Ooh. How embarrassing. Do you believe in transubstantiation?
Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed.
Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed.
What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?
Obviously it doesn't claim that there will be biological evidence. The rest seems fine, and Google backs it up. Transubstantiation is the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine.
If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it. As you say, it still has the appearance, physically, of bread and wine.
I'm not. I said that that's what I'd expect to see if it were true. I don't base my expectations on what is absent from an old work of fiction. I base my expectations on what I know about science.
If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it.
Obviously I don't believe in miracles or faux mysteries. I'm curious why you do. That's how our conversation began, but now you're making it about me.
I'm not. I said that that's what I'd expect to see if it were true. I don't base my expectations on what is absent from an old work of fiction. I base my expectations on what I know about science.
Why do you expect to see that if it were true? :s
When the doctrine itself says that the wine and the bread retain the appearance of wine and bread, how can you possibly expect that appearance to be changed so that you'd find that it is biologically blood and not wine, and biologically flesh and not bread? :s
Obviously I don't believe in miracles or faux mysteries. I'm curious why you do. That's how our conversation began, but now you're making it about me.
That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't. So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine.
When the doctrine itself says that the wine and the bread retain the appearance of wine and bread, how can you possibly expect that appearance to be changed so that you'd find that it is biologically blood and not wine, and biologically flesh and not bread?
But why do you believe that? Because it's what the doctrine says?
What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig, if it is eaten in a special ceremony? Would you believe that?
What if the doctrine told you to punch yourself in the face? Would you do so?
Is there anything that you wouldn't believe or act upon, provided it was in the doctrine?
That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't.
Yes I can, because the doctrine itself, if taken literally, is full of rubbish.
So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine.
But why do you believe that? Because it's what the doctrine says?
It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X isn't true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy.
What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig, if it is eaten in a special ceremony? Would you believe that?
I wouldn't believe that because firstly I don't understand what it means, so I can't believe it. But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously.
Wait. I meant that that's what I'd expect to see if the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ. I believe that it would leave evidence. I don't believe otherwise, so if that's what the doctrine entails, then I don't believe that the doctrine is true. The doctrine is like a fairy tale, and I don't believe in fairy tales.
I don't believe otherwise, so if that's what the doctrine entails, then I don't believe that the doctrine is true.
You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place.
It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X is true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy.
What? That's not a fallacy. That's right.
If a doctrine claims that it's false that there are fish in the sea, but it's true that there are fish in the sea, then why on earth could I not judge that doctrine as false, given that it would be false.
But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously.
If you were reasonable, you'd disbelieve it because there is no evidence, besides hearsay, that it has ever happened, or, really, that it ever could happen.
No it's not. Have you read the doctrine? Or, rather, is it just that you do not want it to be full of rubbish, because you don't want to believe in rubbish? Sorry, but it is what it is.
One is a logical fallacy, but I see you like logical fallacies.
No, neither are in themselves, and neither are in the right context. I disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine, and because I disbelieve that it would happen without causing such a change.
What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig
In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?
I can tell you what the blood and body of Christ are in a mystical sense, I can tell you the significance of that. But not of the flying octopus. So I disbelieve the latter because I don't understand what it means.
I'm a humble boy, unlike the arrogant owl, who admits to not understanding some things, you see.
If you were reasonable, you'd disbelieve it because there is no evidence, besides hearsay, that it has ever happened, or, really, that it ever could happen.
No it's not. Have you read the doctrine? Or, rather, is it just that you do not want it to be full of rubbish, because you don't want to believe in rubbish? Sorry, but it is what it is.
You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place.
That's missing the point. You can't rightly answer my question of why you believe what the doctrine claims by saying that that's what the doctrine claims.
That's missing the point. You can't rightly answer my question of why you believe what the doctrine claims by saying that that's what the doctrine claims.
So you should clarify your question. Your first question wasn't that. It was telling me how I should disbelieve the doctrine based on what it never claimed. That was indeed missing the point. So now if you rephrase your question on to the right subject, why I personally believe, I may be able to answer it.
So don't be like Mike who still has a first-grade brain (oh sorry, he graduated to second) and thinks he's burned me by saying that Catholics (and Christians) are cannibals and vampires, since being a cannibal and a vampire involves eating physical flesh and blood.
I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.
So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them.
In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?
I can tell you what the blood and body of Christ are in a mystical sense, I can tell you the significance of that. But not of the flying octopus. So I disbelieve the latter because I don't understand what it means.
I'm a humble boy, unlike the arrogant owl, who admits to not understanding some things, you see.
What I want to know is how you think the one can literally change into the other, whilst keeping its original appearance, and leaving no scientific trail of evidence. And if you can't answer that, then I want to know why you believe it, and I want you to confirm whether or not it is as I suspect: irrational faith.
So you should clarify your question. Your first question wasn't that. It was telling me how I should disbelieve the doctrine based on what it never claimed. That was indeed missing the point. So now if you rephrase your question on to the right subject, why I personally believe, I may be able to answer it.
My first question was, and I quote, "What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?".
"The doctrine says so", isn't a real answer.
Anyway, I'm going out now to meet a friend for lunch. See you later.
What I want to know is how you think the one can literally change into the other, whilst keeping its original appearance, and leaving no scientific trail of evidence.
To leave a scientific trail or change its original appearance would be to do precisely what the doctrine claims it doesn't do. So you cannot falsify something in this manner. You have to falsify based on the predictions it does make. I outlined before how something can MYSTICALLY - I have no clue what you mean by literarily - change while maintaining its appearance.
Let me give you an example that second grade Mike will be able to understand. You're not feeling sexually excited and you look at an attractive girl, but you're not interested in her. After some time you get sexually excited, start feeling horny (sorry but I do have to speak at this level it seems to be understood) and you look at the same girl, who appears the same, and is physically the same, and suddenly you are attracted to her. She means something different to you than she did before. That's a transubstantiation - something maintains the same appearance, but changes its inner significance and meaning. It's not that hard to understand, but I really feel I have to speak at those mundane and philistine levels to make myself understood here. Many of the threads in the forums are also starting to become annoying because everyone speaks so vaguely and incoherently about things, which is part of the reason why I've been participating less in some threads.
"What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?".
"The doctrine says so", isn't a real answer.
That wasn't my answer. My answer was why should I expect a scientific basis for believing in the doctrine? You're asking a stupid question, like me asking why are you still beating your wife? You have to think about what kind of questions you're asking and what presuppositions they make. So please, do some work here if you want to get somewhere to understand those issues on a deeper level.
Make some effort to follow attentively the thread of the discussion, and don't strawman. I'm not avoiding answering you, I'm questioning the presuppositions that you make when trying to question me. If you don't put the work in, then you're wasting my time, and I'm currently busy, so it gets tiring to respond and repeat the same things over and over again.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 06, 2017 at 13:58#1308940 likes
Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know
Experiences are experiences. Whether they are of mystical quality, whatever that means and however you define that, is what's debatable. Merely because one claims their experience is mystical doesn't mean that experience is in fact mystical.
Merely because one claims their experience is mystical doesn't mean that experience is in fact mystical.
No, of course it doesn't. But you cannot outright reject the testimony of many millions of people without reason. So until some reasons are provided (ex. mystical experiences only appear to be mystical, but are in reality x y z physical process caused by m n b playing itself out), I'm free to reject that claim outright.
Right good. So we settled that your first assumption that you can disbelieve transubstantiation because there is no physical evidence is silly.
I already clarified what I meant, and what I meant is not silly. I stand by it. To address what I said before the clarification is to do what I did when I addressed your misworded comment, but I had a better excuse, as you've definitely read my clarification at this point.
I'll carry on with this later. Out to get drunk with mates. See ya.
To leave a scientific trail or change its original appearance would be to do precisely what the doctrine claims it doesn't do. So you cannot falsify something in this manner. You have to falsify based on the predictions it does make. I outlined before how something can MYSTICALLY - I have no clue what you mean by literarily - change while maintaining its appearance.
I thought that we'd moved on from this. Forget the damn doctrine for a moment. For the purpose of my question, set aside what that part of it says. I'm talking about the [i]real world[/I]. In the [I]real world[/I], that doesn't happen. There's no evidence, besides hearsay, that that has ever happened, so it is perfectly reasonable to question why you think that it happens. (And that the doctrine says so, again, is obviously not a good enough answer, as that just shifts the focus of the question on to why you think that the doctrine is right. You can't just assume that it is right, as that's not a shared assumption, and would beg the question).
I suppose I didn't really need to use the term "literally". I only used it to emphasise that I'm talking about a real change taking place, and not a figurative, symbolic change. Your use of the term "mystically" is tantamount to an admission that you don't really have a clue how it supposedly works, but you have faith that it does. That's not a reasonable stance.
Let me give you an example that second grade Mike will be able to understand. You're not feeling sexually excited and you look at an attractive girl, but you're not interested in her. After some time you get sexually excited, start feeling horny (sorry but I do have to speak at this level it seems to be understood) and you look at the same girl, who appears the same, and is physically the same, and suddenly you are attracted to her. She means something different to you than she did before. That's a transubstantiation - something maintains the same appearance, but changes its inner significance and meaning. It's not that hard to understand, but I really feel I have to speak at those mundane and philistine levels to make myself understood here. Many of the threads in the forums are also starting to become annoying because everyone speaks so vaguely and incoherently about things, which is part of the reason why I've been participating less in some threads.
Yeah, that's not an example of transubstantiation. That's just feeling horny over some girl. That's an ordinary, common place occurrence, which can be explained. That's not an extraordinary and inexplicable event which would defy all current scientific knowledge. The two aren't comparable.
You're asking a stupid question, like me asking why are you still beating your wife? You have to think about what kind of questions you're asking and what presuppositions they make. So please, do some work here if you want to get somewhere to understand those issues on a deeper level.
It's not a stupid question. We both have our presuppositions. I have no qualms about being open about mine. But you've been hesitant to be open about your reliance on faith over reason. I have confidence in science because it has a great track record. Its predictions have turned out correct, or have at least been of use and set us on the right track, ever adding to our knowledge about the world. The Bible, on the other hand, is just an old book, and if its passages are to be taken literally, then it has proven itself wrong with regards to important claims that it made about the world, perhaps most notably with regards to the Genesis creation myth. That's why Biblical literalism is stupid, and is only taken up by people who are themselves stupid, or who disregard how stupid it is as a matter of faith.
Make some effort to follow attentively the thread of the discussion, and don't strawman. I'm not avoiding answering you, I'm questioning the presuppositions that you make when trying to question me. If you don't put the work in, then you're wasting my time, and I'm currently busy, so it gets tiring to respond and repeat the same things over and over again.
No, I think that it's you who is failing to get it. For example, a prominent failure on your part is your reoccurring error of mistaking my focus on external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) to be about internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message). I have tried to clarify this for you, but based on your replies, it seems that you still aren't getting it. You just keep repeating that the doctrine says [i]this[/I] and does not say [i]that[/I], as if that matters.
There's no evidence, besides hearsay, that that has ever happened, so it is perfectly reasonable to question why you think that it happens.
What would you expect to happen if the doctrine was true? You must know what predictions the doctrine makes to judge if they do or do not happen.
And please don't tell me some idiotic thing like I expect a literal change. No - I want you to tell me exactly what you would expect. If it's a literal change, you have to tell me, for example, I expect that in the wine there will be found blood, or something of that sort.
Yeah, that's not an example of transubstantiation. That's just feeling horny over some girl. That's an ordinary, common place occurrence, which can be explained. That's not an extraordinary and inexplicable event which would defy all current scientific knowledge. The two aren't comparable.
Yes, by analogy they certainly are comparable. You said you were mystified how something can remain physically the same and yet literarily change. I just gave you an example - a common one as you say - where that happens. So then you're not really so mystified about how something can remain the same physically and yet literarily change.
Its predictions have turned out correct, or have at least been of use and set us on the right track, ever adding to our knowledge about the world.
Its predictions have turned out correctly indeed. But only in a limited domain. And that's the domain which studies the behaviour of physical matter, where things can be studied quantitatively. So if we're dealing with a domain where we need a qualitative study, and not a quantitative one (such as spirituality), then science is of little use. The same way that a hammer is great for hittin' the nails, but crap for cutting the tree. You are being entirely irrational and laughable if you're telling me I should use science in a spiritual matter because science has great results in an entirely different domain.
No, I think that it's you who is failing to get it. For example, a prominent failure on your part is your reoccurring error of mistaking my focus on external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) to be about internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message). I have tried to clarify this for you, but based on your replies, it seems that you still aren't getting it. You just keep repeating that the doctrine says this and does not say that, as if that matters.
If I may interject, this is the reason why you fail to understand transubstantiation. The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. Trying to understand any idea on your own terms is a recipe for failure. You need to either defeat its presuppositions or demonstrate your own in order to advance the charge of incoherence.
I realize that that's a big task, but it is a necessary one.
The experiences described are more than just "funny feelings".
I don't have good enough reason to accept that, and it is a fallacy to appeal to the masses. The masses you appeal to are simply wrong. They aren't intelligent enough to make sense of these experiences, or they're in denial, so they jump to conclusions and believe what they want to believe.
I remind you that I've already provided my personal reasons for believing the doctrine here: Quoting Agustino
I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.
So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them.
They aren't intelligent enough to make sense of these experiences, or they're in denial, so they jump to conclusions and believe what they want to believe.
Some of them aren't intelligent, others are extremely intelligent. There are both kinds of people. Or do you mean to suggest that only stupid people have mystical experiences or claim to have had them?
ProbablyTrueDecember 07, 2017 at 21:07#1312260 likes
The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible.
So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd.
Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation.
[i]“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
-Tertullian
“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
-Justin Martyr (110-165 CE)[/i]
Could've fooled me! You were talking about the mystical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago. That is the stuff of dreams and myths, not reality. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
What would you expect to happen if the doctrine was true? You must know what predictions the doctrine makes to judge if they do or do not happen.
And please don't tell me some idiotic thing like I expect a literal change. No - I want you to tell me exactly what you would expect. If it's a literal change, you have to tell me, for example, I expect that in the wine there will be found blood, or something of that sort.
No, that's a deflection. I don't expect miracles. Why should I humour you and entertain the idea? I expect results based on facts, not on wild imagination.
Yes, by analogy they certainly are comparable. You said you were mystified how something can remain physically the same and yet literarily change. I just gave you an example - a common one as you say - where that happens. So then you're not really so mystified about how something can remain the same physically and yet literarily change.
No, they're not comparable for the reasons given. And you're wrong that there would be no physical change. We're constantly changing physically from one moment to the next. This is covered by science, e.g. physiology and particle physics. Is this supposed transubstantiation that is thought to occur after receiving the Eucharist likewise covered by science? No, because it's just a myth, taken up on faith. It's not falsifiable and is therefore unscientific.
Yeah me too. I have confidence in science when dealing with physical & quantifiable matters.
But you also have confidence in myths with nowhere near as robust a basis in evidence as in other matters. That's the problem. Just because science cannot apply, you don't need to recklessly abandon critical thinking. And, to make matters worse, you're probably not even consistent. If you don't believe in ghosts or celestial teapots, then why transubstantiation? Why the double standard? Why the special pleading?
Its predictions have turned out correctly indeed. But only in a limited domain. And that's the domain which studies the behaviour of physical matter, where things can be studied quantitatively. So if we're dealing with a domain where we need a qualitative study, and not a quantitative one (such as spirituality), then science is of little use. The same way that a hammer is great for hittin' the nails, but crap for cutting the tree. You are being entirely irrational and laughable if you're telling me I should use science in a spiritual matter because science has great results in an entirely different domain.
No, on the contrary, [i]you[/I] are being entirely irrational. You are embracing such nonsense with open arms, whilst I am not letting my guard down. If I found that a hammer wasn't a suitable tool for cutting down the tree, then I'd find a more suitable tool, like a saw. I wouldn't throw my tool kit away and put my faith in some sort of invisible magic. The domain you're talking about is fantasy. It's not either science or fantasy.
So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way
No, not in any way, but certainly not in a scientific way. Of course, the positivist could reply that only that which is verified by science counts as knowledge, but that too requires justification, a difficult task given the self-refuting nature of the claim.
Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic.
By "the text" I suppose you mean the Bible. It may be disputable, but I think the New Testament affirms the doctrine. And early Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Christians believe it is symbolic, by the way, but those who believe in the real presence don't think it's merely symbolic or symbolic in such a way that Christ is not really present. So the two quotes you provided don't refute the doctrine at all. In fact, the Tertullian quote affirms it quite strongly.
ProbablyTrueDecember 07, 2017 at 21:48#1312330 likes
By "the text" I suppose you mean the Bible. It may be disputable, but I think the New Testament affirms the doctrine. And early Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Christians believe it is symbolic, by the way, but those who believe in the real presence don't think it's merely symbolic.
Are you suggesting that Jesus ate and drank himself with his disciples? I provided quotes of very early Christian leaders denying the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. You care you cite some of the early Christians you speak of? I could cite many more to make my case.
In fact, the Tertullian quote affirms it quite strongly.
"...that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol."
You do not understand the theological implications here. This is Tertullian affirming that God was flesh, not that the bread became God's literal flesh and blood.
Ok. The burden of proof still rests on the believer, and fuzzy feelings don't count as proof.
You're strawmanning here. And the burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim. If the non-believer claims that transubstantiation is false, it's up to him either to disprove the presuppositions of the doctrine or prove his own that rule it out.
I provided quotes of very early Christian leaders denying the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. You care you cite some of the early Christians you speak of? I could cite many more to make my case.
Here are some: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
You do not understand the theological implications here. This is Tertullian affirming that God was flesh, not that the bread became God's literal flesh and blood.
Well, here's the Catholic response: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence. Makes sense to me. You're just quote mining without respect of context.
ProbablyTrueDecember 07, 2017 at 22:36#1312450 likes
Makes sense to me. You're just quote mining without respect of context.
I'm just getting to work so I won't be able to reply in depth, but the first part of the Catholic response is A) mumbo-jumbo, and B) confirms what I said.
"Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.
In the case of Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body...
Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it."
Reply to Sapientia You and Agustino are NEVER going to settle this business of transubstantiation.
For one thing, Agustino is calling it a "mystical" experience. It might be 1% - 3% clearer, maybe not, if he called it a "mystery" instead of a mystical event. People are thought to have "mystical experiences". Contemplatives work at achieving mystical experiences. A few people are struck by mystical experiences, usually to their dismay. Transubstantiation isn't something that one can achieve, work at, improve, or make happen. Through great effort, one can not improve one's understanding of a MYSTERY either. Mysteries are unfathomable and that's that.
The priest utters the incantation (the words of institution) and that's it from our end. HOW transubstantiation occurs is a mystery of the action of God [IF one believes that such a thing happens. Of course, if one doesn't believe that anything happens, then the whole thing is just so much hocus pocus].
No one has ever had a sensory experience that would tell them that the bread and wine had become, by a mysterious act of God, to be "the body and blood of Christ". I don't think there is any reason to think that the alleged author of the incantation, JC himself, was turning the bread and wine of the passover meal into his blood and flesh either.
If Jesus did say such a thing, my guess is that he was referencing a more ancient solemnity when the priest poured out the blood of an animal sacrifice before the people, to ritualistically 'seal' a covenant.
Jesus might not have spoken the incantation (Gasp! Heresy! Burn him slowly at the stake!) The incantation may have been devised by the early church, as might the last meal of Jesus with the disciples. I'll assume here that Jesus did say it, though. We'll never know for sure, either way.
There is nothing to argue for in a Mystery. It's there, we do not, can not, have not, and never will understand it.
Myself, I don't like the whole business of mysteries, incantations, mystical bodies, and so on and I don't believe in them. What one REALLY has to strive to believe in is that the Church DID NOT cook up theories which were, shall we say, implausible? and then called them a Mystery or a Mystic crystal revelation, or something, and then told the laity to just believe it or go to hell.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 00:18#1312700 likes
Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know
No Catholic has ever experienced transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine leaves and is replaced by that of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, the only thing that remains is the 'species' ("espèces" in french), which is specifically everything that can be experienced by experiencing bread and wine.
For a Catholic it isn't symbolic either (according to the Cathechism anyway). The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is truly there, and there is truly nothing left of the bread and wine except for everything that makes us feel about it that it is bread and wine.
Could've fooled me! You were talking about the mystical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago. That is the stuff of dreams and myths, not reality. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly.
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2017 at 07:24#1313280 likes
The above quotation of Tertullian is his response to Marcion of Sinope. Marcion was a proponent of docetism, which purported that Jesus had no physical body. Tertullian is emphasizing the body of Christ not in the bread and wine, but that he had one at all.
Read this again: "Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body."
Notice he makes a special note saying, "that is, the figure of my body."
The word figure, which is the translation used by the Catholic Church, also means "sign" or "symbol".
Tertullian would have no need of clarifying this if he indeed meant that Jesus was speaking literally of the bread and wine.
In the grand scheme, Tertullian's opinion is just one of many so even this doesn't amount to much. I doubt we'll solve a major theological schism here in the ShoutBox.
*Edit*
Another quotation of Jesus we could look at is John 10 verse 7: "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."
No, that's a deflection. I don't expect miracles. Why should I humour you and entertain the idea? I expect results based on facts, not on wild imagination.
I didn't ask you to entertain the idea. I simply asked you to tell what you expect to happen if the doctrine is true? That's much like asking you what would you expect to happen if Newton's theory of gravitation is true? Can you answer one question? Then you should be able to answer the other too. So stop trembling, shaking, and deflecting, and answer the darn question in clear and no uncertain terms.
And you're wrong that there would be no physical change. We're constantly changing physically from one moment to the next. This is covered by science, e.g. physiology and particle physics. Is this supposed transubstantiation that is thought to occur after receiving the Eucharist likewise covered by science?
Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.
But that's irrelevant. In both cases. The fact that there are neural correlates for a qualitative experience does not eliminate the qualitative aspect of it, nor does it show that science can investigate the qualitative experience itself. That's for phenomenology to do.
If you go from non-horny to horny then this same girl that you're looking at becomes qualitatively different. She means something different for you, even though nothing, in her, physically changed. Something did physically change in you - the neural correlates - but they don't "contain" the qualitative meaning and inner understanding of the event.
If you don't believe in ghosts or celestial teapots, then why transubstantiation? Why the double standard? Why the special pleading?
Ghosts and celestial teapots are supposed to physically appear, to be observed around in the physical world. They are not qualitative phenomena, but quantitative ones. So how is there an analogy between transubstantiation and ghosts / celestial pots?
Okay, then simply swap "The Bible" for whatever doctrine you were referring to. That's a nonresponse.
Yeah, a nonresponse to a nonquestion. If you can't be sufficiently accurate and specific in the questions that you ask, you'll keep asking a lot of bad questions. Then you'll be like yeah yeah yeah, replace this with that, or whatever, doesn't matter >:O
So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd.
Mystical experiences can be verified scientifically. As can "funny feelings".
Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation.
Apart from the Protestant bit, the other bits are false. Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine).
For a Catholic it isn't symbolic either (according to the Cathechism anyway). The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is truly there, and there is truly nothing left of the bread and wine except for everything that makes us feel about it that it is bread and wine.
Believe it or not, young laddies, this has nothing to do with materialism. You can be a hardcore materialist and still believe in transubstantiation.
As far as I know, materialism does not deny the qualitative and non-quantitative aspects of existence. It may think they are illusions (ie less real, whatever that is supposed to mean), but it doesn't say they don't exist.
If I may interject, this is the reason why you fail to understand transubstantiation. The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. Trying to understand any idea on your own terms is a recipe for failure. You need to either defeat its presuppositions or demonstrate your own in order to advance the charge of incoherence.
I realize that that's a big task, but it is a necessary one.
You're confusing understanding and agreement. The failure is all yours. It is because I see it for what it is that I reject it, as I reject magical thinking in general.
Noble DustDecember 08, 2017 at 10:18#1313610 likes
That's no argument against the charges Thorongil has brought to you.
Says you. I didn't see much of an argument from him. He uncharitably asserts that I do not understand something that I do. How would he know that I do not understand? Can he read my mind? I can explain what transubstantiation is. In fact, I have already done so. Just because I have a different position, that does not prevent me from understanding. That's a [i]non sequitur[/I]. An atheist, a materialist, a whateverist, can [i]understand[/I] transubstantiation, without [i]agreeing[/I] with it.
Noble DustDecember 08, 2017 at 10:31#1313700 likes
Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine).
Because some of the early church leaders decided it was somehow literal, it is not clear from the text itself that Jesus(if he said these things at all) meant it literally.
The Gospel of Luke says, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:23 does too. So clearly it is meant as a symbolic gesture.
Reply to Noble Dust Depends what it means. And besides, I am not convinced of it's relevance to my criticism. Can only a materialist make the argument I've made? Doubtful.
I made the claim because I was confident that you were from other discussions and claims that you've made. I'd rather hear you describe your views than assume them. If you're interested. But this is the shoutbox, after all. Common curtesy isn't really the norm...
Noble DustDecember 08, 2017 at 10:44#1313800 likes
But, alternatively, do you really need me to clarify for you what materialism means? Come on, I'm the philosophical dilettante here, not you. As to the relevance of the criticism of materialism, revert back to Thorongil's OP for the context of materialism.
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2017 at 10:48#1313830 likes
I made the claim because I was confident that you were from other discussions and claims that you've made. I'd rather hear you describe your views than assume them. If you're interested. But this is the shoutbox, after all. Common curtesy isn't really the norm...
You can see what my views are in relation to transubstantiation by reading the preceding discussion. What more do want to know, specifically, about my views? And what do you think the relevance will be? I believe that almost everything is made out of a material called matter, including bread and wine. My views are in line with current physics, to the extent of what I know of current physics, so I also accept that it's not just matter, but also fundamental forces, for example.
Any thoughts on the actual quotations from the Bible or do you want to stick with early church leaders?
What thoughts would you expect? I think the Eucharist is amply prefigured in the Bible.
John 6:51-56:Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him"
In terms of Christianity there are three sources of revelation:
(1) The Bible
(2) Apostolic Tradition
(3) Personal Mystical Experiences
So even if something isn't in the Bible directly and explicitly - like the Trinity - that doesn't mean that it hasn't be revealed.
Noble DustDecember 08, 2017 at 11:00#1313910 likes
But, alternatively, do you really need me to clarify for you what materialism means? Come on, I'm the philosophical dilettante here, not you. As to the relevance of the criticism of materialism, revert back to Thorongil's OP for the context of materialism.
Yes, that would be helpful. I don't self-identify as a materialist and I don't spend much time reading about or discussing it.
Whether I'm a materialist or not, I'm an atheist, and I'm not religious, so I don't believe in the magical transformation which Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are expected to believe in as a central tenet of their religion.
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2017 at 11:10#1313980 likes
so I don't believe in the magical transformation which Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are expected to believe in as a central tenet of their religion.
Interesting. So, as someone who is not a materialist, what is your criticism of transubstantiation?
That verse is not about the Eucharist, and within the context of these two verses is clearly symbolic/spiritual.
And did I ever imply they were physical :s ?
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2017 at 11:27#1314060 likes
Reply to Agustino I
If you're saying that transubstantiation is not physical in some sense, where the bread and wine actually become Jesus' flesh and blood, then what is the claim? And wouldn't that put you at odds with the above verse you just quoted where you implied that Jesus made the claim that they had to literally eat his flesh and blood?
Here's a quote from Catholic.com in an article called Transubstantiation for Beginners:
"The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so."
If you're saying that transubstantiation is not physical in some sense, where the bread and wine actually become Jesus' flesh and blood, then what is the claim?
They do, but they don't physically become the flesh and blood of Jesus.
So they do REALLY become the flesh and blood of Jesus. But that's not a physical becoming.
"The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really [s]and physically[/s] the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so."
Now I agree with it.
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2017 at 11:40#1314120 likes
So they do REALLY become the flesh and blood of Jesus. But that's not a physical becoming.
So they become the flesh and blood, but not in any perceptible or substantial meaning of the word "become". A better name would be Transunsubtatiation.
Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly.
Now what's the question? Is it "What does this say about materialism?" I don't think is says anything about materialism. "Is this statement consistent with materialism?" Every metaphysical statement is consistent with materialism. Except when it's not. Ha! I was trying to sound mysterious. Ignore "Except when it's not."
He may have been married back in Old Testament times. He was cranky, vindictive, and mean. They must have broken up after she found out Mary was having his kid. That's why Christian doctrine is so much nicer after Jesus was born.
[/s]
Edit - Quoting error. Here's what I was trying to respond to
I remind you that I've already provided my personal reasons for believing the doctrine here:
I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.
So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them.
1. Christianity isn't [I]that[/I] unique. It has features in common with Judaism and Islam, in particular.
2. Yes, people have funny feelings. I have acknowledged this and provided my own explanation.
3. No, it isn't. It's the complete opposite. It's controversial, and there have been wars over how it ought to be interpreted.
Some of them aren't intelligent, others are extremely intelligent. There are both kinds of people. Or do you mean to suggest that only stupid people have mystical experiences or claim to have had them?
Yes, there are both kinds of people, as I acknowledged. The intelligent ones are too emotional, so they end up in denial and believe what they want to believe. It's not so much a lack of intellect for these type of people, but an excess of emotion.
In the grand scheme, Tertullian's opinion is just one of many so even this doesn't amount to much. I doubt we'll solve a major theological schism here in the ShoutBox.
True. Quoting a heretical non-saint like Tertullian doesn't help your case, especially as he doesn't reject the doctrine of the real presence in that quote.
this has nothing to do with materialism. You can be a hardcore materialist and still believe in transubstantiation.
This makes no sense. A materialist is someone who believes that only matter and physical forces exist, which rules out the existence of God, angels, demons, souls, substantial forms, Platonic Ideas, etc. Transubstantiation requires the existence of God at the very least. Therefore, one cannot be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation.
You're confusing understanding and agreement. The failure is all yours. It is because I see it for what it is that I reject it, as I reject magical thinking in general.
You've simply made my point for me here. Yes, you reject what you put into the category of "magical thinking." You have reasons for doing so. Those reasons require defending in order to reject transubstantiation.
So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd.
Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation.
Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, or expecting people to buy that it's reasonable and not a matter of blind faith. I also agree that there's special pleading involved, on account of it being religious, and being of [i]this particular[/I] religion. If I were a Christian, I would definitely [i]not[/I] be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant.
1. Christianity isn't that unique. It has features in common with Judaism and Islam, in particular.
But Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions. No other religion has such a figure, which has absolute central importance to the religion. You can imagine Islam without Muhammad, or Moses without Muhammad, or Buddhism without Buddha, or Hinduism without Krishna, etc. but you cannot imagine Christianity without...Christ.
Reply to Bitter Crank Yes, we - that is, Agustino and I - probably won't agree. For a start, I don't even accept that it's a mystery. I think that it's a faux mystery. I think that much of religion relies on faux mysteries. It is often said that God works in mysterious ways. It's also quite convenient. If it was falsifiable, it probably would have been falsified by now, like the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth and other passages of the Bible.
This makes no sense. A materialist is someone who believes that only matter and physical forces exist, which rules out the existence of God, angels, demons, souls, substantial forms, Platonic Ideas, etc. Transubstantiation requires the existence of God at the very least. Therefore, one cannot be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation.
Yeah, so what if they believe only matter and physical forces exist? Do colors exist for the materialist? Yep. So the materialist also acknowledges the existence of qualities, however he does not think that these are ultimately real. You can absolutely be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation because the latter is qualitative.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 15:04#1314550 likes
Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, and that there's special pleading involved. If I were a Christian, I would definitely not be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant.
The Catholic Chuch never argues for a literal interpretation of the Bible. The whole idea of hermeneutics was developped by Catholicism as a field to discuss the relative values of biblical interpretations.
There are many mysteries to a Catholic that will never find a rational explanation. These are not taken to express a subjective truth about our connection to God. This is because they aren't presented as such in the holy texts. The Holy Trinity is not presented either in the Bible as a mystical objective fact, it's just that there are precise passages that discuss the unicity of God in the Ancient Testament, and that this would conflict with the New Testament claims that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine too.
A bit like how God only became King of the Universe after he decided to incarnate himself in Jesus Christ (Doctrine of the Royalty of Jesus Christ).
Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, or expecting people to buy that it's reasonable and not a matter of blind faith. I also agree that there's special pleading involved, on account of it being religious, and being of this particular religion. If I were a Christian, I would definitely not be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant.
Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things.
Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly.
If you proportion belief to the available evidence, then no, they're not comparable. There's a lot of evidence for particle-wave duality. There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay, funny feelings, and "The doctrine says so!", which I'm not willing to do.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 15:17#1314590 likes
If you proportion belief to the available evidence, then no, they're not comparable. There's a lot of evidence for particle-wave duality. There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay and funny feelings, which I'm not willing to do.
Just hearsay, no funny feelings.
Anyway, any decent Catholic imho should admit that he believes certain things on very strenuous premisses. That's going to be a part of the existential malaise that is essential to Catholicism.
If you proportion belief to the available evidence, then no, they're not comparable. There's a lot of evidence for particle-wave duality. There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay and funny feelings, which I'm not willing to do.
There's lots of evidence of transubstantiation, it's just not evidence you believe. Your begging the question a bit. You've assumed that scientific rules apply to a situation where they don't. Agustino says "Scientific evidence is not relevant." You say "Science proves you're wrong."
Reply to Agustino You're still not making any sense. You can't believe in something that requires the existence of God if, as per one's materialism, you don't believe God exists.
It's like believing in dragon fire without believing in the existence of dragons. The dragons must exist in order for there to be such a thing as the fire they breathe.
AkanthinosDecember 08, 2017 at 15:32#1314660 likes
I didn't ask you to entertain the idea. I simply asked you to tell what you expect to happen if the doctrine is true? That's much like asking you what would you expect to happen if Newton's theory of gravitation is true? Can you answer one question? Then you should be able to answer the other too. So stop trembling, shaking, and deflecting, and answer the darn question in clear and no uncertain terms.
Why? It's not relevant. It's just a trap so that you can jump on an earlier misunderstanding. If the doctrine rules out scientific evidence, and we're assuming that the doctrine is true, then obviously I wouldn't expect scientific evidence. Ah ha! You caught me! Except you didn't, because I already explained that that would be begging the question. I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong internally[/I], based on its [i]own presuppositions. I wouldn't expect it to happen at all, because it is without precedent to the best of my knowledge. It would be miraculous. Hearsay is not enough to change my opinion. So you had a funny feeling. Okay. So what? So the doctrine says so. Okay. So what? Therefore transubstantiation!?
There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay, funny feelings, and "The doctrine says so!", which I'm not willing to do.
You don't get to choose what is evidence or not. You only get to argue that the evidence provided is wrong or unreliable. Again, you're begging the question. "I don't accept your evidence that realism is wrong because it isn't consistent with realism."
ProbablyTrueDecember 08, 2017 at 20:19#1315320 likes
True. Quoting a heretical non-saint like Tertullian doesn't help your case, especially as he doesn't reject the doctrine of the real presence in that quote.
Ah yes, the old heretic. Not heretical enough that the Catholic church doesn't want to claim his opinion for their purposes, though. I tried to explain that quotation, but if you don't see it there's nothing else I can say.
Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.
But that's irrelevant. In both cases. The fact that there are neural correlates for a qualitative experience does not eliminate the qualitative aspect of it, nor does it show that science can investigate the qualitative experience itself. That's for phenomenology to do.
If you go from non-horny to horny then this same girl that you're looking at becomes qualitatively different. She means something different for you, even though nothing, in her, physically changed. Something did physically change in you - the neural correlates - but they don't "contain" the qualitative meaning and inner understanding of the event.
Whatevs. I'm not even going to discuss this red herring.
Ghosts and celestial teapots are supposed to physically appear, to be observed around in the physical world. They are not qualitative phenomena, but quantitative ones. So how is there an analogy between transubstantiation and ghosts / celestial pots?
There's an analogy in terms of evidence and unfalsifiability. I could say that I've seen a ghost. That it was a mystical experience. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost. And, being of the spiritual realm, it would leave no physical trace behind.
As for the celestial teapot:
[quote=Wikipedia]Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.[/quote]
Yeah, a nonresponse to a nonquestion. If you can't be sufficiently accurate and specific in the questions that you ask, you'll keep asking a lot of bad questions. Then you'll be like yeah yeah yeah, replace this with that, or whatever, doesn't matter.
Handwave. It was indeed a nonquestion, but that doesn't justify your nonresponse. It was an analysis of where you're going wrong in response to my criticism. You'd do well to heed it, rather than dismiss it on such a trivial basis.
Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.
— Agustino
You must have been like :OOOOOOOOOOO - what will I say now?
Something irrelevant that I've never denied. Good one. What exactly do you think that you can conclude from that?
Which part? Are you suggesting that it is something other than a myth? That it is not taken up on faith? That it is falsifiable and unscientific?
I don't understand why you even participate in this or other similar discussions. I can't remember you ever responding in a way that shows you have given the other's comment serious consideration. All you really ever say is "nu unh." You never step out of your so-called realist box and it doesn't seem like you can understand that arguing for realism using realism is philosophically invalid. As they say about string theory, you're not even wrong.
You've simply made my point for me here. Yes, you reject what you put into the category of "magical thinking." You have reasons for doing so. Those reasons require defending in order to reject transubstantiation.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 08, 2017 at 22:22#1315710 likes
It's tiresome when about every discussion on religious ideas here is met with ridicule, mockery, and strawmen from one side. As I think Clarky tried to show earlier, the people who are dying of laughter from any suggestion of religious experience are probably same people who think quantum mechanics makes perfect, measurable, and logical sense.
You can imagine Islam without Muhammad, or Moses without Muhammad, or Buddhism without Buddha, or Hinduism without Krishna, etc. but you cannot imagine Christianity without...Christ.
No, that's completely whack. Islam without Muhammad? Buddhism without Buddha? Are you for real? Look up the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case and then tell me that.
No, that's completely whack. Islam without Muhammad? Buddhism without Buddha?
I can imagine Buddhism without the historical Siddhartha Gautama. Many later Mahayana schools don't seem to depend on the historicity of him. Islam without Muhammad might be a more difficult case to imagine, but it's certainly possible, since the Quran is the core of Islam and is a book that has existed from eternity. Muhammad is just a messenger.
I don't either, actually. I'm neither a Catholic nor a Christian. Within Christianity, however, Catholicism makes the most sense to me and attracts me the most.
There's lots of evidence of transubstantiation, it's just not evidence you believe. Your begging the question a bit. You've assumed that scientific rules apply to a situation where they don't. Agustino says "Scientific evidence is not relevant." You say "Science proves you're wrong."
"You're", not "Your".
You've not assessed the situation rightly. Firstly, if you had have read my comment properly, then you would have seen that I qualified my claim that there isn't a lot of evidence. But your reply ignores that qualification, as if I didn't make it. You're actually almost echoing my own point back to me as if it is a criticism. And secondly, I actually agree that science isn't relevant, in a sense. After all, I've acknowledged that the claim in question is unscientific. That doesn't do it any credit. If not science, then what? Reason? Hardly. Faith, more like.
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 08, 2017 at 23:06#1315850 likes
This is silliness. Transubstantiation is not an empirical state. It's symbolic, metaphorical, a necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world, within the context of religious ritual. In this respect, it's an a priori truth which isn't subject to any sort of argument about having evidence.
Asking for evidence here is like claiming that an assertion "The world is a stage"has some evidence which make it so.
Yes I do, in the sense that some evidence is much weaker than others, which is the sense in which I meant what I said. That's why I said that it's not real evidence, as in, it's so weak as to be effectively discounted. Think of a court of law as a point of comparison. Some evidence is inadmissible. Some evidence falls far short, such that winning a case becomes highly unlikely. Some evidence is like a smoking gun or being caught red handed.
You only get to argue that the evidence provided is wrong or unreliable.
I've done just that. You've not been interpreting me charitably. Perhaps you should look back over the discussion. For example, there have been points where Agustino seems to have been fallaciously appealing to authority ("But the doctrine says so!") and fallaciously appealing to the masses ("Lots of people have mystical experiences!") and appealing to anecdotal evidence (weak, unreliable, unfalsifiable).
As I think Clarky tried to show earlier, the people who are dying of laughter from any suggestion of religious experience are probably same people who think quantum mechanics makes perfect, measurable, and logical sense.
If I reject substantiation because it's bullshit, but I ignore the bullshitery of quantum mechanics and believe it anyway, that means two things (1) I'm logically inconsistent in my beliefs, and (2) transubstantiation is bullshit.
I mean I get the argument of "sure my beliefs are stupid, but so are yours," but is that really where you want to land on this?
This is silliness. Transubstantiation is not an empirical state. It's symbolic, metaphorical, a necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world, within the context of religious ritual. In this respect, it's an a priori truth which isn't subject to any sort of argument about having evidence.
Asking for evidence here is like claiming that an assertion "The world is a stage" has some evidence which make it so.
A necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world? An a priori truth? What [i]are[/I] you talking about? Can you explain yourself?
And, from what I've read about Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church, they do not consider it to be symbolic or metaphorical, but literal. (That is one of the distinctions between the two aforementioned and Protestantism). Accordingly, it is therefore not analogous to, "The world is a stage".
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 08, 2017 at 23:52#1315980 likes
I mean it's taken to be a meaning of the bread and wine in question, rather than to be literally what the states in question are-- just as we might say how the world "really is a stage" because people appear to others, even though it's not a stage at all.
Catholics don't think they are eating Jesus' fingers and putting a substance of blood in their mouth, no matter how much any of them say it's "literal." Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim.
Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism.
True. Prior to the earliest geological explanation of the earth's history over time, Biblical literalism about creation made reasonably good sense. After these theories were published, not so much.
Actually, extremely doctrinaire Biblical literalist inerrancy is quite modern--a reaction to both Darwin and the Biblical criticism carried out in the 19th century which revealed a more complex history to the various books of the Bible than previously known. It was hatched out by crackers in the southern Bible Belt. It seems to be more common now than say... 50 years ago, and has spread north, east, and west.
This is silliness. Transubstantiation is not an empirical state. It's symbolic, metaphorical, a necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world, within the context of religious ritual. In this respect, it's an a priori truth which isn't subject to any sort of argument about having evidence.
My wife is Catholic with a thoughtful understanding of doctrine. I've talked to her about it. Transubstantiation is definitely not a metaphorical or symbolic phenomena. It is meant literally.
If I reject substantiation because it's bullshit, but I ignore the bullshitery of quantum mechanics and believe it anyway, that means two things (1) I'm logically inconsistent in my beliefs, and (2) transubstantiation is bullshit.
I mean I get the argument of "sure my beliefs are stupid, but so are yours," but is that really where you want to land on this?
Since we're talking about something I said, I guess I should speak up. I don't think quantum mechanics is bullshit. I believe it is true in the sense that other scientific descriptions of the world are true. I believe that subatomic particles behave the way QM describes with the understanding that physicists still have a lot to work out.
I don't think transubstantiation is bullshit either, although it is not part of the way I understand the world. I guess I would say I don't have an opinion. That's not quite right. I guess I don't think about it except as something interesting that someone believes. Or something to argue about here. Notice I haven't once argued for transubstantiation as a fact. For me, the most important thing about it is that it shows the philosophical lack of vision and intellectual dishonesty of those who support realism, science, naturalism, absolutism, materialism, etc. Dishonesty isn't the right word. Maybe blindness.
