The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Azisien]

It's actually logical inference, it's not "no proof." They were experiments, not just "hey, I betcha meteorites did this!" over two scientists having lunch at Burger King. They measured the energetic and physical impact of a meteorite, and they made a "smasher" to mimic the effects.

Mirror the possible cause, analyze the results, infer. That's different from "taking it on faith."

However, there are many gaps... MANY gaps... that are simply explained by theories such as abiogenesis which have no scientific or empirical basis. Therefore, belief in those theories ARE faith, not empirical or logical or scientific.

Well I think we can agree here. There are mountainous amounts of evidence for parts of evolution, but yes there are gaps. It is a young science, however, and it will grow with time. You're right, in some cases there is a great deal of conjecture and speculation. I think these concepts ARE worth mentioning, even in a science class, but they should be labelled as unknowns. In my science textbooks, they were, so I don't see the problem. I already addressed the inference stuff, so I won't go over that again.

P.S. Dang, Sword, we seem to have incredibly similar academic paths at this point. (I'm also taking a minor in Philosophy)

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by Tydeus

Really? What about drug resistance? What about Moths on birch trees (You know that classic, right?)? What about the few lucky people who seem to be basically immune to HIV?

Ah yes, the classic peppermoth example. It is indeed a fine example of natural selection, but not so much in progressive evolution. You're basically looking at two phenotypes, a black and a white moth. With the soot on the trees, the black phenotype (which had tended to be the fewer numbers) gained a temporary advantage. Once the soot was cleaned off, the white regained their advantage and became more numerous. However, both phenotypes existed in the population before and after the environmental pressures were placed. It illustrates very well how a species is capable of adapting to a dynamic environment, but its not really a progressive mutation. It's really more or less tweaking something you already have to fit the situation (what I called a sideways mutation).

Drug resistance, while a bit more complicated, is similar in nature and something I'm quite prepared to answer. And its actually what my thesis is on. I'm working on a drug (anti-parasite) called emamectin benzoate which targets the glutamate-gated chloride channels (a unique receptor to nematodes and arthropods) and mapping out its mechanism of action and potential models of resistance in lice (yum). Drugs target a receptor located somewhere in the organism and use it to kill the organism. My drug, EMB, forces the channel to be open to cause an influx of chloride ions which halt neuromuscular junctions from functioning, thereby leading to paralysis and eventual starvation (cruel, no?). The main mechanism of resistance, as far as I know yet I'm only finishing up my first year in the program, is either a loss or a dysfunctional form of that particular receptor. The drug, therefore, cannot bind, giving the organism a competitive advantage in the presence of the drug. Natural selection takes it courses, and much like the moths, eventually the drug-resistant phenotype outnumbers the wild-type. So we stop using the drug. And then what happens? Those receptors have a normal physiological role, and once the environmental pressure is no longer there, the drug-resistant phenotype becomes the disadvantages organism. Eventually, the population will swing back towards the wild-type. Perfect example? Malaria was commonly treated by quinine, but then switched to more efficacious synthetic drugs after resistance developed. Now, malaria is resistance to those synthetic drugs, but is once again sensitive to quinine. Again, its not really a progressive mutation.

As for those lucky HIV-resistant guys, I'd have to know more about what makes the resistant and whether or not its an evolutionary adaptation before I could say more.

Originally Posted by Azisien

P.S. Dang, Sword, we seem to have incredibly similar academic paths at this point. (I'm also taking a minor in Philosophy)

Cool. At least you won't have to deal with constant debates with your atheist philosophy prof (though we actually got along really well. He liked how I presented my arguments). I also ended up taking Biomedical Ethics from a feminist... enough said...


It all comes down to this point: nothing in science, and nothing on this forum, has been able to prove my worldview wrong or discredit it to the point where I'm forced to change my mind. My views on some things have changed over time, and I'm sure will continue to change, but it's perfectly possible to have a scientific, logical, nature and still believe in God. My best rationalization for why it would be God and not the other possibilities done by science is personal experience, which is not something I can prove to anybody except myself. I'm going to have to stop for the weekend now, because I have some work to do, and I generally don't post on weekends, but I hope I've been at least informative and that people can realize that there's the slightest possibility that my view might indeed be right. If so, then I think I've done a good job. Laters.

