be worried about your post-life destination. Surely, you should not smugly assume that you will go to heaven. Perhaps you will be sent downstairs and you would rather put off an eternity of torment for as long as possible. (Unfortunately, an eternity minus a century is still an eternity.)

Or perhaps you are a Catholic and acknowledge your shortcomings. You expect a stint in Purgatory before moving upstairs. If you live longer and work harder to live virtuously or to save souls, you might shorten your stay or avoid it altogether. Less selfishly, you might want to remain in physical existence to help others onto what you believe is the right path.

You might see life extension and biostasis as in tension with religion because you have never heard your priest or minister speak of it favorably. You might think that you should be satisfied with what God gives you. But doesn’t God help those who help themselves? Do you refuse surgery or vaccinations because they interfere with God’s will?

Rationalist non-believers may see an inconsistency because they base their advocacy of extended and renewed life on science and technology, on rationality. Religion is not based in reason (1) although opinions vary about the relationship between reason and religious belief. Some see religion as an entirely separate realm of thought, outside the rules of reason. Others (especially in the Catholic tradition but also more recently among Protestants) see the two as distinct but with reason supporting their religion. Even those who regard religion and reason as incompatible should acknowledge that the contents of religious belief can be compatible with science-based views and practices – such as medical procedures.

Compatibilism

Start with official statements. No religion has made an official statement on biostasis. Nor is there such a statement on radical life extension. No religious holy book or authority has declared these things to be forbidden. Even the Catholic Church, which has issued statements on cryonics-adjacent questions (such as organ donation, freezing embryos, end-of-life ethics), has not addressed cryonics or biostasis directly.

Before I get to surveys of believers and authoritative statements, I want to point out reasons why life extension and biostasis should be entirely compatible with almost all religions.

To start with, these are technical and scientific advances that resist disease, alleviate suffering, and bring more vigor and more life. Caring for and curing the body aligns with compassion. The multiple branches of Christianity regard the body as a gift from God. That gift is to be maintained and respected and kept healthy. Religions generally have supported medical advances and even built hospitals. When a religious person has cancer, they seek cancer treatment. The same goes for any life threatening disease or damage. Why should different rules apply to a means of making the body healthy and strong and resistant to the damage of aging? The same applies to Judaism and Islam.

More years of healthy life mean more time in which to worship God, to achieve spiritual growth, to do good works, to save souls, and to bring about the Kingdom of God on Earth. Religions would not look so favorably on those who seek more years solely in order to acquire more wealth or power or merely to indulge in pleasurable experiences. But that is an objection to living in that way, not to having more years to do good and to become better.

Surveys results

Let us set aside what religious believers should think about the radical life extension. What do they actually think? (Presumably this will give us an idea of their views on biostasis, if any.)

In 2013, the Pew Research Center conducted an extensive survey on the topic: “Living to 120 and Beyond: Americans’ Views on Aging, Medical Advances and Radical Life Extension.” Pew used a national survey of adults in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, and the results are based on 2,012 interviews. Some of the findings differ from what you might expect. “Radical life extension” was specified to mean extending life by decades. Unfortunately, this definition says nothing about those extra years being in good health or in decline. If good health had been specified, presumably the positive responses would have increased.

It seems to make sense to assume that non-religious people would be more favorable to radical life extension than religious people, especially those of the latter who believe in an afterlife. If you believe you will continue on in another realm after you die – and that it will be much better than earthly life – why would you want to hang around here longer than necessary? It would be sinful to cause yourself to die early but why postpone it?

It turns out that those who do not believe there is a God are a bit less likely to say that radical life extension (RLE) is a good thing. 42% of believers say RLE is a good thing compared to 40% of non-believers. The difference between those who believe in life after death and those who do not was a little wider: 43% of believers favored RLE compared to 37% of non-believers. Non-believers in an afterlife were significantly more likely to say RLE is a bad thing: 58% vs. 49% of believers.

This result is surprising. Could it be that non-believers are more uncomfortable about death and so avoid thinking about it and RLE requires thinking about it?

