"Technology will inject competition into religion and force religious authorities to clarify what they mean by immortality." This is important, according to Cole-Turner because "there is currently a lot of evasiveness about what immortality means."

Right now, it means you have to die in order to get it.

Of course the fact of death contradicts the veracity of the claim ... but what the hey.

Religion will also serve to inject ethical competition into technology circles. If the future of evolution is now more in human hands, the religious question is: toward what end? In other words, if humans could live longer, what good should result? Perhaps the Buddhist scholar had the most clear and concise answer.

Religion will also serve to inject ethical competition into technology circles. If the future of evolution is now more in human hands, the religious question is: toward what end? In other words, if humans could live longer, what good should result? Perhaps the Buddhist scholar had the most clear and concise answer.

The evasive religious fanatics are on safe ground at the moment. Sure, the technology for radical life extension may come, but seeing that most of us can barely afford the most rudimentary of health care, let alone genuinely optimal care the swift overtake of society by technologically immortal beings is fairly unlikely.

On the other hand, I'm certain that the arrival of Duncan MacLeod on any scene would cause a major uproar in all circles of believers. He would surely by cast publicly as the devil.

Given the ease which, these days, we like to redefine even the most substantive and basic concepts, it's likely they WILL have confusion over the meaning.
How man-made artificial life extension could be mixed up with immortality is one more milepost marking the decline of humankind.

Talk about not understanding basic premises.