Nanotechnology and religion: a complex relationship

[cbayer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/small-world/2013/jun/12/nanotechnology-religion-complex-relationship

Posted by
Michele Catanzaro
Wednesday 12 June 2013 07.04 EDT

There is much evidence that public views on nanotechnology will be shaped by religious beliefs


If synthetic bacon has never been part of a living pig. Is it still forbidden under Islam’s halal laws? Photograph: Alamy

In the science fiction short story Halo, a panel of Muslim scholars discuss a strip of bacon made by a "molecular assembler", a device capable of producing the meat directly from individual atoms, instead of slicing the meat from an animal. All meat from a pig is forbidden according to Islam's halal laws. Synthetic bacon is identical to the real one, but it has never been part of a living pig. Is it still forbidden?

"The story may look like a joke, but it shows how the capacity of nanotechnology to manipulate atoms may change the material world in such a way to raise religious questions," says Chris Toumey, a cultural anthropologist at the University of South Carolina, who has studied in depth the relation between nanotechnology and faith.

It is mostly secular voices who have expressed their thoughts and concerns on nanotechnology until now, but there is a lot of evidence that public views on it will be shaped by religious beliefs. For example, a 2009 survey found that strength of religious beliefs in the US is negatively related to support for funding of nanotechnology. A study of the same year found that the more religious a country is, the less it tends to find nanotechnology morally acceptable.

Until now, religions have been remarkably silent on nanotechnology, Toumey points out. Nothing compared to the harsh bioethical controversies about in vitro fertilisation in the Catholic world, for example. "Nanotechnology is a heterogeneous body of sciences and technologies: few faith communities have enough universities or journals to examine such a complicated issue," says Toumey. "Their attention may be attracted if some dramatic event happens: either positive, something like a cure for a cancer, or negative, like an environmental disaster." The scarcity of official documents makes it difficult to guess religious views, but it is an opportunity for scientists to get prepared in advance.

more at link

[Jim__]

1. Interesting question. I'd never thought about it.

I guess concerning bacon, my first question would be why are Muslims not allowed to eat it? If it's just a "commandment" that they have to obey, then I'd guess they wouldn't be allowed to eat it. If it's for health reasons (e.g. trichinosis) and those reasons are not present in the synthetic product, I'd guess they could eat it.

[cbayer]

2. My thoughts have been that the rules were initially established for health

reasons but took on religious significance over time.

But my very kosher friend tells me that this is not the case. He believes that god commanded it, though he is unclear as to why (nor does it particularly matter to him).

The bible says that you are not supposed to eat the flesh of the pig. So the interesting question is whether pork made by nanotechnology, and not coming from a pig, would be acceptable or not.

[okasha]

3. This rule carried over into Islam from Judaism,

and Judaism bans pork because it's a product of an "unclean animal." Since nanotechnolgical bacon would have no contact with an actual pig, it would seem to me that both Jews and Muslims would be free to eat synthetic bacon.

[cbayer]

5. What makes it unclean?

Were there problems with disease at some point. The verses I have read talk about chewing cud and about split hooves.

[okasha]

7. Exactly. The pig "divideth the hoof

but cheweth not the cud," if I remember the KJV version correctly. I assume that at some point an association was made between eating (undercooked?) pork and trichinosis, and that's how the prohibition made its way into the holiness code. In The Bible Unearthed, the authors note that the Hebrew people arose from among the Canaanites and formed settlements in the highlands of Canaan/Israel. Even these very early settlements, though, are distinguished from non-Hebrew Canaanite habitations by the almost complete lack of pig bones among their debris. So whatever brought the prohibition about, it happened very early, even before there was an official law code or even an official "Israel."

[cbayer]

8. I can see the logic.

If people were getting sick from eating certain things and they had no way of ascertaining what was causing that, it would make sense to explain it from a religious perspective. And if god says "don't eat pork" and people stop getting sick, then it confirms that god wanted them to stop eating pork.

The kosher rules are fascinating to me. I have learned a great deal from my friend, who cooks for me and I for him frequently.

He does the dairy/meat separation, no shellfish, but doesn't go as far as having the separate cookware, etc.

While the pork explanation seems easy, some of the other rules are more difficult to explain.

[okasha]

12. Shellfish can go bad rather quickly,

which may explain their prohibition by a people living originally at some distance from the coast of either the Mediterranean or Lake Genneereth (sp?). I have Jewish friends who served up pounds and pounds of shrimp at a combined birthday/Hannukah party last year, though, and have also been known to eat the occasional cheeseburger or BLT. Good thing our friends don't post here--the Usual Suspects would be telling them they can't be "real Jews" unless they follow every one of the 600+ rules of the holiness code.