Of all US adults, 41% said RLE is a good thing and 51% said it was a bad thing. Among Protestants, the split was 42/49. Interestingly, Black Protestants favored RLE 54/40. Among Catholics, the split was 37/57, with White Catholics being significantly less favorable than Hispanic Catholics whose split was 40/50. With these exceptions, religious belief or lack of it did not correlate significantly with views about the effects of radical life extension on society.

When the focus changed from the goodness or badness of RLE for society to whether respondents would want treatments that extend their own life by decades, the results are again counter intuitive. 38% of US adults would want life extending treatments. White Catholics and white mainline Protestants were most anti-RLE for themselves. But 47% of Black Protestants and 46% of Hispanic Catholics would want it.

Respondents were also asked whether they thought the average person will live to at least 120 years old by 2050. Whites were the most pessimistic with only 23% agreeing. 29% of Hispanics and 35% of Blacks thought this would happen.

Religious authorities on life extension

Christianity and Judaism: These two major religions share the Old Testament in which it is not unusual for people to live well beyond the current limit of 123. The Bible mentions at least 33 people who lived beyond the age of 123. Most famous is Methuselah, a man reputed to have lived for 969 years, narrowly exceeding the life spans of several others, including Jared (who lived to 962) and Noah (who lived to 950). This could provide a basis for seeing our current lifespans as too short and not divinely willed.

There is no binding halachic ruling from major Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform authorities on cryonics. Some rabbis have written responsa for or against the idea, but these are individual interpretations, not universal rulings. Some Orthodox responsa focus on metzitzah, kavod hamet (respect for the dead), and whether biostasis counts as death at all. Others argue that preserving life is a paramount mitzvah, and if cryonics may extend life, it could be permissible.

Protestants: Some Protestant ethicists express caution, suggesting that radical life extension may reflect a human desire to usurp divine authority over life and death. Others argue that extending life could be seen as a continuation of medical advancements that alleviate suffering, aligning with Christian compassion. Statements from leading thinkers in the various Protestant denominations suggest an overall openness to life extension, sometimes with the condition that it be available to everyone.

The Rev. Alistair So, chair of the Episcopal Church’s Executive Council Committee on Science, Technology and Faith says, “Currently, there is nothing in the teachings of the church against life extension” but thinks the Church would probably warn against making life extension the focus of life and would be concerned about the effects on procreation. I would point out to him that longer lives – and especially a longer period of fertility and vigor – would enable us to have more children even if over a longer period of time.

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is likely to take a cautious approach, according to Paul Nelson, a theologian at Wittenberg University in Springfield, Ohio. An official statement, “Genetics, Faith and Responsibility,” which was approved in 2011 by the church’s supreme governing body, the Churchwide Assembly, calls for “reasonable life extension without expecting or seeking perfection.” It also warns that life extension should “not lead to unjust and disproportionately biased use of limited human and financial resources.”

The Rev. Charles Brown, former senior pastor of Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in Dayton, Ohio, and professor of Christian ethics at Payne Theological Seminary in Wilberforce, Ohio said: “I think we would embrace it because we welcome the blessings of a longer life so that we can make more of a contribution to society.” The Rev. Marcus Gibson, senior pastor of the Greater Shady Grove Missionary Baptist Church agrees: “We firmly believe science can be used to advance God’s purposes.”

You might expect the Baptists to be less friendly to life extension. Indeed, R. Albert Mohler, one of the church’s leading thinkers and the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has vocally opposed the desire to put off death indefinitely. However, Jeffrey Riley, who teaches theology at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, “believes many evangelicals would likely accept and use life-extension therapies.” They would be opposed if it “was being advertised as never dying.” But “if this was incremental and was seen as a way for people to continue flourishing, my church would more readily accept it.”

Charles Wiley, coordinator of the Presbyterian Church’s Office of Theology and Worship says that “Presbyterians trust science… so there is no obvious reason to be inherently skeptical of life extension” and believes Presbyterian leaders would recommend that people use those additional years “in the service of the church and God.”