Yep, it's among mostly American Protestants that you find the creationists and fundamentalists. On the various brands of Christianity, their doctrines and histories, you could do worse than read [I]A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years[/I] by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
Specifically on the relationship between literalism and Roman Catholicism, you could read this article from a leading Jesuit magazine:
Mystical experiences emerge likely as a therapeutic attempt for those susceptible to pathological issues by enhancing a sense of self-worth, such as when experiencing depression or anxiety and where the brain also changes in order to reduce that disconnection or alienation; the acceptance of supernatural things like statues moving or weeping is a type of collective pathology that serves to normalise these individual experiences (think of things like Jerusalem syndrome). However:
"Religious experience is brain-based. This should be taken as an unexceptional claim. All human experience is brain-based, including scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, and artistic creation, as well as religious states of mind. Determining the neural substrates of any of these states does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance"
QM emerged as a tool for scientific reasoning and mathematical deduction to describe and illustrate concepts as a step towards interpreting the universe and the amount of nonsense and pseudoscience that has emerged is verification that when all things are possible, nothing is impossible. But, the study of chemistry emerged from alchemy, ancient cosmology from Aristotle or Seleucus with their fantastic themes that the universe is cylindrical among others helped emerge the study of astronomy and eventually the development of astronomical tools that led to what we now know as science.
For me, religion was a tool to understand our moral and ethical dimensions, but the static nature of dogma has made it difficult for it to evolve and appreciate the original purpose, which was basically to understand how to be a good person. "Jihad" was supposed to be about fighting evil subjectively or within, but taking this literally as part of some collective pathology has led to rather devastating consequences.
Mystical experiences emerge likely as a therapeutic attempt for those susceptible to pathological issues by enhancing a sense of self-worth, such as when experiencing depression or anxiety and where the brain also changes in order to reduce that disconnection or alienation; the acceptance of supernatural things like statues moving or weeping is a type of collective pathology that serves to normalise these individual experiences (think of things like Jerusalem syndrome).
I think we really disagree. Are you saying that the mystical experiences of billions of people are the result of psychopathology? If so, that surprises me. If not, please clarify.
"Religious experience is brain-based. This should be taken as an unexceptional claim. All human experience is brain-based, including scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, and artistic creation, as well as religious states of mind. Determining the neural substrates of any of these states does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance"
I would probably say "mind-based," but in this case I think that would be a quibble. In general, I have no problem with that statement.
QM emerged as a tool for scientific reasoning and mathematical deduction to describe and illustrate concepts as a step towards interpreting the universe and the amount of nonsense and pseudoscience that has emerged is verification that when all things are possible, nothing is impossible. But, the study of chemistry emerged from alchemy, ancient cosmology from Aristotle or Seleucus with their fantastic themes that the universe is cylindrical among others helped emerge the study of astronomy and eventually the development of astronomical tools that led to what we now know as science.
I remember trying to read "The Tao of Physics." I finally threw it down in anger and frustration. Ever since, some people's inability to see that any connection between QM and mysticism is metaphorical has driven me crazy. That doesn't mean I think QM is right and mysticism is wrong, they're just completely different things. So, I agree, QM is often misused in a lazy and slapdash way. Do you think I was saying that QM's supposedly odd implications justify belief in supernatural phenomena? I wasn't. I was trying to say that just because something seems inconsistent with common sense, hard to believe, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
For me, religion was a tool to understand our moral and ethical dimensions, but the static nature of dogma has made it difficult for it to evolve and appreciate the original purpose, which was basically to understand how to be a good person. "Jihad" was supposed to be about fighting evil subjectively or within, but taking this literally as part of some collective pathology has led to rather devastating consequences.
Since no specific religion is part of my understanding of the world, it doesn't make sense for me to have an opinion on dogma or religious practice. Unless, of course, it calls for killing or enslaving children and other innocent people. That being said, it is my understanding that religion didn't start out primarily to deal with moral and ethical issues. It was intended to describe the entire world and all its aspects.
It comes down to this - for me, the universe, all that is; water, air, supernovas, bagels, love, triangles, cows, Republicans, some 23 legged numcztns on the third planet around some planet in some galaxy 11 billion light years away, God too; represents an inseparable combination of what is inside me and what is outside me. It's not really a combination - they were never separate. I believe that even though I am as hardheaded a proponent of science as you are. I am an engineer in a whole long line of clunky, methodical engineers.
There's a lot more to it, and I've discussed it on other threads. No need to go more into it here.
I think we really disagree. Are you saying that the mystical experiences of billions of people are the result of psychopathology? If so, that surprises me. If not, please clarify.
Billions of people? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of religious people who don't have mystical experiences and would likely think there is something wrong with the person experiencing it just as much as there are a lot of Catholics that do not actually believe they are drinking the blood of Christ. Stigmata never actually happened to people and if it did, it is no different to pseudocyesis or other physiological manifestations symptomatic of a pathological disorder.
So, I agree, QM is often misused in a lazy and slapdash way. Do you think I was saying that QM's supposedly odd implications justify belief in supernatural phenomena? I wasn't. I was trying to say that just because something seems inconsistent with common sense, hard to believe, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
The point I was attempting to convey is that there is a lot of wrong in QM and those even with a hint of common sense would be able to see the difference that something like Schrödinger's cat was a clear example of how QM cannot be applied to our everyday reality and yet we have the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is the double-slit experiment followed by the claim that atoms move because they know they are being observed. >:o
I am saying that there is a lot of garbage from QM that is inconsistent with common sense and that there is no mutual exclusivity between classical and quantum interpretations of the universe, but at the same time there is a reason why these absurd suggestions are formulated because we have through QM developed some precise calculations, formed a better understanding of the behaviour of particles, and advanced our understanding of a number of others things. It is a process that is leading to something better, a kind of by-product of our epistemic evolution.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 03:27#1316540 likes
If I reject substantiation because it's bullshit, but I ignore the bullshitery of quantum mechanics and believe it anyway, that means two things (1) I'm logically inconsistent in my beliefs, and (2) transubstantiation is bullshit.
I mean I get the argument of "sure my beliefs are stupid, but so are yours," but is that really where you want to land on this?
That's not my argument.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 03:30#1316550 likes
Reply to TimeLineReply to T Clark Perhaps I've missed it, but each of you need to define mystical experience first. Some experiences from modern Christian mystics suggests hysteria, but if one looks back into medieval Christian mysticism, you find a starkly different picture for many. It'd be helpful to ground this discussion with good definitions.
Billions of people? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of religious people who don't have mystical experiences and would likely think there is something wrong with the person experiencing it just as much as there are a lot of Catholics that do not actually believe they are drinking the blood of Christ. Stigmata never actually happened to people and if it did, it is no different to pseudocyesis or other physiological manifestations symptomatic of a pathological disorder.
I guess I don't see mystical experiences as so out of the ordinary. I don't think they are mysterious at all. I wasn't really thinking about Catholics when I talked about billions of people, I was thinking of Eastern religions and philosophies, although you are probably right to include Western religions too. I have my own idea what "mystical" means. I haven't studied comparative religion much, so maybe what I am talking about is not what others usually think of as mystical.
The point I was attempting to convey is that there is a lot of wrong in QM and those even with a hint of common sense would be able to see the difference that something like Schrödinger's cat was a clear example of how QM cannot be applied to our everyday reality and yet we have the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is the double-slit experiment followed by the claim that atoms move because they know they are being observed
Is that not-smiley face angry at the QM guys or at me? I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I agree there is a lot of what looks like silliness in all those interpretations. It is my understanding that they can't be told apart, even theoretically. If that's true, it doesn't make any difference what interpretation you use. It is my understanding (I use that phrase a lot when I am talking about subjects like this) that the Schrodinger's Cat thought-experiment was a joke. It never seemed to make any sense to me.
In my lack of sophistication, it's always seemed that the correct interpretation is "that's just the way it is." QM describes how the world works. If it doesn't make sense to you, tough luck. Why would you expect the world would behave the same at the smallest scales as it does at human scale. I guess I thought that's what the Copenhagen Interpretation meant.
I am saying that there is a lot of garbage from QM that is inconsistent with common sense and that there is no mutual exclusivity between classical and quantum interpretations of the universe, but at the same time there is a reason why these absurd suggestions are formulated because we have through QM developed some precise calculations, formed a better understanding of the behaviour of particles, and advanced our understanding of a number of others things. It is a process that is leading to something better, a kind of by-product of our epistemic evolution.
I don't see why QM has to be consistent with common sense. Much of physics and lots of other things aren't. Relativity isn't.
Perhaps I've missed it, but each of you need to define mystical experience first. Some experiences from modern Christian mystics suggests hysteria, but if one looks back into medieval Christian mysticism, you find a starkly different picture for many. It'd be helpful to ground this discussion with good definitions.
I guess to me, mysticism means understanding the world through awareness of the experience of it rather than measurements or observations of so-called objective reality. That comes mostly from my understanding and experience of the Tao Te Ching. I have not studied it, I have only read a number of versions and read just a little modern commentary. I have experienced some of what is described and it seems like the most mundane experience possible. This is usually where I hope @Wayfarer will show up and set me straight.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 04:02#1316640 likes
Reply to T Clark So, one's awareness of experience 'x' can't be measured or observed? How does one make sense of their awareness, or the experience, then?
So, one's awareness of experience 'x' can't be measured or observed? How does one make sense of their awareness, or the experience, then?
Come on. Do you really not understand. You're experiencing things right now. You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. I just had dinner. I didn't watch myself eating - I just tasted the food, swallowed, felt it going down my throat, had a sense of wellbeing when I was done. I am verbalizing it now, but I didn't while it was happening.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 09, 2017 at 04:10#1316690 likes
Here's the issue with transubstantiation. By the power of the Word, the things referred to as the body and blood of Christ, are actually the body and blood of Christ, because that is what they are called the body and blood of Christ. But this is only true by Faith in the power of the Word. So the physical appearance of the objects, (look and taste for example), is not how one would expect the body and blood of Christ to appear. So to believe, you must release yourself of the preconceived idea that you have of how the body and blood of Christ would appear, and allow yourself to believe that the body and blood of Christ would appear as the items referred to as the body and blood of Christ. Then the items referred to as the body and blood of Christ actually are the body and blood of Christ.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 04:12#1316700 likes
You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it.
I'm not so sure. How're you not also observing your experiencing of eating dinner? You're experiencing it, so I think you're automatically measuring it somehow as being different from the experience of petting your dog.
I'm not so sure. How're you not also observing your experiencing of eating dinner? You're experiencing it, so I think you're automatically measuring it somehow as being different from the experience of petting your dog.
You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it.
In my experience, I don't observe my experiences, I just experience them.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 04:19#1316730 likes
Reply to T Clark I realize that, but I'm saying that your experience has measurable phenomena. If you say that mystical experience is not measurable, then how can one even contemplate it? What's one to do with a mystical experience?
Kant pointed out that the only measurable aspect of the inner sense is time. My addition would be that time moves much much slower in the void, and much much faster in the spirit world. I like the name the "subtle body", as it is behind the scenes, and isn't any of the forms of its representation.
I think that a good definition is that it is externally indistinguishable from psychosis, only instead of making you sicker, it makes you healthier. This is something that is documented, and difficult to dispute, and measurable from the outside.
Reply to T Clark i don’t know if I can do that. I discovered Tao Te Ching through Alan Watts and have always greatly admired it, but it seems so quintessentially Chinese, and I am very much an Anglo. Still, there’s a few verses in it that have become part of my lexicon.
As for mysticism - in some ways it is impossible to convey but the great mystics, the genuine mystics, do speak a universal language.
As for mysticism - in some ways it is impossible to convey but the great mystics, the genuine mystics, do speak a universal language.
I guess I thought your experience with Zen was similar. From where I stand the seem to be addressing the same experiences. Obviously, you know more about that than I do. That's why I rang you up. It's fdrake for statistics, apokrisis and StreetlightX for cognitive science, and Wayfarer for eastern religions.
I mean it's taken to be a meaning of the bread and wine in question, rather than to be literally what the states in question are-- just as we might say how the world "really is a stage" because people appear to others, even though it's not a stage at all.
Catholics don't think they are eating Jesus' fingers and putting a substance of blood in their mouth, no matter how much any of them say it's "literal." Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim.
Your meaning is rarely clear, and that's a problem. If you're saying that, according to Catholicism, it's metaphorical, rather than literal, then I think you're mistaken, since the sources where I've got my information about Catholicism from state otherwise. Moreover, T. Clark's wife is Catholic, and she thinks likewise.
And what I was [i]actually[/I] requesting was an explanation regarding your comments about logical necessity and [i]a priori[/I] truth, which you haven't given. I might just resign myself to my suspicion that you were talking rubbish, whilst, in the same breath, accusing [I]us[/I] of being silly.
Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim.
I've read that several times now, and I'm still confused about what you're trying to say. For a start, bread and wine don't express meanings. That makes no sense. I feel like I need a translator when conversing with you.
You can't know if it's unfalsifiable if you cannot even bring yourself to specify what predictions it makes. That's your own failing though. I've asked you multiple times already.
Yeah so what? Emotions are also unfalsifiable, therefore they're unscientific. So that means they're mythical? Give me a break from first-grade reasoning.
That it was a mystical experience. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost. And, being of the spiritual realm, it would leave no physical trace behind.
That's not true that a mystical experience wouldn't leave physical traces behind. Such could be detected in the brains of those undergoing them.
Something irrelevant that I've never denied. Good one. What exactly do you think that you can conclude from that?
Can you do any better?
Well, for one, I can conclude that mystical experiences do leave physical traces behind, and are scientific to that extent (we can judge whether or not someone really had a mystical experience). We cannot, however, scientifically study the inner meaning or significance of mystical experiences. That's not a failure either of science or of mystical experiences. It doesn't tell us mystical experiences are "mythical", or "unscientific" in a prejudiced sense. It just tells us that you're trying to cut a tree with a hammer ;)
In that case, there must really have been witches, given all that testimony. (Look up witch trials in the early modern period).
Not comparable. First of all, in those cases there exists testimony in both directions. And most importantly, the testimony in that case was very often forced out of people by violence, etc. And the testimony was of the nature "I think she was a witch". It wasn't of the form "I've seen the Risen Christ".
In the case of Christians, if you affirmed that you saw the Risen Christ you would be persecuted. In the case of witches, you would be rewarded if you turned a witch in. In the case of Christians there exists virtually no testimony against the Risen Christ. In the case of witches the testimony was always ambiguous. In the case of Christians the testimony was of the nature of personal experience - seeing the risen Christ. In the case of witches, the testimony was of the nature "I think she's a witch".
So really, your laughable attempts aside, you have to try harder ;)
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 14:04#1317880 likes
Reply to Agustino You have an answer for everything, don't you? The extent that some people will go to in an attempt to justify something so patently absurd is fascinating. There are numerous other comparable examples that I could bring up. The point is, mere testimony is woefully insufficient when it comes to supernatural claims. And it certainly isn't credible to grant something the status of being factual or historical on that basis alone. You would not make a good historian. You can't even distinguish myth from history, at least when it comes to the beliefs that are central to your religion, which only emphasises your bias. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What's interesting is that none of this is necessary. You don't have to bite the bullet and opt for the weaker position entailed by organised religion. You can be a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ's teachings, without adopting this untenable literal interpretation of scripture.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 14:45#1317970 likes
Reply to Sapientia Good historians wouldn't question the validity of one's claimed experience, only how that claim functions in different narratives. Suggesting that claims of mystical experience are in fact myths is not the job of a historian, so I don't think either of you would be good historians.
Good historians wouldn't question the validity of one's claimed experience, only how that claim functions in different narratives. Suggesting that claims of mystical experience are in fact myths is not the job of a historian, so I don't think either of you would be good historians.
A good historian would not count any supernatural claims as historical without exceptional reason. Agustino cited the Resurrection as a historical event. Agustino has not provided enough of an evidential basis to make an exception. Therefore, it should not be counted as historical. End of.
No credible historian would count the tale of St. George and the dragon as a historical event. There is no archeological evidence of dragons ever having existed. Similarly, there is no credible evidence that Jesus was ever resurrected from death. Testimony is not enough for obvious reasons. Otherwise you open the floodgates to all sorts of fantastical imaginings, be it ghosts, angels, demons, faeries, dragons, witches, walking on water, and so on and so forth.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 15:04#1317990 likes
Reply to Sapientia You're not understanding at all. What I'm saying is that the claim itself is what historians analyze as part of a historical narrative, not whether or not the Christian resurrection happened yes or no. If Agustino is claiming that the Christian resurrection happened, not merely that it is claimed to have happened, then he could be right, but he could also be wrong. History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is.
You're not understanding at all. What I'm saying is that the claim itself is what historians analyze as part of a historical narrative, not whether or not the Christian resurrection happened yes or no. If Agustino is claiming that the Christian resurrection happened, not merely that it is claimed to have happened, then he could be right, but he could also be wrong. History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is.
God's teeth, not this again. It's not that I'm not understanding, it's that I'm disagreeing. Whether or not we have enough evidence to discern whether or not it happened, which is to say whether or not it is historical, [i]does[/I] come under the remit of a historian. We don't have enough to say that it happened in the case that is under discussion. It has more in common with mythology than history.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 09, 2017 at 15:21#1318020 likes
Whether or not we have enough evidence to discern whether or not it happened, which is to say whether or not it is historical, does come under the remit of a historian.
No, it does not. The historian analyzes what he has, not what he does not have. If he has no evidence suggesting the contrary, he ought not suppose that it did not happen, merely that it is not conclusive that it did. I'm sorry, Sappy, but you're wrong here. There's no way around it, and you can get offended all you like, but if I must qualify myself here, it is with me having a degree in history and have spent much of my life studying both history itself and how we study history. You can argue my acumen on philosophical matters, but here is where I'm not going to feign ignorance.
Also, I might remind you that I qualified my first reply here with good historians. I don't deny that there are historians who overstep their bounds, but they are bad historians. And I'm not alone in this.
Buxte is exactly right. The historian is methodologically agnostic. A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. One may believe that the former is indicative of the latter, but that cannot be asserted as fact, unless new evidence is brought to light, such as Jesus' body being discovered.
On the other hand, something like the Resurrection can be ruled out axiomatically if some form of positivistic materialism is true. Were it true, miracles are impossible and those events labeled as such are simply misunderstood physical processes like everything else.
I will say that for traditional Christians, the articles of faith (i.e. the items in the creeds) are divinely revealed and only received by grace. You cannot definitively establish them through the use of reason. Indeed, if that were true, then faith would be superfluous. However, merely because the Resurrection, for example, requires faith to believe in does not mean that it is unreasonable to do so, provided one believes in certain preambles to the faith, such as the existence of God (which the creeds assume). So I don't think faith in the Resurrection is "bullshit" if those preambles are true. Debating the merits of the Resurrection's occurrence before establishing the existence and nature of God is to put the cart before the horse.
And it certainly isn't credible to grant something the status of being factual or historical on that basis alone.
Right, it's based on historical documents. I grant that Alexander went to India and fought there, etc. based on very few historical references - much fewer than when it comes to the death and resurrection of Christ. So why don't you go up in arms about granting factual or historical status to Alexander's conquests, but you're so upset when it comes to Jesus? The Bible does say that the Cross will be a scandal for unbelievers.
What's interesting is that none of this is necessary. You don't have to bite the bullet and opt for the weaker position entailed by organised religion. You can be a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ's teachings, without adopting this untenable literal interpretation of scripture.
St. Paul said that if Christ has not Risen, then the faith is in vain. He was right about that.
Buxte is exactly right. The historian is methodologically agnostic. A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence.
This isn't true. A historian is in the business of verifying his facts. He doesn't simply just recite what he's told, unless he simply wishes to document what he's told regardless of veracity. If I were reading the history of the Vietnam war, for example, I would expect the historian to have sorted out the facts from the fiction and tried to establish some degree of credibility. Academic histories are replete with footnotes and references supportive of their claims.
No historian would report that there were purple elephants walking around Peoria without support, meaning precisely that the lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
On the other hand, something like the Resurrection can be ruled out axiomatically if some form of positivistic materialism is true. Were it true, miracles are impossible and those events labeled as such are simply misunderstood physical processes like everything else.
This makes it appear that there are simply materialistic axioms and religious axioms that are incompatible, with neither being more valid than the other, and so it should be expected that materialists will reject the Resurrection as a matter of faith, just as Christians accept it as a matter of faith. It paints a picture of two competing faiths, with the materialists unjustifiably smug in the truthfulness of their faith, but, if better enlightened, would realize they are no better or worse than the religious. I think this accurately sets forth the repercussions of your position. If not, correct me.
The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book. That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system. I reject the Resurrection for the same reason I reject accounts of ghosts, not because ghosts are materialistically impossible, but because no one seems to be able to show me one.
And in truth, I'm not actually a materialist, but I fully allow for a spiritual realm, but I don't believe that offers me any additional room for a belief in the Resurrection. Why would it?
The truth is that most believe in the Resurrection because their parents did or it was a pervasive cultural belief. The belief is simply an adoption of the local legend, regardless of how firmly the believers wish to argue that it's not. On the other hand, my belief that it snowed last night would be my belief regardless of who my parents were, and that belief seems to be cross-cultural, with people of all beliefs and stripes navigating the snow in the same way.
Your meaning is rarely clear, and that's a problem. If you're saying that, according to Catholicism, it's metaphorical, rather than literal, then I think you're mistaken, since the sources where I've got my information about Catholicism from state otherwise. Moreover, T. Clark's wife is Catholic, and she thinks likewise.
And what I was actually requesting was an explanation regarding your comments about logical necessity and a priori truth, which you haven't given. I might just resign myself to my suspicion that you were talking rubbish, whilst, in the same breath, accusing us of being silly.