[cbayer]

14. I have always admired how most of the Jews I know give wide latitude to

how much others keep kosher. It seems to be a purely personal decision for many and they don't judge others.

Not saying this is true for all, just for many I have known.

Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, whether you embrace it yourself or impose it on others.

[trotsky]

4. Should we worry about wood sprites when we chop down a tree?

What if we nano-assemble salt - can we still use it to toss over our shoulder to ward off evil spirits?

Those questions are EQUALLY as serious and valid as the synthetic bacon one.

[DreamGypsy]

28. You don't have to use nanotechnology to 'assemble' NaCl

Every time I have been approached by an evil spirit or any other evil thing, I just make a little salt this way, toss some over my shoulder, and the evil is gone.

Some background:

Chlorine is a choking yellow gas, used with mixed success in the trenches of World War I (it was known to have killed about equal numbers on both sides of the trench). When these chemicals meet, they react in a fierce ball of spitting fire and clouds of white smoke.

The smoke is sodium chloride (NaCl), or table salt, which I used to season a basket of popcorn I hung over the reaction. In the periodic table, as in politics, the unstable elements tend to hang out at the far left and the far right.

I anticipate similar results for nanotech salt.

[trotsky]

29. I understand that.

But it's irrelevant to the question.

[ladjf]

6. Many of the laws in the Koran are simply based on pragmatic health considerations. And although

the hook worm might not have been specifically traced to port, people were too often getting sick from eating it, hench "Allah
prohibited the eating of pork". I doubt that the Islamic hierarchy will ban artificial pork.

[cbayer]

9. Do you know the origins of some of the others?

I could do the research, but I like learning this stuff from other members as well.

Should be interesting to see where the religious groups come down on some of these issues.

[trotsky]

10. The "health considerations" theory doesn't have much historical support.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201102/why-are-some-animals-considered-unclean

[ladjf]

36. I should have mentioned in my original post that my comments about a possible health

related origin of the anti-pork laws and other practices in the Koran were based solely on my own opinion.

I'm not a scholar of the Koran. I read it about 50 years ago. But, I still remember some of the things that were in it.

Regarding the pork eating: it stated that a Muslim should not eat pork. However, in a starvation emergency, Allah allowed it.

The Koran instructed men to carry a porous stone to be used to dry off the penis after urination.
Bearing in mind that most of the Muslims were nomadic, desert people. Water was scare. To me,
it seemed obvious that the "pebble" rule was hygiene related.

The Koran required that all things "dirty" were to be touched with the left hand while all things clean were handled in the right hand. Again, for those who lacked the hand washing facilities to which we are now accustomed, it seemed that best health advice.

And like most religions, the believers were warned against having with close family members was forbidden. Health related.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. Nope

The same rationalization is used to make Judaism's Kosher look other than absurd. There is no historical support for the claim that Kashruth or Halal is based on health concerns. Both are simply irrational nonsense.

For that matter, if they were based on health concerns due to conditions long ago, those concerns would no longer apply and so the laws would have no reason to exist now.

[cbayer]

16. Perhaps they have acquired a deeper significance.

They may have more to do with self-discipline, denial and reverence at this point.

Since they don't hurt any one else, I don't see any possible harm.

Some people don't eat meat. Some people don't eat any animal products at all.

Is there hard evidence that this is a better lifestyle? Not really. Many do it for reasons more about their personal philosophy than health.

Where is the harm in that?

[DavidDvorkin]

17. It's harmless, but it's also silly.

[cbayer]

18. I suppose, but can not be sure, that some of the things you hold dear

are probably silly to others.

[Lordquinton]

19. The difference is that the silly things I do

I don't pretend are from god.

[DavidDvorkin]

20. Bingo!

[cbayer]

21. Does that really matter?

It seems very judgmental to me to determine that some sources of silliness are more valid than others.

You most likely have your "belief systems" and live your life accordingly. As long as they don't impose on others, what difference does that make?

Judging others may impose on them, however.

Your "truths" are no more or less valid than anyone else's.

[Lordquinton]

22. My "truths" don't come from an old book

that also tells me it's ok, and just to kill anyone who doesn't believe the silly little things I do.

[cbayer]

23. So what again. What gives you the right to judge others.

As long as their sources and beliefs don't infringe on the rights of others, why does it matter?

While I am aware that they exist, I don't know a single person of faith who thinks they should kill anyone who doesn't see the world the way they do.

Do you?

[Lordquinton]

24. Kill? No, not that I know of

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2013, 12:02 PM - Edit history (1)

I do know of many who use their beliefs to impose their will on others, from not leaving you alone until you acknowledge them, to filling the government with like minded believers so they can get their beliefs enshrined as law (just look at what is going on with all the abortion laws)

And yes, the belief that pork is unclean and you should kill for it has started a war that killed any people, look up the Pork Fat Rebellion.