The Catholic Church has a history of initially opposing new scientific knowledge but eventually coming around to accepting it, as most famously seen in the case of evolutionary theory. Catholics in the Pew survey were clearly more anti- than pro-radical life extension. But Father Nicanor Austriaco, a biologist, theologian and ethicist notes that “Catholics are called upon to alleviate suffering and illness” and Catholic bioethicists emphasize the sanctity of human life. If life extension therapies are seen as part of the effort to cure disease, it would probably be acceptable.

The Church has been known to support new research such as genetic engineering, so life extension, especially if made available to all, would probably get the nod from the Church. It seems to me that the cardinals hoping to become Pope might be less enthused than the Pope who would like to stay in charge but that is a political rather than doctrinal matter.

Judaism: I used to give talks to a special class at a Jewish high school at the invitation of a biology teacher. He was fascinated by the idea and the students were an intelligent and inquisitive group who asked questions and seemed open to the idea. That is not surprising when you consider some important concepts in Judaism.

Orthodox Jewish thought values the preservation of life (pikuach nefesh) – “saving a soul” or “saving a life” – is the principle in Halakha (Jewish law) that the preservation of human life overrides virtually any other religious rule of Judaism. If life extending technologies align with Halakha, they should be acceptable and even encouraged. The only obstacle might be if these technologies are seen as disrupting the natural order. Of course, many technologies acceptable to Jews “disrupt the natural order” so what this condition amounts to is unclear. Liberal Jewish movements might be more open to radical life extension, viewing it as an extension of human responsibility to heal and improve the world (tikkun olam – various forms of action intended to repair and improve the world).

Leon Kass, who we have met before, is frustrated that other Jews seem to be pro-radical life extension while he rails against it. From the Pew survey:

Rabbi Eric Wisnia of Reform Congregation Beth Chaim in Princeton Junction, N.J., agrees that most Jewish thinkers are likely to embrace life extension. “Prolonging life and saving life, no matter how long, is a great thing,” he says, adding that longer lives would allow people to better teach and serve future generations. “Human beings are built for cumulative knowledge, and the older we are, supposedly the more wise we are,” Wisnia says. Since Judaism is not a creedal religion, Jewish theologians might offer an opinion but these would be their personal opinions and not binding.

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church): The Mormon Church has made no official statement on radical life extension but, given its views on humans and their relationship to the divine, it would seem to be entirely compatible, at least so long as it is not seen as damaging to the family.

While not officially affiliated with the LDS Church, the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA) explores the intersection of Mormon theology and transhumanist ideas, including life extension. Some interpretations of LDS scripture suggest openness to extended lifespans. For example, the Doctrine and Covenants mentions that during Christ’s millennial reign, individuals may live to the “age of a tree,” which some interpret as symbolic of significantly extended lifespans.

Secular life extensionists and biostasis advocates may shrug. They may not care what religions or religious people say. But billions of people believe in religions and their attitudes affect our chances of success. If we can enlighten religious people, for instance, they may stop opposing death with dignity laws, coming to see this as a matter of continuing life rather than hastening death.

It is my hope that biostasis will become more widely accepted and far more people will join the rest of us on an adventure into the future. Biostasis can still succeed for those who undergo it even if the vast majority of people do not choose it. But the more people who support it and make plans to enter biostasis themselves when the time comes, the more research will be funded, organizational capabilities will improve, and costs will come down with economies of scale.

---

(1) Some Christian philosophers have argued that the existence of God – only part of religious belief – can be proved deductively. Inductive arguments are rare, one of the exceptions being my former Philosophy of Religion professor, Richard Swinburne. In his view, each argument for the existence of a God – the cosmological argument, argument from design, and so on – each make it more likely that there is a God, but none of them prove it beyond doubt.

---

Further reading: The survey. Religion and the Implications of Radical Life Extension (Palgrave Studies in the Future of Humanity and its Successors), edited by Derek F. Maher and Calvin Mercer.