Hitler's Search for the Holy Grail

When Steven Spielberg made a movie about an intrepid archaeologist’s fight to keep a precious and powerful artifact — the Holy Grail — out of the hands of the Nazis, it was not widely known that the tale was based on truth. There really was a Nazi archaeological unit and it did send teams across the world to try to find the Grail.

History meets Indiana Jones in HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL, a one-hour documentary airing on PBS Monday, November 27, 2000, 10:00 p.m. ET (check local listings). Host Michael Wood (IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT) explores how history was used as a political tool and how the theories of the Nazi historical department provided the ideology used by the SS (Schutzstaffel – "protection squadron") to justify genocide.

The program outlines how the racialist theories of the SS were drawn from archaeology, myth and legend, as well as selected history. Nazi ideas about "Aryans" and the "master race" came out of historical and ethnic fantasies in which legends such as the Holy Grail and the lost city of Atlantis — supposed to be a home of the Aryan race — played their part.

HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL contains rare and previously unseen footage, including

* color film of the Nazi expedition to Antarctica;
* film of the Nazi expeditions across the world, from the Baltic to Venezuela;
* footage of the 1938 expedition to Tibet, with the measuring of skulls of Tibetans;
* documentary evidence for expeditions to Peru, Iceland and Iran, and footage of SS chief Heinrich Himmler at archaeological sites.

The film conjures the eerie world that permeated the thoughts of key members of the Nazi leadership, especially Himmler, and shows how top scholars, some of them still alive, collaborated in this project.

HITLER’S SEARCH FOR THE HOLY GRAIL includes interviews with a former member of Himmler’s personal staff and the wife of a top SS commander, who give unique and unrepentant insight into the mentality of the Nazi inner circle. The program also includes a dramatic recording of the Nuremburg trial of Wolfram Sievers, the head of the SS Ahnenerbe ("Ancestral Heritage Society"), Himmler’s archaeological and historical unit. The Ahnenerbe’s task, according to Himmler, was "to restore the German people to the everlasting godly cycle of ancestors, the living and the descendants."

Himmler was a member of the Thule Society, an extreme nationalist group named after one of the mythical homes of the German people. It was the society’s almost mystical belief in the greatness of the German past — to which Himmler subscribed with fanatical devotion — that was to provide the intellectual ballast to Nazi belief in race and destiny.

The chief administrator of the Ahnenerbe, Dr. Wolfram Sievers, had been heavily involved in the criminal medical experiments that were carried out on Jews in concentration camps, all to prove racial differences and the superiority of the Aryan race. After Germany’s defeat in 1945, Sievers was brought before a war crimes tribunal, found guilty and sentenced to death. He was executed on June 2, 1948. The archaeological world of the Ahnenerbe died with Hitler, Himmler and Sievers; the Ahnenerbe, too, melted away. Many of its top archaeologists, however, returned, unpunished, to university life, only to re-emerge as leading academics in postwar Germany.

Underwriters: Public Television Viewers and PBS. Producer: Maya Vision. Producer: Rebecca Dobbs. Director: Kevin Sim. Format: CC STEREO TV Calendar PBS Previews PBS Picks Telstar/C-band Schedule Primestar, Dish Network & DirecTV Schedule PBS KIDS Channel PBS YOU Schedule

However, if I understand his "threads", [which I may not :) ] he does not seem to concede that anything exists other than the Universe, including the human discipline of metaphysics, accessible by reason, above/outside science . . .

That's his incoherent belief system, as far as I can tell too. I wanted to at least make clear that he and us have different definitions of God. So if we're going to argue over God's existence, we should at least agree on a definition of God.

How to prove the existence of the non-material to a materialist? I prefer a negative proof. If an atheist can understand that materialism is self-contradictory, then he will logically have to accept the existence of the spiritual.

The internal contradictions in materialism lie in epistemology. Peter Kreeft lays out the arguments nicely in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics.

1) If everything is material, then the thoughts in our heads are simply the result of randomly colliding atoms. If this is the case, then my random "thought" that materialism is false and lexcorp's random "thought" that materialism is true are equally valid since they are both the result of the random collision of atoms. But this violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. So the premise must be false. Therefore materialism is false.

2) Stated another way, if we live in a purely material universe then we are machines. If we are truly machines, then we can malfunction. Therefore, there is no logical way for me to know whether my beliefs are true or false with either certainty or probability. Therefore, I cannot logically make any truth claims including the assertion that "materialism is true." Moreover, there would be no logical way for me to know whether the Law of Non-Contradiction is true. But we know that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true. Therefore, the premise must be false, and materialism must be false.

3) Materialism cannot account for the self. What am "I"? Can I be reduced to the material? Am I identical with my body? If so, am I 3/4 of a person if I lose an arm? Do I become a different person each time a cell in my body dies? But this contradicts experience.