Ah, I see the confusion. Generally, when someone says that they are doing a literal interpretation of the Bible, it goes further than saying that some of the mysteries aren't metaphorical and symbolic. Everything is literally to be taken to the word. If the Apocalypse state that during the breaking of the 3rd Seal all angels will be dancing laciviously La Macarena, then you can expect that to happen.
Catholicism doesn't teach a literal interpretation of the texts in this way. I was told in Catechism that the Apocalypse and the Rapture was much more symbolic than anything factual. At the same time, the priest would be unmovable on certain other issues. Mary was a virgin. He felt almost insulted at the question. Sacraments are holy and mystical. Transubstantiation is a thing. Resurrection did happen.
Obviously, its very akward having to naviguate this system of belief. Once you start admitting some of it is symbolic, why not just say it all is? Why is it so important that Mary really was a virgin if it doesn't really matter if only 400 000 people will or won't be selected for admittance into Heaven? That is why, I think, so many other Christian sects decide to go the literalist way. That way, you don't have to deal with figuring which part of the text are the important ones, because it's all important, all the time.
This isn't true. A historian is in the business of verifying his facts. He doesn't simply just recite what he's told, unless he simply wishes to document what he's told regardless of veracity. If I were reading the history of the Vietnam war, for example, I would expect the historian to have sorted out the facts from the fiction and tried to establish some degree of credibility. Academic histories are replete with footnotes and references supportive of their claims.
No historian would report that there were purple elephants walking around Peoria without support, meaning precisely that the lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book. That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system. I reject the Resurrection for the same reason I reject accounts of ghosts, not because ghosts are materialistically impossible, but because no one seems to be able to show me one.
And in truth, I'm not actually a materialist, but I fully allow for a spiritual realm, but I don't believe that offers me any additional room for a belief in the Resurrection. Why would it?
The truth is that most believe in the Resurrection because their parents did or it was a pervasive cultural belief. The belief is simply an adoption of the local legend, regardless of how firmly the believers wish to argue that it's not. On the other hand, my belief that it snowed last night would be my belief regardless of who my parents were, and that belief seems to be cross-cultural, with people of all beliefs and stripes navigating the snow in the same way.
Yes, I reject it for the same reasons, and I also made the point that materialism isn't as relevant as Thorongil, Noble Dust, and perhaps others, think it is. My views certainly have much in common with materialism, but whether that's enough to make me a materialist is arguable. Whether I'm a materialist, a dualist, or undecided, my views about transubstantiation would be no different.
Says the man who has set himself up as the sole judge of what is patently absurd.
Sapientia says "What you say is patently absurd. QED."
You're right. There's nothing patently absurd about bread and wine magically transforming into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago, after some special ceremony, leaving no trace that this magical transformation has taken place. Almost as if it had not taken place at all, and is in fact just something that's made up. And there's nothing patently absurd about a man who, after being put to death, rose up and ascended to heaven. There's testimony, so it must be true. How silly of me.
If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly.
The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book.
It is supposed to be inconsistent, it is a miracle. If it wasn't inconsistent, how could it possibly be a miracle?
That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system.
Well right, if you were used to it, then the Resurrection would be nothing special, as it claims to be. Precisely because you don't see people rise from the dead from time to time, it shows that the Resurrection of Christ was a unique event in history. Indeed, it is the very axis of history. All of history separates in before and after Christ.
If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly.
I think the same about you. If we were discussing Alexander the Great and his conquests (including details about the tactics he used in specific battles, etc.), of which we know based on the testimony of people and virtually nothing else, I'm sure you'd not be questioning the historical validity of those documents nor the historicity of the events. But when it comes to religion, you do question it, because you're set against religion on an a priori basis.
I think the same about you. If we were discussing Alexander the Great and his conquests (including details about the tactics he used in specific battles, etc.), of which we know based on the testimony of people and virtually nothing else, I'm sure you'd not be questioning the historical validity of those documents. But when it comes to religion, you do question it, because you're set against religion on an a priori basis.
They're not analogous. Did you read what I said about supernatural claims?
In relation to the mystic this and mysticism that discussion, and in the vein of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy:
Is anyone attracted to the aesthetic truths of the song “Into the Mystic” by Van Morison then a person whose underlying aesthetic and related beliefs are mentally disordered, aka insane? Or is one’s likening of this song’s theme only a brain fart? Wait, maybe even something more substantial, such as a brain defecation. Conversely, would liking of this song be due to the biologically determined, evolutionary functionality of understanding and relating to propositional attitudes expressed by statements such as, “we were born before the wind”?
Besides, what are the psychotic rants of bona fide mystics such as William Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence” supposed to mean anyway? And I quote, “To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour …”. A more irrational convulsion of category errors can hardly be imagined! It’s like, what?
With all due sobriety and sincerity though, myself, I prefer to admire the Mystery Men. They are mysterious too, yes, but I, personally, find it much easier to relate to most of them—including that guy played by Tom Waits who as a weird scientist only manufactures weapons of mass disruption. (to be used strictly for good, of course)
To those who quite understandably don’t know, Mystery Men is the single greatest superhero movie of all time, imo. This being a self-evident fact, QED.
ProbablyTrueDecember 09, 2017 at 21:06#1318650 likes
Let's not pretend the four Gospels are a historical record. They are narratives written by highly educated Greek Christians about uneducated (except Jesus) and illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jews, 35-70 years after the fact. They are full of discrepancies and contradictions, including the accounts of the resurrection. There are zero contemporary secular sources that affirm or even mention the event.
The amount deference given to "mystical experiences" in this argument is baffling. If the inability to disprove something claimed to be ineffable is grounds for respecting it, I guess we'd have no right to try talking a suicide bomber out of his belief in a glorious martyrs afterlife.
and so it should be expected that materialists will reject the Resurrection as a matter of faith, just as Christians accept it as a matter of faith.
No. I have no idea why you would read this into my words. If materialism is true, the Resurrection is false. There is no faith required to reject the Resurrection in that case.
but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book
Here your disbelief rests on a probability, which means your disbelief does not rest on a demonstrated fact. Your position is thus similar to what I said: "a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. One may believe that the former is indicative of the latter, but that cannot be asserted as fact, unless new evidence is brought to light...."
If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly.
I'm not Christian or religious in any conventional way. I have no vested interest in any specific issues being discussed here. What I am interested in is the metaphysical issue. My position has been stated and restated numerous times. I'd rather not do it again.
Patently means without doubt. Absurd means ridiculous. You think the idea of transubstantiation is ridiculous without any doubt. I disagree.
ProbablyTrueDecember 09, 2017 at 21:18#1318700 likes
Reply to Thorongil
You know what I mean Thoron. Yes, technically they are records found in history that claim to record things that happened in a period of history.
They are not a dispassionate account of things that took place. And they are full of discrepancies.
It is supposed to be inconsistent, it is a miracle. If it wasn't inconsistent, how could it possibly be a miracle?
This is an equivocation fallacy. It is tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the normal scientific order of things. It is not tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the common consensus experience.
That is, of course miracles are miraculous (definition #1: inconsistent with science), but they need not be rare (definition #2: inconsistent with common experience). In fact, I am open to miracles occuring, but that hardly means anything can occur.
Hypothetically, if miracles of a certain type occurred daily, I would find it dubious if miracles of another sort were alleged, especially if they were significantly at variance from the other ones.
All of history separates in before and after Christ.
It's comments like these that broadcast your limited and myopic perspective. To the extent you simply wish to proclaim your fidelity to your faith as a loyal Christian soldier, I guess have it, but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man, it's hard to to consider your views having any validity outside those sharing your limited field of vision.
It's comments like these that broadcast your limited and myopic perspective. To the extent you simply wish to proclaim your fidelity to your faith as a loyal Christian soldier, I guess have it, but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man, it's hard to to consider your views having any validity outside those sharing your limited field of vision.
With a few words changed, this is exactly the argument I've been making about your and Sapientia's beliefs.
This is an equivocation fallacy. It is tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the normal scientific order of things. It is not tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the common consensus experience.
Hmm, I see where you're coming from. However, I don't think we could even have, in principle, the scenario you're suggesting above. I mean that sort of presupposes that we could have a situation where something occurs commonly in experience, but yet is not incorporated in our scientific theories. So what would that look like? We have a law, like the law of gravity, and people sometimes levitate? Wouldn't that be incorporated in the scientific law then? Surely the law would have a statistical element then, much like quantum mechanics. For the most part, things fall down to earth - but sometimes there is a fluctuation in the gravitational field, and they float.
So the problem with your whole scenario, more succinctly, is that we had the notion of miracles before we ever developed the notion of a scientific order of things - before we knew of laws of nature. So how did that notion of miracles develop? Clearly, it couldn't have developed to refer to things which were contrary to the laws of nature - what it referred to were things that were deemed to be impossible according to common experience.
but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man
I fully acknowledge that there were billions of people who didn't/don't consider Jesus to be the Son of God.
What I meant by history being divided into before Christ and after Christ, was simply a remark that pretty much everywhere we talk of 100 BC and 2000 AD, and where is the separation point? It's very close to the birth of Jesus. So we have divided our history into before Christ and after Christ. Clearly Christ's influence, regardless of what you believe about Him, has been tremendous.
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 09, 2017 at 22:48#1319030 likes
Which makes "miracles" nothing more than unexpected events, whether by that's by present scientific theory or common experience. None of them were ever "impossible (shown clearly false, if one has happened)," only insisted to be "impossible" by humans interested in ensuring people thought the event in question couldn't happen.
None of them were ever "impossible (shown clearly false, if one has happened)," only insisted to be "impossible" by humans interested in ensuring people thought the event in question couldn't happen.
With a few words changed, this is exactly the argument I've been making about your and Sapientia's beliefs.
I know it is, and it's an invalid attempt to declare all viewpoints relativistic and equally valid. My belief in evolution is founded upon firmer epistimological foundations than are creationists' beliefs or what a South American tribe might think. When I say transubstantiation doesn't occur, I mean it just like I mean there are no unicorns, bigfoot, and that the earth's not flat.
Hmm, I see where you're coming from. However, I don't think we could even have, in principle, the scenario you're suggesting above. I mean that sort of presupposes that we could have a situation where something occurs commonly in experience, but yet is not incorporated in our scientific theories. So what would that look like? We have a law, like the law of gravity, and people sometimes levitate? Wouldn't that be incorporated in the scientific law then?
I suppose it'd be Moses' world, where miracles were commonplace and not alarming. Moses didn't attempt to provide a mundane, non-miraculous explanation for those events because God spoke directly to him and he knew they were acts of divine intervention.
You assume miracles must be deciphered only because God stopped explicitely talking to us a few thousand years ago for some reason. Quoting Agustino
What I meant by history being divided into before Christ and after Christ, was simply a remark that pretty much everywhere we talk of 100 BC and 2000 AD, and where is the separation point? I
BCE (as opposed to BC) is typically used to refer to "before the common era," or, as we used to say back in Hebrew school, before the common error.
Anyway, the Jewish year is 5728, Hindu 3102, Islam 1438, and Chinese year is Rooster if my placemat was correct.
I guess I don't see mystical experiences as so out of the ordinary. I don't think they are mysterious at all. I wasn't really thinking about Catholics when I talked about billions of people, I was thinking of Eastern religions and philosophies, although you are probably right to include Western religions too. I have my own idea what "mystical" means. I haven't studied comparative religion much, so maybe what I am talking about is not what others usually think of as mystical.
There is a difference between a mystical experience and mysticism; in some Dervish Sufi orders, for instance, the practice of whirling is intended to achieve this unison with God yet possible only for a select few and only followed by this "annihilation of the self" after years of practice. They are aware that not everyone is capable of achieving this experience that is individual or distinct in its transcendental reality. In my opinion, this exemplifies that there really is no possibility of such an experience, but rather it is pathologically distinct framed within a religious exegesis in order to broadly make sense of whatever that person is experiencing. The mysticism itself, the suggestion of attaining a unison with God, the annihilation of the self, the asceticism etc is entirely sensible but I am of the opinion - except for the existence of God - that it is not meant to be taken literally; like QM and CM, it is meant to help us better understand physical reality. For people to purport simultaneity between the spiritual realm and the material world - i.e. something like 'psychics' who can reach beyond this world or that Scho. cat both exists and doesn't exist - is, in my opinion a type of pathology. It is taking lies and our imagination to a new level.
You cannot know God. This is why - for centuries - people rely on idols or turning men like Jesus into a god. Taking concepts like that literally is a cognitive issue but framed into a dogmatic system. To me, there are really only two types of people, those that believe in God and those that don't. Everything else is just trying to make sense of this.
For people to purport simultaneity between the spiritual realm and the material world - i.e. something like 'psychics' who can reach beyond this world or that Scho. cat both exists and doesn't exist - is, in my opinion a type of pathology. It is taking lies and our imagination to a new level.
I have been trying to make myself clear on this thread for a couple of days and have made no headway. I think that's for several reasons - 1) It's a hard thing to get across. The same words mean different things to different people. 2) I've been trying for a long time to figure out a way that I find satisfactory to describe the experiences and ideas I am talking about. I haven't been able to so far. It's probably silly of me to think that if I can just figure out to say it right everyone will see what I'm talking about. 3) The ideas are probably alien to the way people think about the world 4) I think the fact that you talk about the ideas I'm trying to get across as a type of psychopathology and Sapientia calls them "patently absurd" indicates intellectual rigidity on your parts.
I have been trying to make myself clear on this thread for a couple of days and have made no headway. I think that's for several reasons - 1) It's a hard thing to get across. The same words mean different things to different people. 2) I've been trying for a long time to figure out a way that I find satisfactory to describe the experiences and ideas I am talking about. I haven't been able to so far. It's probably silly of me to think that if I can just figure out to say it right everyone will see what I'm talking about. 3) The ideas are probably alien to the way people think about the world 4) I think the fact that you talk about the ideas I'm trying to get across as a type of psychopathology and Sapientia calls them "patently absurd" indicates intellectual rigidity on your parts.
You have created the idea of 3) when you are having difficulties articulating your beliefs probably because you yourself have not yet understood it well enough. Whatever the case is, my argument is not about your beliefs and what you say makes sense and parallel to some degree with me as I myself subscribe to the belief in the interconnectedness of all things in similar vein to Spinoza. I do agree, however, with 1) as how things are interpreted is dependent on a number of factors. Take an Epicurean approach and focus on addressing them. If I say I believe in God to a Christian, it may be interpreted to be the trinity; I have to clarify further and so I say that my belief is more aligned with the monotheistic God of Judaism or Islam, but then it may be assumed that I am Jewish or Muslim, so again further still I say that I do not follow a religion nor believe in an anthropomorphic God etc etc. I noticed that some serious advocates of atheism are really just anti-Catholics because they had some bad experiences personally.
As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real.
You have mad people like Madam Blavatsky plagiarising from Hinduism and Gnosticism and then wrap it all up by pretending it is philosophical, creating Theosophy where she believes that the devil is god and that Aryans and Atlantis actually exist, influencing people who end up influencing Hitler who end up killing millions of Jews, Romas, persons with a disability etc. There needs to be a line drawn between fantasy and reality.
It is more dangerous then simply some astrologist telling a gullible minded moron that they are a Capricorn and next week they will meet the man of their dreams or scientologists talking about having you purified and I don't know whatever heck they do. I really need you to think about 4) again, please.
Here's the issue with transubstantiation. By the power of the Word, the things referred to as the body and blood of Christ, are actually the body and blood of Christ, because that is what they are called the body and blood of Christ. But this is only true by Faith in the power of the Word.
Let me stop you there. I agree that it's a matter of faith. However, nothing is true by faith, whether you capitalise the first letter of the word or not.
[quote=Nietzsche]"Faith" means the will to avoid knowing what is true.
Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been able to move real mountains, although I do not know who assumed that it could. But it can put mountains where there are none.
But the “deep“ thought can nevertheless be very far from the truth, as, for instance, every metaphysical one; if one takes away from the deep feeling the commingled elements of thought, then the strong feeling remains- and this guarantees nothing for knowledge but itself- just as strong faith proves only its strength and not the truth of what is believed in.
The fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for blessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an [i]idee fixe[/I] by no means makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves no mountains, but instead raises them up where there were none before: all this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a lunatic asylum.[/quote]
Right, but he's not considered to be the One True God come amongst mortals to save us from sin.
Right, but that doesn't mean that Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions, which is what you said. That only means that his [i]full status[/I] is, which is something I never denied. So, you didn't word your claim properly, and you should therefore be more careful in future.
Muhammad is not of absolute importance. Allah is. Muhammad is merely the messanger and the prophet.
Yep, the centre of Islam is the One God Allah.
Yes, Muhammad, in accordance with Islam, as I understand it, is only secondary in importance to Allah. Islam doesn't have that Trinity nonsense peculiar to Christianity. Although Muhammad is, nevertheless, and undeniably, a central figure in that religion, with a similar, albeit not identical, status as that of Jesus in accordance with Christianity.
Sure, Buddhism is a set of techniques. Has nothing to do with a particular historical figure - maybe Buddha never even was a historical figure.
No, that's taking it way too far, and is very misleading. The tales of Buddha, whether he was a historical figure or not, and the underlying messages, are of great significance to Buddhism. Buddhism is named after the Buddha. Statues of the Buddha are so plentiful and recognisable that they're akin to the cross of Christianity or that image of Ché Guevara.
You can't know if it's unfalsifiable if you cannot even bring yourself to specify what predictions it makes. That's your own failing though. I've asked you multiple times already.
No, I've addressed that. At first, I refused to humour you, and I explained why. Then, eventually, because you were so persistent, I answered you in a more engaging way here. So, the real question is: why aren't you addressing my response? And why should I persist in tolerating what seems to amount to nothing other than game playing from you?
Yeah so what? Emotions are also unfalsifiable, therefore they're unscientific. So that means they're mythical? Give me a break from first-grade reasoning.
It's funny that you should mention emotions, because emotions are what I suspect leads you to jump to conclusions regarding what you interpret as mystical experiences.
I acknowledge emotions because I've experienced emotions. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, experienced the magical transformation that we're discussing. It's misleading of you to create the impression that science is all that matters to me. I mentioned elsewhere that without science, you'd still need good enough reason. You haven't provided good enough reason. I've explained why in response to the reasons you've given thus far.
That's not true that a mystical experience wouldn't leave physical traces behind. Such could be detected in the brains of those undergoing them.
:-}
Really, Agustino? That's not what I meant. Do you think that I'd deny that? I wasn't talking about the experience, I was talking about the ghost. There wouldn't be any physical trace of the ghost that I experienced. So you'd only have my word to go by that the experience I had was indeed an experience of a ghost and nothing else. But my word is not enough. I could have misinterpreted what it was that I experienced as a ghost, meaning that, in fact, it might've been something else. That it was something other than a ghost is much more plausible.
This is analogous with testimony about transubstantiation or the resurrection of Christ.
Well, for one, I can conclude that mystical experiences do leave physical traces behind, and are scientific to that extent (we can judge whether or not someone really had a mystical experience).
That's an irrelevant conclusion: an informal fallacy.
We cannot, however, scientifically study the inner meaning or significance of mystical experiences. That's not a failure either of science or of mystical experiences. It doesn't tell us mystical experiences are "mythical", or "unscientific" in a prejudiced sense. It just tells us that you're trying to cut a tree with a hammer. ;)
No, I'm not. You're just not paying close enough attention. If I was trying to cut a tree with a hammer, I would be trying to misapply science. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm making the point that if science cannot apply, which it cannot, given that it is unfalsifiable, then what else do we have to go by? You've attempted to provide good enough reason, but you have failed to do so, and some of your replies have been laughable.
Right, but that doesn't mean that Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions, which is what you said. That only means that his status is. So you didn't word your claim properly, and you should therefore be more careful in future.
Yes, Muhammad, in accordance with Islam, as I understand it, is only second in importance to Allah. Although he is nevertheless, and undeniably, a central figure in that religion, with a similar, albeit not identical, status as that of Jesus in accordance with Christianity.
The tales of Buddha, whether he was a historical figure or not, and the underlying messages, are of great significance to Buddhism. Buddhism is named after the Buddha. Statues of the Buddha are so plentiful and recognisable that they're akin to the cross of Christianity or that image of Ché Guevara.
No, Buddha isn't important. What is important is salvation. That's why Bodhidharma says "if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha". You really do have very little understanding of these matters, and that doesn't surprise me, since I don't suppose you've invested years of your life, as I have, studying the religions. So it's something to be expected, you cannot be good at something if you never engage with it. And I don't hold that against you, but you should be aware of it.
No, I've addressed that. At first, I refused to humour you, and I explained why. Then, eventually, because you were so persistent, I answered you in a more engaging way here. So, the real question is: why aren't you addressing my response? And why should I persist in tolerating what seems to amount to nothing other than game playing from you?
Because it was a red herring. I illustrate how below.
I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong internally, based on its own presuppositions. I wouldn't expect it to happen at all, because it is without precedent to the best of my knowledge.
What is the "it" that you wouldn't expect to happen? And please don't say transubstantiation, I want you to explain to me clearly what transubstantiation is, so that you can decide if it happens or not. So we're back to my original question. What would you expect to happen if transubstantiation were true? Even if you reject is because you don't agree with its presuppositions, you're supposed to be able to tell me what you would expect to happen if it were true.
I acknowledge emotions because I've experienced emotions. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, experienced the magical transformation that we're discussing
Yes you have - you've experienced horniness. That is a magical transformation. One time a girl means nothing to you, the next second she means everything. Something magical happened there. You don't call it magical only because you're so used to it, you've come to expect it.