[Ryanderman]

Please, correct me if I'm worng or if this has been mentioned before, but it seems to me that we have never actually observed evolution when it involves a gain in information. By information, I mean the gentic code in the DNA. In order for evolution to have occured as scientists assert it did, there would have had to be an increase in the complexity of DNA over time. That has not be observed as of yet.

There have been the classic examples of the moths and the drug resistance and so on, but all of those instances of evolution involved an adaption within a species using genetic information that had already existed within that species. Nowhere have we observed a gain in information. All observed mutation have corrupted the DNA in which they occured, rending that section unuseable. Sometimes this proved advantageous to the species, but it still resulted in a loss of useable genetic information. Natural selection breeds in advantageous traits, and breeds out disadvantageous ones. All the advantageous traits already existed within the population, but the disadvantagoues ones will disappear - again resulting in a loss of gentic information.

It may seems like we have observed progressive mutations, but so far they've only been regressive mutations that happened to have a progressive effect. And that's fine as far as the microevolution of a species adapting to its environment goes, but it doesn't work for macroevolution.

[notasfatasmike]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

That the Nazis were crazy, hypocritical Christians hardly disproves that they were Christians. I mean I'm not sitting here arguing Soviet Russia wasn't atheistic just cause they had a really crazy-ass version of atheism going.

And it's not like a a lot of say, Catholicism, doesn't have its roots either in secular thought or in obscure non-Christian religions.

See, but here's the thing: the vast majority of Nazi leaders were not Christian. Hence, saying the Nazi were Christians does not follow.

If you're talking about the average, everyday soldier, well, then, duh the Nazis were Christians; Christianity was the dominant religion of Germany at that period of time. That does nothing to prove the point that somehow Christianity influenced National-Socialist thought; that would be completely out of order.

Hitler seems to have believed in a God, probably even the Abrahamic god, but in his writing it's often unclear whether or not you could classify him as a Christian, because he had a lot of problems with Christianity as a whole. He mostly used it to justify himself to the populace, who were, as previously mentioned predominantely Christian. (And also to draw comparisons to the Holy Roman Empire, but discussing that would drag this even further off-topic.)

This is the distinction I'm trying to draw: claiming that National-Socialist beliefs *came out of* Christianity is disingenuous and runs contrary to how they actually developed. It's trying to make religion the main scapegoat of something where, in reality, it's barely a footnote. I don't know if we want to keep this tangent going, but that's the point I'm trying to make.

[Demetrius]

Hitler seems to have believed in a God, probably even the Abrahamic god, but in his writing it's often unclear whether or not you could classify him as a Christian, because he had a lot of problems with Christianity as a whole. He mostly used it to justify himself to the populace, who were, as previously mentioned predominantely Christian.

Seems kind of similar to a certain other leader just who was just hung, except he used Islam.

[notasfatasmike]

Originally Posted by Demetrius

Seems kind of similar to a certain other leader just who was just hung, except he used Islam.

Hey, no argument here.

[Archbio]

I_Like_Swordchucks,

And you do realize they also believed in the occult and mysticism and threw all the Christians in concentration camps as well, right? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere before that Hitler stated that there was no God... could be wrong.

That's sounds so very, very wrong.

Notasfatasmike,

See, but here's the thing: the vast majority of Nazi leaders were not Christian. Hence, saying the Nazi were Christians does not follow.

The tangent came up when someone said the Third Reich was "an atheist country". It follows even less. Your objection about Nazi history being misrepresented would have been less dubious there. The claim that the Third Reich was "atheist" is also frequent.

The question of nazi religion is a complex one. There is at some point the appearance of trying to establish a cult with multiple levels for different classes.

Of course, that implies a very cynical use of religion, but I don't know since when the Third Reich is considered to be composed only of the Nazi leaders: what the population, which wasn't that uninvolved, believed matters.

You'd have a hard time demonstrating that the strong anti-semitist feelings that the Nazis used weren't the same vehiculated by christianity in Europe, and the Axis countries had, at the very least, ambiguous relationships with the Church.