What about consciousness? Is it a collection of thoughts (chemical secretions) in my brain? But consciousness is a unitary experience and the opposite of a group of many discrete chemical secretions.

Does a material scanning mechanism in the brain monitor and bring together discrete thoughts (chemical secretions)? But then there would be as many selves as acts of scanning, and the unitary self dissolves once more. My consciousness is a unitary experience and cannot be accounted for by materialism. Therefore materialism must be false.

These arguments disprove materialism with certainty. Unfortunately, materialists rarely follow their own philosophy to its illogical conclusions, and often rest their arguments on unrecognized spiritual assumptions.

Finally, materialists should be made to define "truth." The only coherent definition of truth is the Aristotelian/Thomistic definition. Any materialist definition of truth cannot overcome the knower/thing known gap, logically resulting in universal skepticism (which is internally contradictory) or solipsism (which is contradictory by experience).

I rarely find a materialist willing to follow the arguments this far before bailing out. They seem to see the logical conclusion coming and, in fear, lapse into emotional attacks against the arguments.

More importantly, however, the lesson from the Norse gods *isn't* that humans are worthless scum who need to be saved, or that we are inheirantly flawed, or that we're born in sin, or any of that crap.

OK, I think I see the appeal. But the intellectually honest thing to do is accept "a/the/our" God because He is the true one, not because we like what he says about us. If it is not the true one, what difference does it make what he is said to say or do?

The biggest stumbling block, even for people born into the Christian faith, is assent of the will. Not that they don't believe per se, but that they won't -- or don't want to.

Now, the really amazing thing is (which I expect you won't accept "on faith" at this point . . .) is when you do assent to the Christian God and His commandments, you do end up finding out that "by taking up the cross daily" "the burden is light." Oversimplification but my point: all that resistance of the will is irrelevant to the truth. If something is true, and you discover it is true, then to be true to yourself you have to accept the truth. Even kicking and screaming every step of the way. Even a stoic or Norse would be proud to accept a challenge like that? Acknowledging the truth because it is the truth, doing right because it is the right thing to do, no matter what the consequences (as you pointed out a while back on the thread)? The fact that is in reality not as bad as you feared is really only gravy anyway, because you are doing the right, true thing . . .

I wanted to at least make clear that he and us have different definitions of God. So if we're going to argue over God's existence, we should at least agree on a definition of God.

A very helpful point. I was sensing a logjam, but your clear thinking identified what the problem is and how to overcome it: a common-ground definition of God. If that is not possible, other arguments will be muddled, at cross purposes, talking past each other, reduced to the trite, some of all of the above . . .

unrecognized spiritual assumptions

"Faith in science" logically falls into this category, since faith in science is still faith and not science.

materialists should be made to define "truth."

The entire ediface of science depends upon truth as a property of the matierial world: existing, being discoverable, and repeatable/verifiable . . . Materialists should be defending truth "in season and out of season", not allowing science to potentially wither by allowing its roots (knowable truth) to be pruned off . . . which is what relativism does . . . I had to respond to an article in a publication which threatened to lead practical people (business managers and Industrial Engineers) to the unjustified (and untrue!) conclusion that quantum mechanics means everything is uncertain. . . we might as well throw up our hands and give up in that case, and stop trying to build buildings and discover the unknowns in particle physics and etc. . . . muddled thinking has consequences . . .

People are in so many different places on their journeys of discovery to truth, and honestly setting out upon that journey in itself engenders respect.

What you, Aquinasfan and the rest want isn't for people to discover the truth, but to accept YOUR truth. These are not neccesarily the same things.

No, we want people to discover THE truth. Since there is one truth, we have confidence they will end up at the same one . . .

When you stop trying to find the truth, and just accept what is at hand. This is how most cults operate: "Just accept our way

What I said earlier is connected to this: IF/When you find the truth, the true God, THEN you intellectually have to accept the truth that you have found. THEN you find the burden lighter than expected . . .

accept god because you say to

Not at all. My point is: IF the god says something appealing to you and IF that god isn't truly god THEN his statements about mankind are irrelevant.

The intelelctually honest thing to do is to evaluate the evidense - for which there is NONE - regardign the existence of *any* god

As Aquinasfan pointed out, this is where the logjam is: we have to agree to the definition of God.

However, we can sorta see the dim reflection of thought and mind within the programmign and operation of the computers we do have. Guess what. They don't operate via "random" collisions of anything. They operate based on simple and unchanging physical rules.

I will make an observation here since I have studied Artificial Intelligence and done some programming. Of course there is a "dim reflection of thought and mind" in computer operation, since the programming is the result of human logic and thought. The hardware operates because of the unchanging laws of physics and the natural world and the engineering of its construction (likewise the result of human intellect).