Really, Agustino? That's not what I meant. Do you think that I'd deny that? I wasn't talking about the experience, I was talking about the ghost. There wouldn't be any physical trace of the ghost that I experienced. So you'd only have my word to go by that the experience I had was indeed an experience of a ghost and nothing else. But my word is not enough. I could have misinterpreted what it was that I experienced as a ghost, meaning that, in fact, it might've been something else. That is was something other than a ghost is much more plausible.
It's not analogous to the Christian revelation. The Christian revelation wasn't experienced by one or two people, but by literarily hundreads. One person's testimony, depending on circumstances, context, etc. may be worth nothing.
No, Buddha isn't important. What is important is salvation. That's why Bodhidharma says "if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha". You really do have very little understanding of these matters, and that doesn't surprise me, since I don't suppose you've invested years of your life, as I have, studying the religions. So it's something to be expected, you cannot be good at something if you never engage with it. And I don't hold that against you, but you should be aware of it.
I admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism. But I could only take what you say with no more than a pinch of salt. I'd have to look into it further myself. For a start, this is what Wikipedia opens with on Buddhism:
[I]Standing Buddha statue at the Tokyo National Museum. One of the earliest known representations of the Buddha, 1st–2nd century CE.[/i]
Buddhism is a religion and dharma that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices largely based on original teachings attributed to the Buddha and resulting interpreted philosophies.
What is the "it" that you wouldn't expect to happen? And please don't say transubstantiation, I want you to explain to me clearly what transubstantiation is, so that you can decide if it happens or not. So we're back to my original question. What would you expect to happen if transubstantiation were true? Even if you reject it because you don't agree with its presuppositions, you're supposed to be able to tell me what you would expect to happen if it were true.
The answer to your first question is contained in the very comment from which you quoted! So you're still not paying close enough attention, and you still expect me to repeat myself:
If the doctrine rules out scientific evidence, and we're assuming that the doctrine is true, then obviously I wouldn't expect scientific evidence.
And the answer to the question of what I [I]would[/I] expect ought to be obvious by implication. I shouldn't have to spell it out, especially not at this late stage of the discussion, and this is just one giant red herring in any case. But here goes: under the baseless assumption that what the doctrine says about transubstantiation is literally true, and under the assumption that the doctrine states or implies that there would be no observable difference, then, upon examination of the contents, after the ceremony, and after ingestion, I would expect to see digested - or partially digested - bread and wine.
Congratulations. What do you think that this has achieved? I bloody well expect you to answer that question. I think that you've achieved nothing other than wasting both of our time. And, if you dare to even suggest that this somehow proves me wrong [I]and[/I] if it is because you've misunderstood my position, after all of the time that I've spent clarifying my position to you, then that will be the end of this discussion. So I urge you to carefully review what I've said in this discussion so far before prematurely reaching any conclusions.
One time a girl means nothing to you, the next second she means everything. Something magical happened there. You don't call it magical only because you're so used to it, you've come to expect it.
That's not what I mean by magical, and I think that you know that, which would make this reply from you nothing more than sophistry. What you describe above is not supernatural, extraordinary, or miraculous. Again, the two are not comparable, and this is a red herring which I do not want to discuss any further. You should put your effort into defending transubstantiation rather than digressing about feeling horny over a girl. You have your work cut out for you as it is!
It's not analogous to the Christian revelation. The Christian revelation wasn't experienced by one or two people, but by literarily hundreads. One person's testimony, depending on circumstances, context, etc. may be worth nothing.
It [i]is[/I] analogous, and I think that you're being disingenuous, because I think that you're well aware that [I]a lot[/I] more than one or two people claim to have experienced a ghost. If you're not aware, then look it up. According to one source, one in five American adults say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost.
And, moreover, this sends us back in a circle to my response that that's a fallacious appeal to the masses.
Science doesn't apply in many things that we do. It doesn't apply in economics for example, in sociology, in psychology, in history etc. etc.
That doesn't answer my question. I meant: what else have we got to go by [I]in this case[/I]? You've cited testimony. In response, I've explained why anecdotal evidence is weak and insufficient. You've appealed to the masses. In response, I've identified that as an informal fallacy. Do you have anything else that I haven't already addressed?
Mystical experience 101: argue vehemently with non-believers that it exists.
I do not, and have not once in this discussion, denied that mystical experience exists. Many nonbelievers accept that it exists. It's just that we might not think of it in the same way that believers do, and we certainly do not jump to the conclusions that believers do.
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 10, 2017 at 13:16#1321210 likes
Sapientia:I've read that several times now, and I'm still confused about what you're trying to say. For a start, bread and wine don't express meanings. That makes no sense. I feel like I need a translator when conversing with you.
I mean there are different meanings of "literal." Catholics don't literally expect to see their bread turn into Jesus' flesh or wine run into blood.
They don't think Jesus is locked in a room, sitting ready to have a finger lobbed off and blood run at a whim, to be teleported to the appropriate location every time some takes a piece of bread and sip of wine.
In the case of Christians the testimony was of the nature of personal experience - seeing the risen Christ. In the case of witches, the testimony was of the nature "I think she's a witch".
This is false and misleading, and this is not the first time that your historical ignorance has shown itself. Again, look it up. I just looked it up myself, and I found testimony of seeing witches flying through the winter mist. The [i]allegation[/I] is, "She's a witch!". The [i]testimony[/I] consists in "observations", like the "observations" regarding the supposed resurrection of Christ.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 10, 2017 at 13:52#1321240 likes
Let me stop you there. I agree that it's a matter of faith. However, nothing is true by faith, whether you capitalise the first letter of the word or not.
Sorry to have to shatter your illusion, but without faith, nothing is true. Without faith words have no meaning. And without meaning there can be no truth to the words. Truth and faith are fundamentally tied, such that all truth is dependent on faith. Have you not noticed that "trust" and "true" are of the same root?
Perhaps what you meant to say is "nothing is true by faith alone", and that would be debatable. However, "nothing is true by faith" is clearly false, because every truth requires faith, so in reality (which is far from where you live your life of illusion) everything is true by faith.
I don't think that you're adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.
[I]In accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical. Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.[/I]
That's what "literal" means, in the relevant sense. That's what I mean.
An example would be calling someone a weasel. To take that literally would be to interpret it as saying that someone is a small, slender carnivorous mammal related to, but smaller than, the stoat, rather than a a deceitful or treacherous person.
Catholics don't literally expect to see their bread turn into Jesus' flesh or wine run into blood.
They don't expect to see it, but they do expect it to happen. If you think otherwise, then don't just assert it. Back it up. I find what T. Clark says about his wife, who he says is a thoughtful Catholic, more convincing than what you're saying about Catholics. Are you Catholic? Do you have a Catholic wife? Where are you getting your views about what Catholics think from?
They don't think Jesus is locked in a room, sitting ready to have a finger lobbed off and blood run at a whim, to be teleported to the appropriate location every time some takes a piece of bread and sip of wine.
I think it's just you. I don't think that you've got a good grasp of the discussion and the respective positions of those involved. No one here thinks that. Take away the exaggeration, and take away the explanation. It is taken literally, meaning that the bread and wine [i]really do[/I] become the body and blood of Christ, and, from what I gather, it is considered to be mystical, which suggests that it is inexplicable, except as an act of God.
Sorry to have to shatter your illusion, but without faith, nothing is true. Without faith words have no meaning. And without meaning there can be no truth to the words. Truth and faith are fundamentally tied, such that all truth is dependent on faith. Have you not noticed that "trust" and "true" are of the same root?
Perhaps what you meant to say is "nothing is true by faith alone", and that would be debatable. However, "nothing is true by faith" is clearly false, because every truth requires faith, so in reality (which is far from where you live your life of illusion) everything is true by faith.
The only illusion that you'd be shattering is the illusion that you would see sense, but I was never under that illusion to begin with.
I agree that a sentence requires words, and that its composition must be such as to render it meaningful, and that this is a prerequisite for it to be true. Meaning is rule based, and has nothing to do with faith. If X means Y, then X means Y, whether I have faith that it does or not.
But anyway, that is an aside. It is beside the point. Yes, truth depends on meaning, but my point was that truth also depends on fact, and faith and fact are two quite different things which are not always in sync, as the quotes of Nietzsche effectively illustrate.
Sorry to have to shatter your illusion, but without faith, nothing is true. Without faith words have no meaning. And without meaning there can be no truth to the words.
If a child somehow depends upon "faith" to understand "clean your room" means clean your room, and a Catholic relies upon "faith" to believe in transubstantiation, surely "faith" has two different meanings.
If not, are you suggesting I have as legitimate a right to believe in unicorns as I do transubstantiation as I do rocks?
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 10, 2017 at 14:35#1321350 likes
Sapientia: Take away the exaggeration, and take away the explanation. It is taken literally, meaning that the bread and wine really do become the body and blood of Christ, and, from what I gather, it is considered to be mystical, which suggests that it is inexplicable, except as an act of God.
I'm not exaggerating. My example was what would have to be true if people believed bread and wine were "literally" flesh and blood, under the definition you were using. That would be our test for confirmation/falsification: have the bread and wine been replaced by flesh and blood from the person of Jesus.
If this replacement it not held to occur, then no empirical claim of "bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus" has been make. Without holding this exaggerated position, the Catholic is not making an empirical claim, so we would have nothing to dismiss on those grounds.
Reply to Hanover Actually yes, for your child to clean his room when he is told to "clean your room" he must have faith that those words correspond to the actions that you expect him to undertake. There are psychological conditions (including schizophrenia) which can develop out of double-binds of the form of the parent saying one thing, but really meaning another as illustrated through his action - that confuses the child and makes him lose his/her faith in language and the possibility of communication, including communication with one's self. And a child's faith is not difficult to shake.
If this replacement it not held to occur, then there is claim of "bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus" which is empirical and subject to testing.
The Catholic position is that the replacement is actual and literal. That it is empirically unverifiable is part of the supposed mystery of it. Your ridiculing of the idea that somehow Jesus' actual blood finds it way to every mass is the actual Catholic position.
The Catholic position is that the replacement is actual and literal.
No, that's not what the Catholic understands by actual and literal. If you go from looking at a girl and not being horny to looking at a girl and being horny, the girl for you literally and actually changes - what she means for you has changed - of course we don't mean by that that the girl physically has changed in any way.
Reply to Agustino This isn't entirely responsive. Is the child's faith the same faith as the Catholic's and why doesn't my faith in unicorns establish the existence of unicorns to the same extent rocks exist?
This isn't entirely responsive. Is the child's faith the same faith as the Catholic's and why doesn't my faith in unicorns establish the existence of unicorns to the same extent rocks exist?
Why do you think faith can establish existence by itself?
Faith may help you discover the existence of something, but it cannot establish it. For example, you have faith that this woman won't cheat on you if you marry her. You need the faith to commit to marrying her, otherwise you wouldn't marry her and would never find out that she won't cheat on you. But faith doesn't by itself make it true that she won't cheat on you either. It's just a condition for the possibility of it.
If you weren't exaggerating, then I have no reason to take you seriously, and I see little reason in reading any further. I'm not going to take talk of Jesus being locked in a room, waiting to have his finger lobbed off, teleportation, and the like, seriously.
If, on the other hand, you concede that that was merely exaggeration, seemingly for comic effect, and does not accurately portray the position of anyone in this discussion, then we might be able to move on and have a serious discussion.
My example was what would have to be true if people believed bread and wine were "literally" flesh and blood, under the definition you were using. That would be our test for confirmation/falsification: have the bread and wine been replaced by flesh and blood from the person of Jesus.
No, because, as I explained, and as others have explained, they believe that the transformation is mystical and cannot be verified or falsified by science.
Reply to Agustino Your understanding of transubstantion is simply incorrect. Your analogy offers no change at all in the girl, but a change of opinion in guy. If all you're saying is that you feel differently about the wafer but the wafer is the same old wafer, you're not talking about transubstantiation.
Reply to Agustino That's a different sort of faith. In religious contexts, faith is an absolute trust in a foundational belief that permits an entire worldview to develop.
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 10, 2017 at 14:53#1321450 likes
All I'm doing is pointing out what would be required to have a testable claim of Jesus's flesh and blood appearing. Since the Catholic doesn't make this claim, your objection doesn't make sense. They aren't even supposing the bread and wine are empirically Jesus's flesh and blood in the first place. You don't have an empirical claim of "flesh and blood" to falsify when only bread and wine are empirically present.
My point is you are getting the science wrong. You are treating a claim without empirical claim like it is one-- much like how the very silly Russell treats the "unfalsifiable God" in his teapot madness.
All I'm doing is pointing out what would be required to have a testable claim of Jesus's flesh and blood appearing. Since the Catholic doesn't make this claim, your objection doesn't make sense. They aren't even supposing the bread and wine are empirically Jesus's flesh and blood in the first place. You don't have an empirical claim of "flesh and blood" to falsify when only bread and wine are empirically present.
My point is you are getting the science wrong. You are treating a claim without empirical claim like it is one.
No, you just don't understand my position, which is more your problem than it is mine. How much of what I've said have you actually read? I've explained it enough times now. Enough is enough! I'm too tired to deal with straw men. You need to put more effort in.
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 10, 2017 at 15:06#1321490 likes
I understood you position perfectly. You keep saying the Catholic has made a dubious/falsified claim claim about the blood and wine:
Sapientia:Yes I do, in the sense that some evidence is much weaker than others, which is the sense in which I meant what I said. That's why I said that it's not real evidence, as in, it's so weak as to be effectively discounted. Think of a court of law as a point of comparison. Some evidence is inadmissible. Some evidence falls far short, such that winning a case becomes highly unlikely. Some evidence is like a smoking gun or being caught red handed
My point is an account like this doesn't make sense because transubstantiation doesn't make any claim for which there is evidence. It rejects there is empirical the presence of flesh and blood, and the possibility of any evidence goes with it. In literal terms, the Catholic is holding: "This is not (empirically) the flesh and blood of Jesus, it's not the empirical state of his body which would appear to us."
Reply to TheWillowOfDarkness No, Willow, you really have not understood. If you had've understood, then you wouldn't be attributing to me the opposite of what I've been saying, and what I've been clarifying recently and repeatedly.
For that reason, and because you are so adamant, I am not going to discuss this with you any further. I stand by my earlier statement that you have not added anything worthwhile to this discussion.
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 10, 2017 at 15:30#1321550 likes
...but you haven't been arguing the opposite to me. When I responded about the issue with treating it as a matter of evidence, you insisted a claim to which evidence was supposedly relevant.
Sapientia:They don't expect to see it, but they do expect it to happen. If you think otherwise, then don't just assert it. Back it up. I find what T. Clark says about his wife, who he says is a thoughtful Catholic, more convincing than what you're saying about Catholics. Are you Catholic? Do you have a Catholic wife? Where are you getting your views about what Catholics think from?
Catholics cannot expect it to happen empirically. There is no separation between the empirical and how an empirical state appears to us.
The underlying question here is: what does it even mean for it to happen? Since it is not empirical, what is even at stake in transubstantiation? What would it mean for it to be true? What would an expectation it was true entail? What does it even mean to say its true or false?
These seem to be the questions you aren't asking and answering. Even as you accept Agustino's account that its unfalsifiable (which I missed, being in one of many quote trees), you keep talking in terms of some contingent event which would be true or false by some sort of evidence-- such that we would have to have "faith" it was or was not so, due to evidence not arbiting either way.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 10, 2017 at 15:35#1321570 likes
Meaning is rule based, and has nothing to do with faith. If X means Y, then X means Y, whether I have faith that it does or not.
You sure have an odd set of rules. It allows you to equate two distinct things, "X means Y". Isn't that no different from saying "bread means body"? I see no reason to believe your rules are any better than the rules of transubstantiation.
If a child somehow depends upon "faith" to understand "clean your room" means clean your room, and a Catholic relies upon "faith" to believe in transubstantiation, surely "faith" has two different meanings.
If not, are you suggesting I have as legitimate a right to believe in unicorns as I do transubstantiation as I do rocks?
The point I made, is that the items referred to as the body and blood of Christ are actually the body and blood of Christ, because this is what they are called. These are their names. Likewise, I am actually Metaphysician Undercover, because I am the object referred to by this name. And, the thing referred to as the child's "room" is actually the child's room because this is what it is called.
Faith is required, because if someone says no, that is not the body of Christ, which you are calling "the body of Christ", that is what I want to call a cracker, then for that person the thing referred to is not the body of Christ, it is the cracker. For the others, who have faith, then the thing called 'the body of Christ" is really the body of Christ, because that is what it is named, "the body of Christ".
I am only Metaphysician Undercover by means of the faith that those have who believe that this is the proper name to call me. If everyone started to think that they should call me something else, so they programed the computer to put my name in another way, then despite my insistence that you ought to call me by Metaphysician Undercover, I would be known by that other name.
Likewise, if the child has faith that the thing called "your room" is really its room, then the child will believe this, and know what is referred to by "your room". But if the child has no faith in this, and thinks that the thing referred to as "your room", really has a different name, and the child only knows that thing by the different name, for some reason not learning "your room", then it will not understand "clean your room" when told to clean its room.
TheWillowOfDarknessDecember 10, 2017 at 15:40#1321590 likes
That sounds like knowledge to me, someone knows the meaning of something, not "faith."
In this respect, people might well ought to call you Metaphysician Undercover in the situation you describe. People can fail to understanding meanings/ascribe the wrong one.
I don't know if you have any recourse left to you that would be sufficient. Testimony, as I said, is not enough. Appealing to the masses is invalid. It isn't an [I]a priori[/I] truth. The claim, by its nature, rules out empirical evidence. It is unfalsifiable. The best that you can do in that regard is point to evidence that you've had a mystical experience, which is still not enough, since that is just to say that you've had an experience, or a funny feeling, or a brain fart, that you feel like you can't properly explain, meaning that you feel like you can't do so without begging the question by appealing to dubious supernatural elements which in turn carry with them a burden of proof which I doubt you can satisfy.
Right, it's based on historical documents. I grant that Alexander went to India and fought there, etc. based on very few historical references - much fewer than when it comes to the death and resurrection of Christ. So why don't you go up in arms about granting factual or historical status to Alexander's conquests, but you're so upset when it comes to Jesus? The Bible does say that the Cross will be a scandal for unbelievers.
For the reasons I've given. You're comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruit, yes. But that's beside the point.
St. Paul said that if Christ has not Risen, then the faith is in vain. He was right about that.
No, he wasn't. The ethics is what matters. Living by example is what matters. The metaphysics can, and should, be scrapped. That aspect of it should be treated as an interesting historical work, and nothing more.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 10, 2017 at 16:09#1321640 likes
That sounds like knowledge to me, someone knows the meaning of something, not "faith."
In this respect, people might well ought to call you Metaphysician Undercover in the situation you describe. People can fail to understanding meanings/ascribe the wrong one.
When the issue is the naming of objects with words, as is the case with "Metaphysician Undercover", "the body of Christ", "the blood of Christ", and "the child's room", then understanding and knowledge consists of being able to establish the appropriate relationships between the words and the objects. No understanding of "meaning" is required. What is required is faith, or trust, that these words ought to be related to these objects.
When I responded about the issue with treating it as a matter of evidence, you insisted a claim to which evidence was supposedly relevant.
I said that they don't expect to see it. I have said that, under the assumption that the doctrine is true, I wouldn't expect to see it either. Yet they insist that it happens. They must, as that is a central tenet of their religion. What other evidence could there be? That's exactly what I'm asking, and I have not been satisfied by the answers that I've been given. I've assessed what has been presented as evidence, and I've rejected it as insufficient.
But that's more or less what I just said! They can't expect it to happen empirically without internal contradiction. They expect it to happen nevertheless, and the intelligent ones avoid contradiction by committing to the stance that it happens unempirically. But that too has consequences.
There is no separation between the empirical and how an empirical state appears to us.
That's not an assertion which goes against anything I've said. All you're doing is preaching to the choir, but you don't understand that that's what you're doing.
The underlying question here is: what does it even mean for it to happen? Since it is not empirical, what is even at stake in transubstantiation? What would it mean for it to be true? What would an expectation it was true entail? What does it even mean to say its true or false?
These seem to be the questions you aren't asking and answering.
I most definitely have been doing both. The ontological and epistemological status of magic and miracles are at stake. Standards of evidence are at stake. As I said earlier, granting this kind of thing would open the floodgates to all kinds of wild imaginings. It would be almost "anything goes". Ghosts? Why not? Witches? Why not? Celestial tea pots? Why not?
Even as you accept Agustino's account that its unfalsifiable (which I missed, being in one of many quote trees), you keep talking in terms of some contingent event which would be true or false by some sort of evidence-- such that we would have to have "faith" it was or was not so, due to evidence not arbiting either way.
Firstly, it was not a case of me accepting Agustino's account that it's unfalsifiable. I'm the one who said that it's unfalsifiable in the first place!
Secondly, you have to be careful to read what I say in the right context. Let's call my two criticisms "Criticism A" and "Criticism B'.
[U]Criticism A[/u]
As an external criticism, taking into account my own presuppositions, I would reject it outright, as I do not believe that the bread and wine would become the body and blood of Christ without leaving empirical evidence.
[U]Criticism B[/u]
As an internal criticism, with the assumption being that transubstantiation literally happens, and does not leave any empirical evidence, what reason is there to believe in transubstantiation? Agustino has provided reasons, but I do not think that they're good enough. If I were in his shoes, I would give up and simply take it as a matter of faith.
I clarified this earlier when Agustino kept making the same mistake. He dismissed my clarification because it wasn't a question, and because I said "the Bible" rather than "the doctrine".
Precisely because you don't see people rise from the dead from time to time, it shows that the Resurrection of Christ was a unique event in history. Indeed, it is the very axis of history. All of history separates in before and after Christ.