Religion (in various form) isn't a footnote on this topic, and implying that the Third Reich was at equivalent distance between atheism and religion(s) is not being objective, to say the least.

I don't think this means this much about religion in general or even christianity in particular (I'm not going for anything like "christianity = national-socialism" or even "national-socialism=christianity"), but this isn't off-topic.

Edit: Before someone brings it up, Nazi belief in pseudo-sciences and the horrors Nazi science doesn't bring them in line with anything that you could call an atheist ideology as much as their composite religion brings them in line with christianity.

[notasfatasmike]

Originally Posted by Archbio

That's sounds so very, very wrong.

And it is very wrong. There are some who claim that some Nazi leaders believed in the occult, although depending on the source they either worked with it or fought against it. Most of the research on that particular topic is sketchy, at best.

Originally Posted by Archbio

The tangent came up when someone said the Third Reich was "an atheist country". It follows even less. Your objection about Nazi history being misrepresented would have been less dubious there. The claim that the Third Reich was "atheist" is also frequent.

Yeah, that's also an incorrect statement. I wouldn't say it "follows even less," but it is also incorrect.

Originally Posted by Archbio

The question of nazi religion is a complex one. There is at some point the appearance of trying to establish a cult with multiple levels for different classes.

Of course, that implies a very cynical use of religion, but I don't know since when the Third Reich is considered to be composed only of the Nazi leaders: what the population, which wasn't that uninvolved, believed matters.

Do you guys want the big time German major history lesson? Well, I hope so.

It's not just an "appearance" of establishing a cult - in Hitler's personal writing he flat out states that that was his goal: to create a pseudo-religious cult (a cult of personality, if you will) centered around himself.

You see, Hitler was an obsessive student of German history. He was particularly interested in the Holy Roman Empire. His goal was, essentially to recreate it - this where the term "Third Reich" comes from. (HRE was the second; the first is escaping me right now and I don't have any of my literature.) However, in place of Christianity, he wanted to place himself as the head of a new religion (so to speak - this isn't a religion in the strictest sense of the word, remember) that would hold said empire together, as he believed Christianity had done for the HRE. (Which is a questionable argument, but is that really surprising?) But given that he was located in the remnants of the HRE, it was dominated by a Christian population, so the first "phase", so to speak, was unifying that population through a trait they more or less already shared, i.e. Christianity.

So that's a big part of my objection to claiming Hitler was a "Christian" leader - he was pretty blatantly using it as a tool to control his population. And I'm aware that that's a negative trait of organized religion - I've never argued to the contrary. But that's not what we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by Archbio

You'd have a hard time demonstrating that the strong anti-semitist feelings that the Nazis used weren't the same vehiculated by christianity in Europe, and the Axis countries had, at the very least, ambiguous relationships with the Church.

I would have a hard time demonstrating that, as it's a negative and hence I am incapable of proving it.

As far as the Axis powers relation with the church, it was actually fairly unambiguous: they were in complete control of it. What, did you forget we were talking about a facist regime here? To be a broken record, again: the Nazis were *using* religion to gain favor with the populace. It's not like any Christians who disagreed with the Nazis could have openly spoken out about it. (And actually, many Christians were involved in the underground resistance movements; I do not intend this to be a counter-argument, but it is a fact.)

Originally Posted by Archbio

Religion (in various form) isn't a footnote on this topic, and implying that the Third Reich was at equivalent distance between atheism and religion(s) is not being objective, to say the least.

I don't think this means this much about religion in general or even christianity in particular (I'm not going for anything like "christianity = national-socialism" or even "national-socialism=christianity"), but this isn't off-topic.

Edit: Before someone brings it up, Nazi belief in pseudo-sciences and the horrors Nazi science doesn't bring them in line with anything that you could call an atheist ideology as much as their composite religion brings them in line with christianity.

Your last three paragraphs make little sense to me, no offense intended. It's something about the way they are structured that's confusing me. I am being objective on this, despite your assertations - the Nazis and their idealogy are far and away a product of history and not of religion. This is made clear in the writing of the major participants of that particular movement. I'm sorry you feel otherwise, but it is a matter of objective fact. You're trying to bring something into the equation that, realistically speaking, wasn't really a part of it.