If there were a non-biological computer out there that evolved on its own over billions of years, and its behavior exhibited a "dim reflection of thought and mind" you could then argue by analogy that the human brain may be similar. Instead, it is completely the other way around. I think you have actually come up with an argument for intelligent design, a pretty good one. The computer's limited exhibition of "intelligence" reflects human intelligence, because the human designed and constructed it. By analogy: The human mind exhibits intelligence because it reflects the intelligence of its Creator. After all man is made "in the image and likeness" of his Creator . . .

So you agree that a physical system can do what the human brain does, without the need for non-material spiritualism

No I do not agree: the physical computer/system can only manifest what **limited imitation** of human intelligence it is able to BECAUSE the intelligent human DESIGNED and BUILT and PROGRAMMED it to do so. It clearly does not do so otherwise. Computers would not even exist otherwise. Human intelligence is necessary. The argument for design still stands. It is after all called "artificial intelligence" and is only a reflection, not actual independent intelligence.

Behold the chimp

You have created a circular argument. Your argument was the computer. A non-biological system. Since the computer which may evidence a "dim reflection of intelligence" does not exist on its own and did not evolve over billions of years, the operation of the computer can not tell us about the operation of the brain or intelligence of the human which created it, or of any other biological system, such as a chimp brain. You posit intelligence in the chimp. The chimp did not invent the computer, so the computer's "dim reflection" can't tell us anything about the chimp's "intelligence", other than by the analogy of intelligent design. Since the computer is a manufactured thing, its "dim reflection of intellegence" can only reflect the intelligence of its human inventors/engineers/programmers. The "dim reflection of intelligence" you see in a chimp -- whatever it actually is -- is manifestly less powerful (i.e. analytically, etc.) than that of the human-created computer. So the chimp was likely created too, but we know by other means that the chimp was not invented by humans . . . This is your argument, not mine . . . just following it a bit . . .

Let's take it one further step. In that you have basically changed your argument from intelligent design as reflected in the computer, to the existence of the soul in animals. Since, as you point out, your logic leads to that direction, rather than to the human NOT having one. That does not change whether or not God created the Universe.

As to your point about brain damage, etc. Well, human beings are not disembodied spirits. We have to operate with the "hardware" of our bodies. That's the way it is for human beings existing in space and time. We don't have the option of operating as pure spiritual beings. It makes sense that limitations in our physical bodies would affect the ability of our spirits/souls to manifest themselves in space and time.

It does not amtter whether the machine in question was invented, fell together or evolved. the point is that it does what you claim an animal needs a soul to do, yet it does not have a soul. Since you cannot provide evidense of a soul, then the soul hypothesis goes away.

I only have a couple minutes before flying out the door. So I will defer most til later. However, It is obvious that the computer is not living. It does not need to possess anything nonmaterial to account for its "dim reflection of intelligence" which was, after all, put there by means of human intelligence. Neural networks etc. are still following the rules put there by human intelligence. Human intelligence accounts for what you see in computers. Computers are not alive. I don't see any reason at all to expect a computer to have a soul.

Re: the chimp brain. I was not talking about a computer complex enough to simulate the function of a biological brain, but the "dim reflection of intelligence" you see in both. I.E. in a Turning test between a computer and chimp, doing math or something, the computer would reflect more of the intelligence you posited . . .

The chimp was created via evolution. This much is certain.

Certainty is a pretty strong term to use. Since science wouldn't say it is "certain", then this must be your belief . . .

E.G. time dilation in gravity has been experimentally validated. The experiments have been repeated. The theory of evolution is not in that same category. If the theory of evolution were scientifically validated in that same way, then scientists would have created the chimp using the methods of evolution, and it would be repeatable. OK scientists don't know in detail how that happened, so they can't experimentally verify it. It is a theory, with **some** supporting evidence. Don't get on a high horse about it, either. The theory of evolution does not destroy my worldview if it is true or if it is not true. It is irrelevant to the issue of God creating the Universe. Just may explain how he used some of the natural laws he created to do so . . .

How do you explain life? I have not read everything on evolution, so let me know. I get the idea: there were billions of years, but time is not an ingredient of life. I think the anthropormorphic principle is interesting: all those years would have been necessary for heavier elements to be formed in stars, to make carbon based life possible, etc. (so that, even IF there is intelligent life only on earth, the entire rest of the Universe is not wasted . . .). However, say you have a bunch of organic molecules which formed by chance and chance alone. Say they managed to come together in a form of the most basic one-celled life form. How did it get to be alive? Compare the one formed by chance to the identical one-celled life form which is dead: they will have the same organic molecules. How would either one of those become alive (the one formed by chance and the one already dead)? They could sit there for billions of years and not become alive.

Scientific evidence demonstrates that life comes from something living, not from something non-living. So, what does the theory of evolution hold about life arising, that would overcome all that evidence that life comes from life and not from something non-living? Some "life force" arose? Or, like the old joke about a long mathematical proof, here a miracle occurs? Without a scientifically sound working hypothesis to explain how that posited first randomly-formed cell became alive, it is belief, not science. Belief in the throry of evolution is still faith and not science . . .

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.