Have you considered that the reason why it is so unique is because it's made up? Like if I told you that 3000 years ago, a giant fire breathing sea lion sprung up from a volcano, said hello, then disappeared into thin air. That's even more unique! How much testimony would it take for you to count that as a historical event? No? What if it was a central part of your religion? You'd claim it as historical, then, wouldn't you? You'd say that you've had a mystical experience which confirms it. Instead of a follower of Christ, you'd be a follower of the Great Fire Breathing Sea Lion.
You have created the idea of 3) when you are having difficulties articulating your beliefs probably because you yourself have not yet understood it well enough.
Well, I have acknowledged that I have not put my ideas together well enough. That's sort of what the forum is all about, isn't it. Throwing your ideas out to be beaten into shape in the heat of battle. But that's not what I was talking about in 3. The ideas I am putting forward are unfamiliar to a lot of people, even when expressed clearly.
As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real.
You didn't demean my beliefs, although that other guy did. My problem is your use of the term "pathological" and similar ones, implying that people who see things differently than you do, or at least their ideas, are crazy. It is a sign that I have not expressed myself well enough that you think my views are in any way supernatural. In my religion, when Moses came down off the mountain and read the commandments, the first one was F = ma. And, although I recognize my role in making this difficult, I still think you, the other guy, and people who think like you lack the imagination to see that the way you see the world is just that, the way you see the world, not the way the world is.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 10, 2017 at 18:24#1321890 likes
I still think that you, the other guy, and people who think like you lack the imagination to see that the way you see the world is just that, the way you see the world, not the way the world is.
Careful saying things like that. Everyone knows the mods here are always right and that we mere peasants can't articulate our opinions!
That's a different sort of faith. In religious contexts, faith is an absolute trust in a foundational belief that permits an entire worldview to develop.
And yet, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
It seems to me that the kind of faith required in a religious context with regards to salvation (and deification) is similar to the kind of faith one has when one chooses to get married, or chooses to start a business, etc. Without this kind of faith, whatever action (or desired result) seems to be impossible a priori.
Your understanding of transubstantion is simply incorrect. Your analogy offers no change at all in the girl, but a change of opinion in guy. If all you're saying is that you feel differently about the wafer but the wafer is the same old wafer, you're not talking about transubstantiation.
What I'm saying is that the subjective change in the wafer (and in the girl) is more real than the unchanged appearance (which is their physical composition, how they look empirically, etc.). It seems to me that our difference is over the fact that you take a "real and literal" change to necessitate a change in physical composition and appearance, as this is what "real and literal" means to you. That's fine, I just disagree that that's what "real and literal" means. I take the significance of the act to be the "real and literal" thing, which does change in the case of transubstantiation - while the physical appearance, look, feel, etc. are just appearances and not "real and literal".
But I'm fine if we agree to disagree on this matter. We've managed to have a decent conversation in this thread without any insults and the like (as it was common between us), so that's a good thing I think (Y) .
I admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism. But I could only take what you say with no more than a pinch of salt. I'd have to look into it further myself. For a start, this is what Wikipedia opens with on Buddhism:
Well, Buddhism, after Christianity, is the religion I've studied the most, by far. The fact that you're giving me a citation from wikipedia means nothing. You have to understand the context and the precepts of Buddhism. Yes, there are versions of Buddhism where the Buddha is worshipped (more as a representation of perfection, than as the actual person), but salvation is still not achieved through worship, but through liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Worshiping the Buddha may, however, improve one's karma.
Also, I don't see what your quote is even telling me... that Buddhism is based on the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha, one of the many Buddhas?
But here goes: under the baseless assumption that what the doctrine says about transubstantiation is literally true, and under the assumption that the doctrine states or implies that there would be no observable difference, then, upon examination of the contents, after the ceremony, and after ingestion, I would expect to see digested - or partially digested - bread and wine.
Wrong. I was looking for the difference that makes this bread and wine different from normal bread and wine, as the doctrine claims. Without this difference, the doctrine would be internally inconsistent, claiming that bread and wine is different in this case, when it really isn't. But you've already told me you don't have any internal criticism, so I hope you don't start running back with the goal posts now. We established that this difference must not physical. So what kind of difference must it be then?
What you describe above is not supernatural, extraordinary, or miraculous.
Supernatural doesn't entail being against the laws of physics. Someone coming back from the dead is not against the laws of physics either. Time moving backwards is not against the laws of physics either (just extremely unlikely). So the laws of physics don't actually preclude any of these miracles to begin with.
You have an erroneous notion of what a miracle is. Walking on water is not against the laws of nature. It may just be that all of a sudden, all the particles of the water find that their velocity is directed to the surface, and so I am maintained floating above it. Now that probability is very very very very super tiny. But it's still there.
Coming to the example with the girl, why isn't it supernatural? You know of a certain law of nature that dictates that the girl will suddenly start meaning something different to you? Not really. So the only reason why it's not supernatural, is because it's become a habit as old Hume says - you're used to it.
It is analogous, and I think that you're being disingenuous, because I think that you're well aware that a lot more than one or two people claim to have experienced a ghost. If you're not aware, then look it up. According to one source, one in five American adults say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost.
Nope. Independent accounts of a phenomenon are not sufficient by themselves to establish it happens. In the case of Christ we have collective examples, with many people having seen the risen Christ all at once, and then being willing to die, all of them, for this belief. Are those peeps who claim to have seen a ghost willing to die for that?
You've cited testimony. In response, I've explained why anecdotal evidence is weak and insufficient. You've appealed to the masses. In response, I've identified that as an informal fallacy. Do you have anything else that I haven't already addressed?
Yes, you can add mystical experience and metaphysics to that list. Anecdotal evidence BY ITSELF may be weak and insufficient. As may an appeal to the masses. But combined, all those form a solid case. Quoting Sapientia
No, he wasn't. The ethics is what matters. Living by example is what matters. The metaphysics can, and should, be scrapped. That aspect of it should be treated as an interesting historical work, and nothing more.
You don't seem to be understanding Christianity. The ethics are absolutely NOT the centre of it. Christianity claims precisely that man cannot save himself, so the ethics, by themselves, are useless. Commit them to the flames. What matters is Christ - it is only through faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit that one may uphold the Law. Now seeking to maintain the Law, but taking out the central role of Christ is against the teachings of Christ.
Have you considered that the reason why it is so unique is because it's made up? Like if I told you that 3000 years ago, a giant fire breathing sea lion sprung up from a volcano, said hello, then disappeared into thin air. That's even more unique! How much testimony would it take for you to count that as a historical event? No? What if it was a central part of your religion? You'd claim it as historical, then, wouldn't you? You'd say that you've had a mystical experience which confirms it. Instead of a follower of Christ, you'd be a follower of the Great Fire Breathing Sea Lion.
Yeah, if you told me the story about the giant fire-breathing sea lion, I'd want to see some evidence for it, including testimony, and I'd also be interested in the significance of the event. If he just came to say hello, it's probably not very significant, even if it was a giant fire-breathing sea lion. I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection, the unique significance of the event, etc. etc. and your little monster story.
AkanthinosDecember 10, 2017 at 19:41#1322050 likes
Also, since this subject seems to stick, here are the relevant portions from the official Catechism of the Vatican ;
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, 210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love
1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.213
Let's not pretend the four Gospels are a historical record. They are narratives written by highly educated Greek Christians about uneducated (except Jesus) and illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jews, 35-70 years after the fact. They are full of discrepancies and contradictions, including the accounts of the resurrection. There are zero contemporary secular sources that affirm or even mention the event.
Yes, let's not. And let's not try to pretend that a good historian would keep shtum about this, sweep it under the rug, or underplay the serious lack of credibility here.
I'm not Christian or religious in any conventional way. I have no vested interest in any specific issues being discussed here. What I am interested in is the metaphysical issue. My position has been stated and restated numerous times. I'd rather not do it again.
Patently means without doubt. Absurd means ridiculous. You think the idea of transubstantiation is ridiculous without any doubt. I disagree.
Don't be so literal. It was a slight exaggeration, but I think it absurd nevertheless - about as much so as any other example I've given. It's not impossible, just extremely implausible.
As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real.
For the record, I have no qualms about demeaning his beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone else here. If his beliefs are ridiculous, then ridicule is fine by me. Ridicule away!
You sure have an odd set of rules. It allows you to equate two distinct things, "X means Y". Isn't that no different from saying "bread means body"? I see no reason to believe your rules are any better than the rules of transubstantiation.
:-}
It's not an odd set of rules. It's how language works. X would be the [i]definiendum[/I] and Y would be the [i]definiens[/I]. Meaning is use. If bread means body, then bread means body, although that isn't usually what it means. To abide by that rule of your own accord would be peculiar. To accordingly interpret that someone asking for a slice of bread means to ask for a slice of body would be quite bizarre, and would probably evoke the reaction that people think you're a weirdo.
The problem with the rules of transubstantiation that we've been discussing is that they require a literal interpretation. Scrap that rule and you scrap the problem. But good luck with scrapping that rule. From what I gather, the Eastern Orthodox Church is quite conservative, and I can't see that rule changing anytime soon. The Reformation has been and gone, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has proven itself quite resistant to reform. It maintains that it practices the original Christian faith, passed down by sacred tradition.
The problem with the rules of transubstantiation that we've been discussing is that they require a literal interpretation. Scrap that rule and you scrap the problem. But good luck with scrapping that rule.
As you said in your last post, meaning depends on rules, so if we scrap the rules, we scrap meaning, and this is a problem.
If the Church wants to say, that this item is called the body of Christ, and this is the rule, then where's the problem? And because they call this item by that name, that is the name that the item has, and then that is the Church's rule. There is no problem here. The Church says this item is called "body of Christ", and so this item is the item called "body of Christ".
The only problem is that for some people, such as yourself it seems, "body of Christ" means something different. So these people desire to disallow this rule, claiming that the thing referred to by the rules of the Church as the body of Christ is not actually the body of Christ, the body of Christ is something different. So the people who are creating a problem are the shit disturbers such as yourself, who are disputing this rule to say that this item is not the body of Christ.
But I see no reason to dispute this rule, if "body of Christ" is what the Church wants to call this item, then let them call it that. Why would you insist that "body of Christ" ought to refer to something other than this? What would give you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" ought to refer to?
As you said in your last post, meaning depends on rules, so if we scrap the rules, we scrap meaning, and this is a problem.
You never seem to get the point. I didn't suggest that we scrap the[/I] rules, I suggested that we scrap [I]that rule. What I said in that part was particular[/I] and [i]singular, not [i]general[/I] and [i]plural[/I]. I don't agree with a literal interpretation, but that is a particular rule that you must abide by if you're a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that rule seems unlikely to change. The rule and I are not compatible. If I was a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, then something or someone would have to change.
If the Church wants to say, that this item is called the body of Christ, and this is the rule, then where's the problem? And because they call this item by that name, that is the name that the item has, and then that is the Church's rule. There is no problem here. The Church says this item is called "body of Christ", and so this item is the item called "body of Christ".
The problem is that it's not simply wordplay, as you make out, like calling a cat "a fish". It's supposed to be taken literally, like thinking that a cat has gills. If it was merely wordplay, then I wouldn't have the same objection.
The only problem is that for some people, such as yourself it seems, "body of Christ" means something different. So these people desire to disallow this rule, claiming that the thing referred to by the rules of the Church as the body of Christ is not actually the body of Christ, the body of Christ is something different. So the people who are creating a problem are the shit disturbers such as yourself, who are disputing this rule to say that this item is not the body of Christ.
What the heck are you talking about? Your thinking is muddled, as usual. I agree that, in accordance with a literal interpretation, the body of Christ is literally the body of Christ. I'm not disputing that that's what they believe, nor that the body of Christ is the body of Christ, which would obviously be a contradiction in terms, unless you're equivocating, which is a fallacy. What I am disputing is that a literal interpretation is true, and that bread literally transforms into the body of Christ once the Eucharist has taken place. My views do not accord with such an interpretation. If I was a member of a church that required that, and that rule could not be changed, then I would leave that church.
But I see no reason to dispute this rule, if "body of Christ" is what the Church wants to call this item, then let them call it that. Why would you insist that "body of Christ" ought to refer to something other than this? What would give you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" ought to refer to?
What do you mean "let them call it that"? Firstly, it's not simply a matter of calling an item "body of Christ", as though it were just a name. Secondly, I couldn't stop them if I tried. I simply disagree with that interpretation for reasons that I've spoken about at length.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 10, 2017 at 22:50#1322860 likes
As I said what do you think gives you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" refers to? I would think that there are many in the church who know far better than you, what this phase means. So your suggestion that this rule be scrapped is nothing but the actions of a rebellious shit disturber.
The problem is that it's not simply wordplay, as you make out, like calling a cat "a fish". It's supposed to be taken literally, like thinking that a cat has gills. If it was merely wordplay, then I wouldn't have the same objection.
That's what I said, it's not a matter of word play, it's very literal. As I said, it's an example of the power of the Word. I am Metaphysician Undercover by the very fact that this is what I am called. Those items are the body and blood of Christ by the very fact that this is what they are called. This is not word play, it's simple reality.
What I am disputing is that a literal interpretation is true, and that bread literally transforms into the body of Christ once the Eucharist has taken place.
When they take that object, which you call bread, and say that it will be called "body of Christ", then by the very fact that that's what it's called, "body of Christ", then that's what it is body of Christ, just like I'm MU by the very fact that that's what I'm called.
You only wish to cause trouble, saying that your name, "bread" is a better name for it then "body of Christ".
What do you mean "let them call it that"? Firstly, it's not simply a matter of calling an item "body of Christ", as though it were just a name. Secondly, I couldn't stop them if I tried. I simply disagree with that interpretation for reasons that I've spoken about at length.
You seem to misunderstand the power of the word. When there is an item which we call the table, then it is the table by the very fact that we call it the table. If we called it by some other name like the desk, then it would be that name, the desk. So when the Church calls a certain item "body of Christ", then it is body of Christ, because that's what they call it. Why do you dispute this, saying that according to your interpretation they ought not call it body of Christ? Do you believe that you have a superior interpretation of what "body of Christ" refers to then the leaders of the Church?
A form of altered state of consciousness that is ineffable and involves gaining insight into the deeper nature of reality.
Introspection illusions are inconsistent, bad evidence, for a reason. Purely phenomenological experiences are not of something extra-self; qualia are parts of the world belonging to individual experiencers. Such self-externalization is like someone hallucinating pink flying elephants implying they're really out there, or me expecting you to get real life bruises from me slapping you in a dream. God helmet experiments, magic mushrooms, not eating/drinking plus bodily stress, etc, are fairly well-documented.
Promoting such personal experiences as specific religious evidence with other people, is like promoting a kind of mind-regulating bias.
As I said what do you think gives you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" refers to? I would think that there are many in the church who know far better than you, what this phase means. So your suggestion that this rule be scrapped is nothing but the actions of a rebellious shit disturber.
You've misunderstood. It's not a question of authority. It was a suggestion, not a demand. And, moreover, it wasn't a suggestion that I expected to be taken seriously or acted upon, as I made clear. Futhermore, I'm merely stating my disagreement, and arguing the case, on a philosophy forum. I'm not trying to instigate a rebellion or disturb the peace. Do me a favour and cut the hyperbole.
That's what I said, it's not a matter of word play, it's very literal. As I said, it's an example of the power of the Word. I am Metaphysician Undercover by the very fact that this is what I am called. Those items are the body and blood of Christ by the very fact that this is what they are called. This is not word play, it's simple reality.
Contradictory nonsense. You deny that it's wordplay, but then you go on to imply that it's just that. Just as a cat would not become a fish upon being called a fish, which is to say that it would not instantly transform from a land dwelling warm-blooded mammal with limbs and no gills to a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate with gills and fins living wholly in water, the elements of the Eucharist would not become the body and blood of Christ on the basis that that's what they're called. I am sure that you're committing a fallacy of some kind. You're treating all nouns as if they are proper nouns. The difference between nouns and proper nouns is taught in schools to children at a young age.
When they take that object, which you call bread, and say that it will be called "body of Christ", then by the very fact that that's what it's called, "body of Christ", then that's what it is body of Christ, just like I'm MU by the very fact that that's what I'm called.
You only wish to cause trouble, saying that your name, "bread" is a better name for it then "body of Christ".
You seem to misunderstand the power of the word. When there is an item which we call the table, then it is the table by the very fact that we call it the table. If we called it by some other name like the desk, then it would be that name, the desk. So when the Church calls a certain item "body of Christ", then it is body of Christ, because that's what they call it. Why do you dispute this, saying that according to your interpretation they ought not call it body of Christ? Do you believe that you have a superior interpretation of what "body of Christ" refers to then the leaders of the Church?
This is almost too silly to engage. Look, the word doesn't matter as much as the definition. And the definition doesn't matter as much as what something actually is. There is a sense in which the word is arbitrary. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But words aren't meaningless, so it would be a mistake to treat them as if they were. Words imply their corresponding definition. So, if I were to call a cat "a fish", and especially if I were to deny that this is just wordplay, then that would suggest, among other things, that I think that a cat has gills, which is wrong, since a cat does not have gills.
Now, going back to transubstantiation. Although you deny wordplay, that is what you're doing, and that clashes with how a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks about transubstantiation, since they think that it is not just wordplay, but that it literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. They think that it's more than a renaming, they think that it actually changes from one thing to another - and that demonstrably does not happen by simply calling it something different. If that were the case, then I'd easily be a millionaire by now. Yet I'm not, since, despite calling myself a millionaire, I am not one! What do you think would happen if I tried to spend all of that money that I don't have? Surely [i]even you[/I] can see the folly in such thinking. I certainly hope, for your own sake, that you're able to see your error.
Purely phenomenological experiences are not of something extra-self; qualia are parts of the world belonging to individual experiencers. Such self-externalization is like someone hallucinating pink flying elephants implying they're really out there, or me expecting you to get real life bruises from me slapping you in a dream.
Let's make sure I understand correctly - in order to show that realism is wrong, I have to use methods developed based on the principles of realism. Is that right?
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 01:28#1323240 likes
I am sure that you're committing a fallacy of some kind.
OK so you think that the Church ought not insist that the elements of the Eucharist are actually the body and blood of Christ, because you do not believe that they actually are the body and blood of Christ.
I argue that they, being the leaders of the Church, and having knowledge about Christ, ought to be the ones to determine what is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore what ought to be called the body and blood of Christ.
Your argument is that you're sure I'm committing a fallacy of some sort?
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Yes! You [I]are[/I] committing a fallacy of some sort. You're treating all nouns as if they are proper nouns. That is ungrammatical. The difference between nouns and proper nouns is taught in schools to children at a young age. You can decide to name a cat "Peter" or "Billy", but calling a cat "a fish" would be odd. If you say "That's Peter", in reference to your cat, then that would be normal, but if you say "That's a fish", in reference to your cat, then people might be inclined to correct you by replying "No, that's a cat, not a fish".
And, as I explained, and as is obvious, a cat does not become a fish in virtue of a name change. That's simply wrong.
Being a leader of a church doesn't mean that you can't be wrong. If you're a leader of a church, and you think that a cat is a fish, meaning that a cat has gills and so on, because that's what you've decided to call it, then not only are you wrong, you're an idiot.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 01:46#1323320 likes
Reply to Sapientia
We are talking about Christ here. That is a proper noun. You're just making shit up trying to support your unjustified claims.
We are talking about Christ here. That is a proper noun. You're just making shit up trying to support your unjustified claims.
No, we're talking about the body and blood of Christ, as you well know. The words "body" and "blood" are not proper nouns. Don't be so disingenuous just because it's beginning to dawn on you that you're in the wrong. Just admit your mistake instead of grasping at straws.
I think that there's a reason why you haven't properly engaged with my argument, and are instead choosing to reply in this way. It's because you don't have a leg to stand on.
You're a weak opponent for me, because your arguments tend to consist in sophistry, and I have a good eye for catching you out.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 02:10#1323390 likes
Reply to Sapientia
Christ is the named subject, and we are trying to identify the body and blood of this one called "Christ". You don't agree with the Church's identification. You haven't made a clear case as to why you think that the Church is wrong. Sounds like you have a personal problem to me.
Let's make sure I understand correctly - in order to show that realism is wrong, I have to use methods developed based on the principles of realism. Is that right?
You mean realism as opposed to idealism ("mental monism")? May be a bit peripheral here, unless I misunderstand. Well, I'm definitely not going by solipsism. :D
I was just pointing out a distinction:
Say, when I enjoy a cup of coffee in the morning, the joy (quale) is just mine, part of me when occurring. (And coffee is enjoyable, if not necessary, oh yes.) On the other hand, when I hang out with my buddy, there's more to my buddy than my experiences, not part of me. (My buddy doesn't like coffee, the darn sacrilegiously heretic blasphemer.)
Mentioned introspection illusions, hallucinations, dreams are in category with the joy (self), not the buddy (other). Externalization of Agustino's personal experiences is fraught.
Incidentally, what Agustino calls "scientifically observable" indicates activity localized to Agustino and not much else (cf Libet or whomever they all are). Bio-electrical-chemical?
I argue that they, being the leaders of the Church, and having knowledge about Christ, ought to be the ones to determine what is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore what ought to be called the body and blood of Christ.
You present an argument that the Church doesn't, namely that the Church is the creator of Christ and the determiner of what is the blood and body of Jesus. The Church has decided nothing, but would allege only to have reported the facts as they are. They don't get to decide, like they're the Supreme Court and it's their rules.
There is also much dispute as to what the euchrist is, with non-Catholic, but very Christian denominations asserting that the wafer and wine are but symbolic representations of the body and blood. Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable?
AkanthinosDecember 11, 2017 at 04:28#1323600 likes
Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable?
Well, apart from the primitive Church, theirs was the 1st interpretation of the question. Not that this means theirs is the best. It was also the most prevalent until Protestantism.
For the record, I have no qualms about demeaning his beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone else here. If his beliefs are ridiculous, then ridicule is fine by me. Ridicule away!