[cbayer]

31. Yes, there are those that are extremists.

And there are other kinds of extremists that judge the many based on the few.

[Lordquinton]

32. An honest discussion would be nice, once in a while

It really is hard to get through this group when very other post is someone calling me a bigot, or extremist, or something just because I point out uncomfortable facts in some books, or vents that have occurred in history, of which none have actually been refuted, just relegated to "Some extremists."

And the war I mentioned about that silly belief about pork fat, I could find no reliable sources for deaths, but it was over 11,000 on the British side, and unknown for the other side, and knowing things like that it was several times that amount, all over a silly belief and some extremists.

[cbayer]

33. Why do you think you are being called a bigot or extremist by every other

poster that responds to you?

Could it be that your approach is contributing to that problem?

Lots of people with very different points of reference post in this group. Some discussions are quite lively, but conducted with mutual respect, an open mind and tolerance for a variety of ideas.

But those that engage from the perspective that others who take some guidance from the bible are fools, that believers are just pretenders, that people's beliefs are just "silly" and that those that post honestly are just dodging the question or too fragile to be truly honest might find it hard to get others to engage with them.

[Lordquinton]

34. Why do I think that?

I think that the reason I, and many others who disagree with the majority sentiment, get called bigots and extremists and militant, etc. is that the people calling us those names don't have any counter to our words, so they call us names and divert the discussion, like you have here. It's really gotten to be a silly thing now, Bigot used to mean something, now when you call the RCC on harboring child rapists, you get called a bigot, and accused of using too broad a brush or something, and the whole child rape matter gets lost in the noise.

I didn't call the beliefs silly, that was another, I just kept the terminology. It was used for several posts, then the tone changed, and I'm an extremist for calling someone's belief silly, when I was using the same term for myself. Even you used the term, so unless you include yourself in the bigoted extremist crowd, we can get back to the difference between my silly little belief that faeries help my garden, and several hundred million people's silly little belief that pigs are unclean is that they have a book that tells them that God said it's just fine and right to kill anyone who thinks otherwise. Some of them firmly believe that, but they all read the same book, and it is in there, can't dispute that.

[cbayer]

35. I think anti-theists sometimes get called bigots, extremists or militant here,

but I don't see those terms being applied to atheists in general. I have never seen someone called a bigot for calling out the RCC on it's scandalous pedophilia. I think everyone here agrees on that particular issue. But when someone accuses all catholics of being complicit or supporting these atrocities and the coverup, there might be some broad brush generalizations going and that might, in fact, be anti-catholic bigotry.

BTW, I just read about the Pork Fat Rebellion. While animal fat did play a role, this had much more to do with India throwing out the colonial Brits. The question for me is whether the Brits intentionally put animal fat on the cartridges to incite and intimidate the Hindus and Muslims. I suspect they did, but this is an area of history I don't know too much about.

I've read your posts with interest. Perhaps I am wrong, but my takeaway is that you have made some general assumptions about believers and that you have a goal of trapping them into admitting that they hold certain beliefs which they do not hold.

IMHO, this is not a team sport and we at DU have more in common than we have differences.

[Lordquinton]

37. A lot of people who disagree with theistic words get labeled antitheist

then it's all bets off. And yes, people have been labeled bigots/broad brushers for just calling out the RCC on it's bigoted beliefs. There are plenty of beliefs that are bigoted in religions, and it's not bigotry to call them out. Homophobic, misogynistic, pedophilia, those are all really bad things, and they all exist in the big religions (well, the last one is not spelled out in scripture per say, it is documented that the last pope was in charge of sheltering the guilty priests, and Islam has it's own issues with that issue). These are statements of fact, and they are all beliefs that really do hurt others.

The rebellion was, as are most conflicts, a very complicated and messy situation that was based partly on politics and partly on religion. there are cases to be made for both sides about the true cause, but that belief did play a part, and that was my point, that any belief that comes from a book that also states that God says it's ok to kill for your beliefs, is a bad thing. Sure, many people won't say they would do it, but they believe in other things (like the whole homosexual thing) that that book says with the same justification.

I am stating facts mixed with opinions, they are pretty east to differentiate. The Bible/other holy books all give the believer just cause to kill in God's name, that is indisputable. I believe that is a bad thing, that is opinion. Some people say that no one really believes that part, but there is millenniums of evidence to the contrary.

I have recently been told that there is no need to rationalize contradictions, they are just accepted and that's that, and we should not question it, but for those of us who don't take anything on faith, that's a little hard when what we're supposed to accept is that the bits in their book that was written by god that say it's ok to kill us (and that has happened in the past) are some of the bits that get ignored.

Thanks for reading my posts, I get long winded and rambly, and loose the plot halfway through sometimes, I think that last paragraph sums up my whole thought process.