The off-topic paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.

What "composite religion" are you talking about? They controlled religion because they were facists, but that should hardly come as a surprise.

[ZAKtheGeek]

You're all excellent debaters, by the way, not that I'm one to rank anyone else. It's what puts this forum above others.

Amen.

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

This is a cell. The is what the first life would have looked like. I used a bacteria cell, because animal cells are far more complicated but didn't come first. Even so, this thing is made of hundreds of thousands of proteins, lipids, nucleic acids, and carbohydrates. Each one has a particular function.

And it's obviously too complex to have sprung up from its basic fragments. I mean, even DNA is too complex to have spontaneously arose. There could be an earlier form, one which may or may not be considered life. It seems to me like, at its core, all life is an engine for producing ATP. Some molecules produce ATP from ADP and phosphates, then that ATP gives the cells the energy to do it again. Maybe the precursor to life was something like that.

[Archbio]

And it is very wrong. There are some who claim that some Nazi leaders believed in the occult, although depending on the source they either worked with it or fought against it. Most of the research on that particular topic is sketchy, at best.

I was mostly objecting to the other two statements, but yes the occult angle has been overplayed. It was there, though, and it lines up with the taste for pseudo-sciences in general.

It's not just an "appearance" of establishing a cult

The operative term isn't "cult", but "multiple level". I'll add more to this below.

this where the term "Third Reich" comes from. (HRE was the second; the first is escaping me right now and I don't have any of my literature.)

You've got it backwards, the HRE was the first Reich (in the nazi historiography, at least), the second was the monarchy abolished in 1918 and the third is Hitler's.

So that's a big part of my objection to claiming Hitler was a "Christian" leader - he was pretty blatantly using it as a tool to control his population. And I'm aware that that's a negative trait of organized religion - I've never argued to the contrary. But that's not what we're talking about here.

We're pretty much in agreement there. The characteristics I tried to bring out in my previous, hurried post underline just how cynical the exercice was. Still, Hitler used christianity to lead and himself held personal religious beliefs that owe some of their parentage to christianity, as you said yourself.

So "Hitler was a christian leader" doesn't seem all that aberrant a statement, even if it lacks tremendously in nuance.

I would have a hard time demonstrating that, as it's a negative and hence I am incapable of proving it.

Point taken. What I meant to imply is that the reverse is amply demonstrated. It's not something I'm that happy to bring up.

As far as the Axis powers relation with the church, it was actually fairly unambiguous: they were in complete control of it.

They were in complete control of the Catholic Church? That's somewhat surprising, from what I recall.

Your last three paragraphs make little sense to me, no offense intended. It's something about the way they are structured that's confusing me.

Again, I apologize, my post was more hurried than usual.

I am being objective on this, despite your assertations - the Nazis and their idealogy are far and away a product of history and not of religion. This is made clear in the writing of the major participants of that particular movement. I'm sorry you feel otherwise, but it is a matter of objective fact.

Maybe my paragraph wasn't clear, but I've stated what I thought wasn't objective in what I thought your position implied. I'm still not convinced. It's not an extraordinary claim that the Third Reich as a whole as more in common with christianity than with atheism. Yet, you won't say that. Secondly, I find it odd that you would speak as thought something being a product of history and something being a product of religion are incompatible propositions, especially considering more ancient religions (including traditions the nazis pulled from) have more ambiguous relationships with history.

Likewise, that "Hitlerism" was meant to be central to the Third Reich isn't incompatible with religion remaining important as a tool and as a building block. Pseudo and quasi religions are closer to "real" religions than to atheism in the non-religious sense.

The off-topic paragraph doesn't make any sense to me.

I was commenting, or trying to comment, on this tangent as a whole. It deals with religion, so it's not off-topic.

What "composite religion" are you talking about?

I'm referring to what I had mentionned earlier. A multi-level cult: substantial differences in the cults that are designed for the masses, for the party, and so on. It wasn't a novel idea, and the vague notion of the general population being christians while Nazi leaders were pagan occultists is apparented to that. I'm going to have to look it up, but since this isn't really an argument that's part of my rebuttal of another argument, I think you can forgive the delay.