You see, here is the thing. I have more of a feminine type discipline thing about me where I kind of sting people and they go 'eeouch' and afterward put a bit of pawpaw cream on the sore, stick a bandaid over it, maybe get mumsie to kiss it better. But, they recover, you know. Whereas with the masculine approach, one kind of mauls them like a rottweiler, savagely dig their jaws and shred off a large chunk of their thigh, lacerate and mutilate until they end up hospitalised for months and remain scarred for the rest of their life.
I am not sure why no one noticed, but you had a gun man. You had a gun. You pointed that gun at your ugly, stupid cat and yes it is an ugly stupid cat but that doesn't somehow make it alright that you had a gun.
You scary.
Noble DustDecember 11, 2017 at 08:17#1324380 likes
Evelyn Underhill, arguably the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism, disagrees. She argues to some length that mystical experiences are unitive; She says that William James' "four marks" of mysticism aren't sufficient, and she lays out her own four instead:
"1. True mysticism is active and practical, not passive and theoretical. It is an organic life-process, a something which the whole self does; not something as to which its intellect holds an opinion.
2. Its aims are wholly transcendental and spiritual. It is in no way concerned with adding to, exploring, re-arranging, or improving anything in the visible universe. The mystic brushes aside that universe, even in its supernormal manifestations. Though he does not, as his enemies declare, neglect his duty to the many, his heart is always set upon the changeless One.
3. This One is for the mystic, not merely the Reality of all that is, but also a living and personal Object of Love; never an object of exploration. It draws his whole being homeward, but always under the guidance of the heart.
4. Living union with the One - which is the term of his adventure - is a definite state of form of enhanced life. It is obtained neither from an intellectual realization of its delights, nor from the most acute emotional longings. Though these must be present, they are not enough, It is arrived at by an arduous psychological and spiritual process - the so-called Mystic Way - entailing the compete remaking of character and the liberation of a new, or rather latent, form of consciousness; which imposes on the self the condition which is sometimes inaccurately called "ecstasy", but is better named the Unitive State." - Mysticism, Evelyn Underhill
Evelyn Underhill, arguably the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism, disagrees. She argues to some length that mystical experiences are unitive; She says that William James' "four marks" of mysticism aren't sufficient, and she lays out her own four instead:
The interpretation of a mystical experience may be unitary as the representations are not independent to the religious or cultural practice the mystic belongs to and therefore social constructed and one can even say the experience itself emerges from this; but, it is only in the mind of the individual who falsely attributes it to be formed by a duality between the two in an attempt to legitimise it.
Dreams are episodic. We all have dreams, because we all have brains and thus the cognitive tools that form remarkable and fantastic 'experiences' when we are asleep, fantasies that are shaped by the symbols of our environment that create pictures that we can interpret in an attempt to attribute meaning to it and to our unconscious mind. But, to believe in those dreams as an actual reality that exists?
Mystical experiences merely expose the depth of the individual' desperation for meaning and things like false pregnancies or hysteria are examples of how this desperation can manifest physiologically as though the mind is resisting an existential reality that is too much to bear. Loneliness really is our inability to articulate who we are and we try to find it in others, in religion, in society, new ageism etc, when all of it is in our own minds.
“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
? C.G. Jung
So-called 'mystical experiences' are a by-product stemming from a misunderstood unconscious self and mysticism is merely one such way of interpreting yourself and your place in the external world. But, when a person actually begins to believe in astrology, who actually thinks that there is accuracy in star signs, they are not well.
Noble DustDecember 11, 2017 at 09:14#1324510 likes
belongs to and therefore social constructed and the experience itself emerges from this -
But the focus of mystic practice is exactly that; practice over theory, as Underhill sets out. Social constructs, as I understand them, are passive, and not active; not practical. A social construct is passed down within the social unconscious; mystic practice is the opposite of that.
Mystical experiences merely expose the depth of the individual' desperation for meaning and things like false pregnancies or hysteria are examples of how this desperation can manifest physiologically as though the mind is resisting an existential reality that is too much to bear. Loneliness really is our inability to articulate who we are and we try to find it in others, in religion, in society, new ageism etc, when all of it is in our own minds.
“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
? C.G. Jung
So-called 'mystical experiences' are a by-product stemming from a misunderstood unconscious self and mysticism is merely one such way of interpreting yourself and your place in the external world. But, when a person actually begins to believe in astrology, who actually thinks that there is accuracy in star signs, they are not well.
For clarity, how much of the mystics have you read?
Christ is the named subject, and we are trying to identify the body and blood of this one called "Christ". You don't agree with the Church's identification. You haven't made a clear case as to why you think that the Church is wrong. Sounds like you have a personal problem to me.
No, that's your problem. What do expect me to do about that? It would help if you read the case that I've been making and then made a specific criticism or request for clarification.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 12:44#1325530 likes
No, that's your problem. What do expect me to do about that? It would help if you read the case that I've been making and then made a specific criticism or request for clarification.
Hey, the case you've been making is irrelevant to what I'm saying. You first engaged me, not vise versa. So if you don't want to listen to me then...
The Church has decided nothing, but would allege only to have reported the facts as they are. They don't get to decide, like they're the Supreme Court and it's their rules.
You don't think so? You don't think that they must decide what the facts are before they can report them? They have decided what the facts are, concerning Christ. Are you familiar with the word "creed"?
There is also much dispute as to what the euchrist is, with non-Catholic, but very Christian denominations asserting that the wafer and wine are but symbolic representations of the body and blood. Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable?
Well, isn't there always a bunch of shit disturbers who refuse to accept the word of authority?
Hey, the case you've been making is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
No, it's definitely not irrelevant to what you said. You said that I haven't made a clear case as to why the church is wrong. Those were your exact words. You brought it up, and I just responded. I don't agree. I think that it's just not clear [i]to you[/I] because you haven't put enough effort into understanding it. And, since you didn't bother to go into specifics, I can't really help you with that. You stopped engaging properly with the points that I was making.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 13:17#1325700 likes
Reply to Sapientia
I was talking about assigning a name "the body of Christ" to an object. You were talking about what "bread" means, and what "body" means.
However, all your stated principles supported my claim. You said "Meaning is use". So if "body of Christ" is used to refer to this item, then that is what this item is. You are clearly wrong to be calling it "bread".
Well, isn't there always a bunch of shit disturbers who refuse to accept the word of authority?
If there's good reason to reject what the shitty authority on shit is claiming, then why shouldn't the shit disturbers disturb the shit out of the shitty authority on shit by refusing to accept his shit?
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 13:20#1325740 likes
You don't think so? You don't think that they must decide what the facts are before they can report them? They have decided what the facts are, concerning Christ. Are you familiar with the word "creed"?
The distinction I'm making is between reporting the facts and decreeing the facts. The former is what the Church would admit doing, the latter is what a ruling authority who created their empire would do. If a king states that all first born children are to rule their households because they are holy, then it is so, simply by virtue of the king's authority. He could the next day modify his decree and decree that it was in fact all second born children who were holy. Metaphysically, though, the king can change nothing, and to the extent holiness is a metaphysical fact, he can't change that by whim. That is, the first born doesn't become holy because the king said so. He just defined some terms and created a law. The Nicene Creed, according to Catholics, wasn't set forth as an internal decree that happened to be subject to the whim of the ruling authority at the time, but it sets forth metaphysical truths that have been discovered and reported by the Church.
It is the distinction between a performative utterance and declarative statement.
Well, isn't there always a bunch of shit disturbers who refuse to accept the word of authority?
Either transubstantiation occurs or it doesn't. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement. The Catholics say it does occur. The Mormons say it doesn't. One of those groups is correct. According to you, though, you're stuck with them both being correct within the context of their respective faiths because each has the power to decree whatever the hell they want. That relativistic view of reality is surely not one accepted by the Catholic Church, and they would not accept that transubstantiation is the product of the mind of the participant, with the Mormon not being in the presence of transubstantiation during a Catholic Mass while his Catholic friend seated next to him in the pew is.
You may believe that religion is whatever the authority says it is, and that may be true as a political and historical fact, but no religion admits to that, but they insist their belief system is metaphysically true.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 14:11#1325950 likes
The distinction I'm making is between reporting the facts and decreeing the facts.
There is no difference between these two. To report the facts is to decree what the facts are. You are trying to make a boundary, a distinction, where no boundary or distinction could possibly be. Your example expresses a distinction between a rule, what ought to be done, and what is fact, what is the case. So your example of a decree is the decree of a rule, what ought to be done, not the decree of a fact, (what is the case), which is really nothing other than reporting the fact.
Either transubstantiation occurs or it doesn't. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement.
That's not even an issue. Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. So the question is what is transubstantiation. To ask whether transubstantiation occurs, is to deny the fact in skepticism, then ask whether the fact is a fact. It's a pointless exercise because one will inevitably come to the conclusion, yes there is something which is going on which is called transubstantiation. Now let's proceed to see what this thing, transubstantiation, is. So it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can refuse to take part in the ceremony if you have no faith in it, but that doesn't matter. Unless everyone refuses, then it will still be going on, and there will still be something called transubstantiation, and therefore transubstantiation will still be a fact.
There is no difference between these two. To report the facts is to decree what the facts are.
No it's not. That I say bigfoot exists doesn't make bigfoot exist. When a court rules "you are in contempt," you are in fact in contempt because the court says it. When the Church says transubstantiation occurs, it doesn't just occur. The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event.
Your suggestion is that the Church has the power like a court to perform a performative utterance. I'm saying that the Church itself would not make that claim as it pertains to transubstantiation. If it did make that claim, it would be declaring itself the creator of religion and not the upholder of it.
Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact.
This is nonsense. It is entirely possible for a phrase or a word not to have a referent (e.g. "the current King of France," Bigfoot, jkldjdc). What people are referring to when they say "bigfoot" is a non-existent animal, and it could well be the case that "transubstantiation" refers to an event that does not occur. Surely there can be a word for that which doesn't occur, so your insistence that the event must occur because there's a word for it does not follow.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 11, 2017 at 15:46#1326570 likes
That I say bigfoot exists doesn't make bigfoot exist.
You are not decreeing this as a fact, so the example is not relevant. If you were decreeing it as a fact, then it would be no different from reporting it as a fact. That someone might dispute the facts which you report is another issue.
It is entirely possible for a phrase or a word not to have a referent (e.g. "the current King of France," Bigfoot, jkldjdc).
Sure it's possible, but in the case of "transubstantiation" it is very clear that there is a referent. We can approach the issue two ways. The philosophical way is to proceed with an open mind to analyze the thing referred to as transubstantiation, in an attempt to understand it. The biased way is to proceed as Sapientia does, with a preconceived notion as to what "transubstantiation" means ( a piece of bread is transformed into the body of Christ), and determine whether the thing being referred to as transubstantiation is according to this preconception. In this way she comes to the conclusion that transubstantiation is a fiction. But it is only a fiction according to this preconceived notion, and in reality there is still a very real activity going on which is called "transubstantiation". The only thing exposed is that Sapientia misunderstands transubstantiation.
I was talking about assigning a name "the body of Christ" to an object. You were talking about what "bread" means, and what "body" means.
However, all your stated principles supported my claim. You said "Meaning is use". So if "body of Christ" is used to refer to this item, then that is what this item is. You are clearly wrong to be calling it "bread".
The problem is that you are talking about a renaming, when, in fact, what's going on is more than that. This is about truth, as well as language. The bread would remain bread, despite what it is called. So, it would not be the case that the bread is the body of Christ. That would result in contradiction. It would be the case that the bread is the body of Christ if, by "body of Christ", what is meant is [i]bread[/I]. But that is obviously not what is meant, given that we're talking about a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation does not render a truth, at least from what can be reasonably determined from the available evidence or lack thereof.
That is consistent with meaning as use, properly understood. Whatever term is used in reference to the bread, it is the case that if the meaning entails that it is something other than what it is, namely bread, then that will produce a false statement. It is what it is.
Sure it's possible, but in the case of "transubstantiation" it is very clear that there is a referent. We can approach the issue two ways. The philosophical way is to proceed with an open mind to analyze the thing referred to as transubstantiation, in an attempt to understand it. The biased way is to proceed as Sapientia does, with a preconceived notion as to what "transubstantiation" means (a piece of bread is transformed into the body of Christ), and determine whether the thing being referred to as transubstantiation is according to this preconception.
No, that's taking it out of context. The discussion is in the context of what the Eastern Orthodox Church considers "transubstantiation" to mean. That's the preconception, and it is a necessary preconception. You're not free to deviate from that meaning, or preconception, without changing the subject. This is not about what Metaphysician Undercover thinks "transubstantiation" means, if that is anything other than what the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks it means. What you misleadingly refer to as the "biased way" is actually just what is required to remain on topic.
How is assessing facts other than deciding what is and is not fact?
That's not what I said. What I said was: "The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event."
Your position is that the Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation, so once it has so decreed it, it is that without question. That is, its declaration is a performative act, so disputing it would be nonsensical. If the priest says "I now pronounce you man and wife," you are man and wife because the act of pronouncing was the very event. For me to then say the priest was wrong, you are not now man and wife, I would be misunderstanding the priest's comments. The comment wasn't declarative; it was performative.
And that's where I'm saying you're mistaken in your comments. The Church's declaration that transubstantiation results in the bread and wine transforming into the blood and body of Jesus is a declarative statement, not a performative act. They are assessing what has occurred and telling us what happened, but the simple act of declaration does not make it so. That is to say, the Church could be wrong in its assessment.
Put it this way: Assume that on Monday the church said transubstantiation occurred but on Tuesday it said it didn't.
If their statement was performative, then on Monday it occurred and on Tuesday it didn't. If their statement was declarative, then on one of the days they were wrong.
If the judge says you are in contempt of court and then he changes his mind 2 minutes later, then you were in contempt for 2 minutes. If the judge says you stole the candy and 2 minutes later he decides you didn't, whether you stole or didn't steal the candy was unaffected. The judge has no ability to create the facts, and his findings of what the facts are can be wrong.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sure it's possible, but in the case of "transubstantiation" it is very clear that there is a referent.
If the church defines transubstantiation as an actual event where wine turns to Jesus' blood, then there is no referent in my opinion. The word points to nothing other than confusion. If "bigfoot" refers to an actual humanoid creature, then it has no referent.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 12, 2017 at 00:30#1327950 likes
The bread would remain bread, despite what it is called.
Why would the object be bread if it were called something else? You go on about "meaning is use", but you seem to have no clue of what that means. Use is the act of calling something by a name. What that name means is determined by this act of calling something by that name. If we stop calling something by that name, and start calling it by another name, then the thing is known by the new name. So if we stop calling the thing "bread", and start calling it "body of Christ", then the thing is known as body of Christ, by that very change in usage.
No, it would be contradiction if it were bread and body of Christ at the same time. But there is no reason to believe that it is still bread, transubstantiation has occurred, so it is not bread. That's your faulty assumption, that it's still called "bread" after being designated "body of Christ". And by this faulty assumption you claim contradiction. It is you who says it's bread in order that you can accuse contradiction, but that's a straw man, it's not bread its body of Christ. Transubstantiation has ensured that it will no longer be called "bread", it will be called "body of Christ". And as you affirm, meaning is use.
What I said was: "The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event."
I'll repeat my question. How is "assessing facts" something other than deciding what is and isn't fact?
The comment wasn't declarative; it was performative.
Do you realize, that in the act of transubstantiation, the word is both performative and declarative (as you describe these two)? Therefore I do not think that your distinction between these two is relevant.
Your position is that the Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation, so once it has so decreed it, it is that without question.
Yes, "transubstantiation" is a concept proper to the Church. The Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation. Likewise, "photoelectric effect" is a concept proper to physics, and physics has the authority to state what happens during the photoelectric effect.
The Church's declaration that transubstantiation results in the bread and wine transforming into the blood and body of Jesus is a declarative statement, not a performative act.
That is not what the Church declares. There is no transformation, it's called transubstantiation. The two are completely different. One is a change in form, the other a change in substance. When the substance changes, in transubstantiation, all the accidentals, which are what we sense, remain the same. Only the substance changes.
They are assessing what has occurred and telling us what happened, but the simple act of declaration does not make it so. That is to say, the Church could be wrong in its assessment.
Let me see if I can interpret what you are insinuating here. The Church has been carrying out this procedure in hundreds or thousands of locations, numerous times every year, for hundreds and hundreds of years. They call this procedure "transubstantiation".
You are saying that maybe the Church is wrong, maybe transubstantiation has never occurred. What about all these millions of instances of the very same thing occurring, with millions of participants, which the Church has called "transubstantiation"? Are you saying that these events never happened? Are you saying that the events happened, but the Church is wrong to title the event transubstantiation? What are you insinuating?
On what would you base such an accusation? Have you taken part, such that you have first hand experience? If so, from what you have said above, it appears like you were expecting a transformation instead of a transubstantiation. Perhaps your experience was such that you observed no transformation and so you fallaciously concluded that there was no transubstantiation.
If the church defines transubstantiation as an actual event where wine turns to Jesus' blood, then there is no referent in my opinion. The word points to nothing other than confusion. If "bigfoot" refers to an actual humanoid creature, then it has no referent.
I assume that if there is an event where water turns to gas, and this is called "evaporation", then in your opinion there is no referent to this word, the word points to nothing but confusion.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 12, 2017 at 01:12#1328020 likes
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover You're trying to argue with two people who haven't read or understood the theology. Good luck changing their mind...
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 12, 2017 at 01:30#1328120 likes
Reply to Buxtebuddha
I have no intention to change their minds. I think the idea that there's reality which is beyond our capacity to sense, but can still be known by the mind, is way beyond both of them. For them, if it looks and tastes like bread, then it must be bread, regardless of what its true substance is. I just like to see if I can bullshit my way through anything. If the leaders of the church can do it, then why can't I?
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 12, 2017 at 02:16#1328250 likes
Reply to Buxtebuddha
Well what's the point in talking about something you know nothing about if you don't want to learn something about it, unless you're going to at least pretend to know something about it?
I think the idea that there's reality which is beyond our capacity to sense, but can still be known by the mind, is way beyond both of them. For them, if it looks and tastes like bread, then it must be bread, regardless of what its true substance is.
Your comments misstated the Catholic position by stating that transubstantiation exists because the Catholic church said it did. That has nothing to do with the new issue you've raised, which is that you believe my rejection of transubstantiation arises due to my wholesale rejection of the spiritual realm. That statement is incorrect and non-responsive to anything previously discussed.
I'll repeat my question. How is "assessing facts" something other than deciding what is and isn't fact?
Why are you asking a question about a distinction I never raised? My comment was that there was a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. I clarified that by quoting what I said, but you instead just re-asked the same question, ignoring my prior clarification. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, "transubstantiation" is a concept proper to the Church. The Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation. Likewise, "photoelectric effect" is a concept proper to physics, and physics has the authority to state what happens during the photoelectric effect.
Sure, and physicists can get it entirely wrong. They might describe a photoelectric effect completely wrong and a simple auto mechanic might get it right. A physicist has expertise in his field, but if his statements don't correspond to reality, then he's wrong. And so it is with the transubstantiation. A Catholic scholar can speak to the issue of what it entails, but he can be wrong. And this is my point: the Catholic position on transubstantiation is declarative and indicative, but in no way performative. If it were, it would mistake the Church for God, as if it could create reality as opposed to simply report on it.
Nothing I'm saying here denies transubstantiation. It simply rejects your proof of its existence, which relies upon an argument not advanced by the Church.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You are saying that maybe the Church is wrong, maybe transubstantiation has never occurred.
Of course that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that maybe nothing at all (on any level) happened to the wafer and wine. It was no different before or after the ceremony.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What about all these millions of instances of the very same thing occurring, with millions of participants, which the Church has called "transubstantiation"? Are you saying that these events never happened? Are you saying that the events happened, but the Church is wrong to title the event transubstantiation? What are you insinuating?
Let us suppose that I tell everyone that I can literally turn rocks into gold. As a result, millions come every Tuesday to my house where I pray over rocks and then I produce a nugget of gold as proof. I call this change "transcombobulation," Let us then suppose that I am discovered later a fraud or that I was just confused. It would be correct to say that transcombobulation never occurred. What actually occurred was that I held a big meeting that turned out to be a big pile of nonsense. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
On what would you base such an accusation? Have you taken part, such that you have first hand experience? If so, from what you have said above, it appears like you were expecting a transformation instead of a transubstantiation. Perhaps your experience was such that you observed no transformation and so you fallaciously concluded that there was no transubstantiation.
Well, this is the Church's problem: they have no way to verify their claims. The Church is claiming a change to the wafer and the wine at some level and if that doesn't occur, then transubstantiation hasn't occurred. Whatever the mysterious change is, it must occur for transubstantiation to occur.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I assume that if there is an event where water turns to gas, and this is called "evaporation", then in your opinion there is no referent to this word, the word points to nothing but confusion.
Then you'd assume wrong. Whether the process of evaporation creates a tangible referent that you can point to or not hardly affects the coherence of the concept. Freedom is a concept without a referent, but it's not confusing. My comment only was that "transubstantiation" had no tangible referent and the only thing it could refer to is a particular state of confusion, but I did not make a general comment that words without direct referents were always confusing.
AkanthinosDecember 12, 2017 at 09:54#1328990 likes
Your comments misstated the Catholic position by stating that transubstantiation exists because the Catholic church said it did. That has nothing to do with the new issue you've raised, which is that you believe my rejection of transubstantiation arises due to my wholesale rejection of the spiritual realm. That statement is incorrect and non-responsive to anything previously discussed.
You are right, the stated position of the Church is that, during the Last Supper, Christ stated that he was truly sharing his flesh and blood. The Eucharist is founded on the belief that the Last Supper was in fact an act of endowement from Christ to the nascent Church. Amongst this endowement was the power to perform the Eucharist and transubstantiation.