[cbayer]

40. Some people that disagree with theistic words are anti-theists.

Dawkins has even called himself that, as have some posters here.

It's not the same thing as being an atheist. It's being actively opposed to theism.

Of course there can be many grey areas and it's not always clear, but sometimes it is very clear.

Those people have an agenda. They see religion as a team sport with winners and losers. They go out of their way to attack religion and religious people.

Sure there are many religious people who hold bigoted beliefs or use their beliefs to promote bigotry. They should be challenged and opposed by those of us who believe in civil rights and social justice for all. Many of the people that fight for human rights are religious people. To lump everyone together or make statements that say that all believers embrace a book that calls for the killing of anyone who doesn't believe the same things they do is wrong.

You may find a believing member or two here that hold some beliefs that most of DU would disagree with, but the vast majority of believers are progressive and liberal. To attack them is unwarranted and counter-productive.

No one here wants to kill you, of that I am sure. I enjoyed reading your post.

[trotsky]

43. Yet you appear to be going out of your way to attack "anti-atheists"...

however you've decided to define the term.

Do you ever really stop and look at your own behavior as you lecture and try to control the behavior of others?

Why, as you try to smear other people by claiming they need to see things in terms of "winners and losers," do you then define your own teams of winners and losers?

"To... make statements that say that all believers embrace a book that calls for the killing of anyone who doesn't believe the same things they do is wrong. "

Did anyone really say that? Please provide a link to the post where that exact claim was made. If you cannot, I have to wonder why are you attacking and demonizing others based on something you just made up? How is that kind of behavior conducive to civil discussion?

[ladjf]

38. cbayer, I have read and enjoyed your posts for years. But, I never was able to get my

sailboat avatar to animate like yours even though you sent me the website address.

[cbayer]

39. Thanks ladjf! Try this one: http://image.auxpa.org/coppermine/albums/animated/sailboat.GIF

I don't see you around these parts (religion) much, but am glad to see you here now.

My sailboat was blinking in such a way that it disturbed some other members, so I may have had a bad link at the time I shared it with you.

Make sure to put it in the signature line box under "my profile" and not the avatar box.

[ladjf]

41. By the way, during the one time I read the Koran, there were a number of other interesting

"surprising" items that caught my attention. I didn't mention them because, (1) I didn't remember exactly what was said and (2) didn't want to get in some kind of argument with people.

You know, the Koran is a relatively short book that can be read in a few hours. I think it would be a good idea if people of all persuasions would read it at least once. (and the New Testament as well.)

[cbayer]

42. I have only read parts of it and will heed your advice here.

I recently read the Book of Mormon and also found it rather surprising in parts.

But I agree with you that lots of people base their opinions on excerpts, sometimes taken out of context or without a historical perspective.

[trotsky]

25. "As long as their sources and beliefs don't infringe on the rights of others"

Congrats - in telling others not to judge, you just introduced a way to let you judge others. Hooray for double standards!

One of the biggest ways religion makes the world more difficult is the insistence that religious beliefs be "respected." As in, one isn't even allowed to call the beliefs silly! Why should some ideas be treated with respect simply because someone has declared them part of their religion?

[dimbear]

11. Let me explain about deliciosity. It's a fairly general rule. The animals that

themselves eat the most disgusting things taste best. Pigs, eels, lobsters, and so on.

Very general rule.

[cbayer]

13. Lol!

Personally, I think it has to do with fat content. The more fat the better.

My personal favorite meat products are the fattiest things on earth - foie gras, chicken and turkey skin, sausages, even cracklins (deep fried pork fat).

[DetlefK]

27. You know how cracklins are eaten in Eastern Europe?

You individually dip one in salt before eating it.




AND they can be used to make a heaver variant of puff paste:
Prepare a yeast-dough. Grind the cracklins into a paste and smear it on top of the dough. Fold and roll out, about 4 times. NO MORE KNEADING.

Salty:
Cut or stamp into cookies, brush them with beaten egg, sprinkle with salt&pepper and bake. Warm and fresh from the oven they are among the best you will ever eat. (But taste stale when cold.)

Sweet:
Cut them into rectangles about the size of the palm of a hand. Put a teaspoon of a thick and sweet jelly on it. Fold together, brush with beaten egg, bake. (The jelly should be very thick and sticky, the lower the water-content and the higher the fruit-content, the better.)

[cbayer]

30. Yum! I've only had them plain, but they are great right out of the fryer.

Making a paste with leftovers sounds great!

[SamKnause]

26. Religion

I am not concerned if they will eat it, or not.

I do not care what voluntary self restrictions they adhere to.

Just do not (and I am referring to ALL religions) encroach on my rights, the government, or public education.