Every position stems from a history of interpretations of interpretations of the holy texts. God forbid the Church has the power to make decisions on the spot about dogma. That would make the backwardness of certain beliefs of Catholicism (and I was Catholic for a long time, I'm allowed to say this :P ) absolutely, totally inexcusable. While now they are simply regrettable and faulty.
Why would the object be bread if it were called something else?
Because calling it something else means only that it would be called something else. It wouldn't change what it is, by which I mean the definition which truly describes the object, which would be the definition of bread. What you're doing is erroneously conflating two distinct things, and the logical consequences of doing that lead to an erroneous stance on the issue.
What that name means is determined by this act of calling something by that name. If we stop calling something by that name, and start calling it by another name, then the thing is known by the new name. So if we stop calling the thing "bread", and start calling it "body of Christ", then the thing is known as body of Christ, by that very change in usage.
Yes, but it would be the body of Christ by name only, and the Catholic or the member of the Eastern Orthodox Church would dispute that. So where are you going with this? It's an irrelevant conclusion.
Alternatively, if you mean that it would literally be the body of Christ, then you're simply mistaken, as it's not, it's bread.
No, it would be contradiction if it were bread and body of Christ at the same time. But there is no reason to believe that it is still bread, transubstantiation has occurred, so it is not bread.
No, you've given no good reason to reasonably accept that transubstantiation has occurred.
That's your faulty assumption, that it's still called "bread" after being designated "body of Christ".
No, that transubstantiation has occurred is your faulty assumption. I have no problem whatsoever with assuming a name change, but your assessment of the consequences of such a name change is erroneous. I attribute this to the fact that you're just not as good at grasping this sort of thing as someone like Hanover or myself.
And by this faulty assumption you claim contradiction. It is you who says it's bread in order that you can accuse contradiction, but that's a straw man, it's not bread its body of Christ. Transubstantiation has ensured that it will no longer be called "bread", it will be called "body of Christ". And as you affirm, meaning is use.
No, it's bread, as per the definition of bread, even if it is called something else. You have misunderstood the implications of meaning as use.
Let me see if I can interpret what you are insinuating here. The Church has been carrying out this procedure in hundreds or thousands of locations, numerous times every year, for hundreds and hundreds of years. They call this procedure "transubstantiation".
You are saying that maybe the Church is wrong, maybe transubstantiation has never occurred. What about all these millions of instances of the very same thing occurring, with millions of participants, which the Church has called "transubstantiation"? Are you saying that these events never happened? Are you saying that the events happened, but the Church is wrong to title the event transubstantiation? What are you insinuating?
I think that this is the weakest argument for transubstantiation that I've seen so far. It is begging the question and attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Either that, or it is an example of sophistry, whereby Metaphysician Undercover is attempting to manipulate language to his advantage, but this is deceptive. At best, he can manufacture only a trivial truth. Calling a cat "a fish" won't give it gills.
For them, if it looks and tastes like bread, then it must be bread, regardless of what its true substance is.
No, I am open to the possibility that its substance has changed as purported, but for me to believe that it has in fact changed, I must have good enough reason. I don't have good enough reason. You have not provided good enough reason. Therefore, I don't believe it.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 12, 2017 at 14:08#1329600 likes
Why are you asking a question about a distinction I never raised? My comment was that there was a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. I clarified that by quoting what I said, but you instead just re-asked the same question, ignoring my prior clarification.
What you said is that there is a difference between reporting facts and declaring facts. I said there is no such difference. You attempted to clarify by saying that there's a difference between assessing facts and declaring facts, or something like that. I was unable to grasp how you were trying to categorize these things so I asked twice for you to provide me with a comprehensive clarification. Care to try again, because I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make?
Sure, and physicists can get it entirely wrong. They might describe a photoelectric effect completely wrong and a simple auto mechanic might get it right. A physicist has expertise in his field, but if his statements don't correspond to reality, then he's wrong. And so it is with the transubstantiation. A Catholic scholar can speak to the issue of what it entails, but he can be wrong. And this is my point: the Catholic position on transubstantiation is declarative and indicative, but in no way performative. If it were, it would mistake the Church for God, as if it could create reality as opposed to simply report on it.
This is all meaningless to me I do not see the basis for your claim that transubstantiation is in no way performative, and that this is the Church's position on it. I think your wrong on this point and the rejection of my argument is wrong on this point. Clearly the Eucharist is a sacrament and transubstantiation is therefore performative.
Let us suppose that I tell everyone that I can literally turn rocks into gold. As a result, millions come every Tuesday to my house where I pray over rocks and then I produce a nugget of gold as proof. I call this change "transcombobulation," Let us then suppose that I am discovered later a fraud or that I was just confused. It would be correct to say that transcombobulation never occurred. What actually occurred was that I held a big meeting that turned out to be a big pile of nonsense.
This example states that you were discovered as a fraud. It is not comparable with the Eucharist unless transubstantiation has been discovered as a fraud. All your argument amounts to is that it's possible that its a fraud. But as I said, the Church has been carrying this out for hundreds and hundreds of years, with millions of people, and continues to do so today. No evidence of fraud that I can find. What evidence do you have of any type of fraud? Don't you think that it would have been stopped by now if it was fraud?
The Church is claiming a change to the wafer and the wine at some level and if that doesn't occur, then transubstantiation hasn't occurred. Whatever the mysterious change is, it must occur for transubstantiation to occur.
It's not a mysterious change. It is a change of substance. And all that is required to understand this change is to understand the nature of substance. Don't you agree that each and every thing, to be a thing, necessarily has substance? To say that a thing has substance is to say "that it is". But to say "that a thing is", and to say "what a thing is", is to say two different things. So "substance" doesn't tell us anything about what the thing is, only that it is. This allows that "what" the substance of a thing is, can be anything which we say it is.
My comment only was that "transubstantiation" had no tangible referent and the only thing it could refer to is a particular state of confusion, but I did not make a general comment that words without direct referents were always confusing.
Of course "transubstantiation" has no tangible referent, because "substance' has no tangible referent. If transubstantiation had a tangible referent it would be contradiction, or equivocation in the use of "substance". That is exactly why there is no tangible change to the object in transubstantiation, substance is not tangible, it is only intelligible as an assumption, it is what we assume that an object has, in order that we can say that it exists.
Process philosophers may deny the existence of substance. But without the assumption of substance, the temporal continuity of an object is very difficult to account for. Once we have identified the temporal continuity of an object, as substance, then we can play special language games with that substance, as the Church does, because we are not referring to what the thing is, only that it is.
You might call this fraud, but that's only because you are refusing to play that language game, and so you cite some other rules which are contrary to the rules of that game, to rationalize your refusal. The loser is you though, as the quitter is the loser. By quitting the game, rejecting these rules, and adhering to those contrary rules, you deny yourself the capacity to understand the nature of substance. And if you persist, adhering to process philosophy in your denial of substance, you will find as the process philosophers before you have found, the need to turn to God in the end. Then you'll just have to start the game all over again.
Because calling it something else means only that it would be called something else. It wouldn't change what it is, by which I mean the definition which truly describes the object, which would be the definition of bread. What you're doing is erroneously conflating two distinct things, and the logical consequences of doing that lead to an erroneous stance on the issue.
It's all words, definitions, the whole shebang. How can you say "what a thing is" is something other than the words which refer to it. That is what you're saying isn't it? If not, then the words which refer to it are what it is. So if it's called "body of Christ" then it is body of Christ. That is, unless you are saying that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than the words which refer to it. How would you justify that claim? Does God decide what it is, using something other than words?
Alternatively, if you mean that it would literally be the body of Christ, then you're simply mistaken, as it's not, it's bread.
What do you mean by "literally" here? If this name, "body of Christ" is assigned to this object, how can you get more literal than that? "Body of Christ" literally means that object which the name is assigned to. You are claiming that the named object is bread, through some association or metaphor, disregarding the literal name "body of Christ". So it is you is not adhering to what is literal, and who is simply mistaken.
No, that transubstantiation has occurred is your faulty assumption. I have no problem whatsoever with assuming a name change, but your assessment of the consequences of such a name change is erroneous. I attribute this to the fact that you're just not as good at grasping this sort of thing as someone like Hanover or myself.
It is not a name change, it is transubstantiation. This means that the underlying substance, which we assume to be there, in order to ground our experience that the object has a temporal continuity of existence, changes at some point in time. The object's appearance to us, through our senses does not change, only the substance changes. The object's real existence is known through its temporal continuity which is grasped by the mind. The mind allows that temporal continuity (the substance of existence) to end at some point in time, and begin again as a different substance, at that point in time.
The object has been assumed to have continuous existence under the name "bread" until that point in time. From that point onward its temporal continuity is known under the name "body of Christ". This is the object itself which is being referred to with these terms, not the object's appearance through our senses. The nature of temporal existence, and the principles of logic allow that we can say that the object was called X up until this point in time, at which point we start to call it Y. At each successive moment of time, the object is naturally a different object, we only assume that it maintains identity as the same object with continued existence. All that is required is that we release this unnatural assumption for a moment, allowing that the object has a different identity before and after that moment. You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with this, but there is not.
I think that this is the weakest argument for transubstantiation that I've so far. It is begging the question.
No it's not begging the question, its appeal to authority, but when the authority is demonstrated to be authoritative there is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority. If the child asks the parent, why do you insist that I call the colour that the sky is "blue", and the parent says it's because millions of people have been calling it that for hundreds of years, then the parent's authority is justified. Likewise, if the Church has been carrying out this activity for hundreds of years with millions of people, then their authority to call this process "transubstantiation" is justified. And your claim that there is no such thing as transubstantiation, that it is a fiction, is untenable.
No, I am open to the possibility that its substance has changed as purported, but for me to believe that it has in fact changed, I must have good enough reason. I don't have good enough reason. You have not provided good enough reason. Therefore, I don't believe it.
Exactly as I said when I joined this discussion, it's a matter of faith. The only reason to believe is faith. You have no faith, you have no reason to believe. Why should you believe that the colour of the sky ought to be called "blue", and not some other name? Faith. Why should you believe that the items of the Eucharist ought to be called body and blood of Christ, and not some other name? Faith. There is no substantial difference between these two examples.
Exactly as I said when I joined this discussion, it's a matter of faith. The only reason to believe is faith. You have no faith, you have no reason to believe. Why should you believe that the colour of the sky ought to be called "blue", and not some other name? Faith. Why should you believe that the items of the Eucharist ought to be called body and blood of Christ, and not some other name? Faith. There is no substantial difference between these two examples.
This has nothing to do with names. When the Christian claims that the bread is the body of Christ, he isn't just choosing to use the label "body of Christ" to refer to the bread; he's claiming that the bread has certain properties.
When I claim that something is a triangle, I'm not just using the label "triangle" to refer to that object; I'm claiming that it has a three-sided shape. If it doesn't have a three-sided shape then my claim is false. And if the bread doesn't have the necessary properties required for it to be the body of Christ, then the Christian's claim is false.
What you said is that there is a difference between reporting facts and declaring facts. I said there is no such difference.
That's not what I said. I said there's a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. In the first, you take a look at the world, you assess what you see, and you say "there's a dog." In the latter, you assert as an authority what the facts are. You look at the world and say "you are in contempt of court." The former is indicative, the latter performative. The former fallible, the latter infallible.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is all meaningless to me I do not see the basis for your claim that transubstantiation is in no way performative, and that this is the Church's position on it. I think your wrong on this point and the rejection of my argument is wrong on this point. Clearly the Eucharist is a sacrament and transubstantiation is therefore performative.
The priest must perform an act to make the transubstantiation occur, but that's not what is meant by performative. I must put water in the freezer to make it ice, but my act is not performative from a linguistic perspective. That is to say, the priest's acts do not constitute a performative act to the extent that what he does necessitates the metaphysical event of transubstantiation. It is entirely possible that what he does accomplishes nothing at all. On the other hand, when a judge says, "you are in contempt," that utterance necessitates your being in contempt. The metaphysical status of your being in contempt results from the utterance.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Of course "transubstantiation" has no tangible referent, because "substance' has no tangible referent
The tangible referent of the transubstantiation would be the transformation of the bread and wine to flesh and blood, which would occur, according to Catholicism in a non-empirically verifiable way. Regardless, something (whatever it might be) changed, and that changed thing would be the referent. I don't refer to transubstantiation in the abstract (as in a substance generally), but I refer to the specific wafer and wine used in the ceremony. That wafer and wine would be the referent should someone ask "where is this transubstantiation?
Well what's the point in talking about something you know nothing about if you don't want to learn something about it, unless you're going to at least pretend to know something about it?
I don't know nothing about Catholicism. Some of what I have said about Catholicism has been corroborated by others, such as T. Clark, whose wife is Catholic, and by online encyclopaedias.
If I wanted to learn about Catholicism, I would not seek you out to teach me. I would seek a more credible source.
Let us suppose that I tell everyone that I can literally turn rocks into gold. As a result, millions come every Tuesday to my house where I pray over rocks and then I produce a nugget of gold as proof. I call this change "transcombobulation," Let us then suppose that I am discovered later a fraud or that I was just confused. It would be correct to say that transcombobulation never occurred. What actually occurred was that I held a big meeting that turned out to be a big pile of nonsense.
Transcombobulation? I've never heard something so ridiculous in all my life! Transubstantiation, on the other hand, that's the real deal. And, I can assure you, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the latter is a central tenet of my religion, whereas the former is not. There's no conflict of interest here.
You are right, the stated position of the Church is that, during the Last Supper, Christ stated that he was truly sharing his flesh and blood. The Eucharist is founded on the belief that the Last Supper was in fact an act of endowement from Christ to the nascent Church. Amongst this endowement was the power to perform the Eucharist and transubstantiation.
Every position stems from a history of interpretations of interpretations of the holy texts. God forbid the Church has the power to make decisions on the spot about dogma. That would make the backwardness of certain beliefs of Catholicism (and I was Catholic for a long time, I'm allowed to say this :P ) absolutely, totally inexcusable. While now they are simply regrettable and faulty.
Ouch. That's another corroboration, and from someone who used to be a Catholic for a long time. Are you ready to retract what you insinuated about Hanover and myself, @Metaphysician Undercover? How about you, @Buxtebuddha?
What you said is that there is a difference between reporting facts and declaring facts. I said there is no such difference.
Then you are wrong, as usual, assuming you stand by that claim. There is a world of difference between what the BBC does and what a conspiracy theorist does.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 12, 2017 at 17:57#1329840 likes
It's all words, definitions, the whole shebang. How can you say "what a thing is" is something other than the words which refer to it. That is what you're saying isn't it?
Yes, I'm saying that what a thing [i]is[/I] is something other than the words which refer to it. I'm further saying that, not only would it be [i]mistaken[/I] to say that what a thing [i]is[/I] is the words which refer to it, it would be utterly bonkers, and a prime example of the reification fallacy.
That is, unless you are saying that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than the words which refer to it. How would you justify that claim? Does God decide what it is, using something other than words?
That's what I'm saying. Words decribe things, they are not the things themselves. That's a basic error.
I don't believe that God decides anything at all, except in the sense that, say, Frodo decided to travel to Mount Doom.
I justify that claim by appealing to the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is. It does not state that a thing is what it is called. Nor is that entailed by meaning as use.
Sect. 43 of Wittgenstein's [i]Philosophical Investigations[/I] says that: "For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word "meaning", it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."
So, for example, if there was a language whereby the word "fish" was used to refer to any member of the feline species, then that would be the meaning of the word "fish" in that language.
But it would not follow from that that a feline has gills. Yet, if we apply your logic to this example, then that is the consequence. You're saying that if we were to call a cat "a fish" then that is what it would become. A cat would become a fish, a fish has gills, therefore a cat would have gills.
That is clearly absurd, clearly mistaken, and should clearly be rejected. It is clear to me at least, but then, I have better critical thinking skills than you. You often get yourself into a muddle.
If this name, "body of Christ" is assigned to this object, how can you get more literal than that?
What object? The wafer? What's literal about assigning the name, "body of Christ", to a wafer? I'll answer that question for you: there's nothing literal about that whatsoever. What would be[/I] literal would be to interpret that act of naming to entail that the wafer has [i]actually become the body of Christ. And please don't pretend that you don't understand what I mean by that. I would like you to put an end to your sophistry. It does you no credit.
"Body of Christ" literally means that object which the name is assigned to.
In English, "the body of Christ", in accordance with a literal interpretation, means the body of Christ, and nothing else. The word "body" would refer to his body, meaning his flesh, bones, organs, appendages, and so on. The name "Christ" refers to Jesus Christ of the Bible, who Christians believe to be the son of God, and who, so it is said, was crucified around two thousand years ago.
Are you speaking English or some other language? I'm speaking English.
You are claiming that the named object is bread, through some association or metaphor, disregarding the literal name "body of Christ". So it is you is not adhering to what is literal, and who is simply mistaken.
The named object is bread because it fits the definition of "bread" that you can find in a dictionary. I'm assuming that we're both speaking English: am I wrong to make that assumption? Is the dictionary wrong? It would be mistaken to say that the object is bread if this nonsense about transubstantiation is true, or if we're speaking some other language, but it isn't, and we're not (to my knowledge), so it's not mistaken to say that it's bread.
It is not a name change, it is transubstantiation.
You implied that it was both, but now you're denying that it's a name change. Have you changed your mind or are you contradicting yourself? Which is it?
This means that the underlying substance, which we assume to be there, in order to ground our experience that the object has a temporal continuity of existence, changes at some point in time. The object's appearance to us, through our senses does not change, only the substance changes. The object's real existence is known through its temporal continuity which is grasped by the mind. The mind allows that temporal continuity (the substance of existence) to end at some point in time, and begin again as a different substance, at that point in time.
The object has been assumed to have continuous existence under the name "bread" until that point in time. From that point onward its temporal continuity is known under the name "body of Christ". This is the object itself which is being referred to with these terms, not the object's appearance through our senses. The nature of temporal existence, and the principles of logic allow that we can say that the object was called X up until this point in time, at which point we start to call it Y. At each successive moment of time, the object is naturally a different object, we only assume that it maintains identity as the same object with continued existence. All that is required is that we release this unnatural assumption for a moment, allowing that the object has a different identity before and after that moment. You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with this, but there is not.
I already understand what transubstantiation is, so that entire explanation was unnecessary and a complete waste of time. It would help if you were charitable, but you have not been charitable. On the contrary, you have insinuated that I know nothing about transubstantiation, even though I can explain what it is, and in fact have already done so.
Like I said, I do not have a problem with that in principle, nor do I think that it's impossible. I just don't believe that it happens. And I don't believe that it happens, because I do not have good enough reason to believe that it happens.
No it's not begging the question, its appeal to authority, but when the authority is demonstrated to be authoritative there is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority. If the child asks the parent, why do you insist that I call the colour that the sky is "blue", and the parent says it's because millions of people have been calling it that for hundreds of years, then the parent's authority is justified. Likewise, if the Church has been carrying out this activity for hundreds of years with millions of people, then their authority to call this process "transubstantiation" is justified. And your claim that there is no such thing as transubstantiation, that it is a fiction, is untenable.
This demonstrates that you've missed the point by a country mile. I haven't once denied that there's a process referred to as "transubstantiation". But that doesn't prove what you think it does, and Hanover has set the record straight on this. If I questioned an authority on geometry why it is that a right angle is an angle of 90 degrees, and not an angle of 20 degrees, as I am going to assert for arguments sake, then he could explain it to me. He could show me why I was wrong. But if I questioned your authority on religion, he would just give me a load of bollocks, and he'd still be wrong.
Exactly as I said when I joined this discussion, it's a matter of faith. The only reason to believe is faith. You have no faith, you have no reason to believe. Why should you believe that the colour of the sky ought to be called "blue", and not some other name? Faith. Why should you believe that the items of the Eucharist ought to be called body and blood of Christ, and not some other name? Faith. There is no substantial difference between these two examples.
Jesus Christ! If it's a matter of faith, then we agree. That's why I don't believe in transubstantiation. But if it's a matter of faith, then why the heck are you trying to argue the case? Arguing is what you do when you think that there's a reasonable case to be made. Faith is what you resort to when you don't have a clue, but are overcome with emotion.
Pardon, but retract what? That you're an ignoramus?
When you make a fool of yourself, don't you think that it's a good thing to attempt to undo the damage? I mean, if you don't mind people thinking that you're a fool, then by all means carry on regardless.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 12, 2017 at 18:46#1329970 likes
This has nothing to do with names. When the Christian claims that the bread is the body of Christ, he isn't just choosing to use the label "body of Christ" to refer to the bread; he's claiming that the bread has certain properties.
When I claim that something is a triangle, I'm not just using the label "triangle" to refer to that object; I'm claiming that it has a three-sided shape. If it doesn't have a three-sided shape then my claim is false. And if the bread doesn't have the necessary properties required for it to be the body of Christ, then the Christian's claim is false.
Yes, thank you. Michael gets it.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 12, 2017 at 22:30#1330770 likes
When the Christian claims that the bread is the body of Christ, he isn't just choosing to use the label "body of Christ" to refer to the bread; he's claiming that the bread has certain properties.
Well maybe some Christians told you that, but these Christians obviously are not familiar with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is clearly stated that what is referred to is the substance, that's why it's called transubstantiation. It is also stated that the accidents, which are the sensible properties of the substance remain as those associated with bread and wine. Otherwise the Church would have no way of accounting for the fact that the body and blood of Crist look and taste like bread and wine.
Come on Michael, the Church has been an institution for close to two thousand years. Do you really think that it could have maintained that status by saying something so irrational as what you represent here?
And if the bread doesn't have the necessary properties required for it to be the body of Christ, then the Christian's claim is false.
As I say, you are very clearly, and totally wrong here. All you need to do is read some quick information about transubstantiation. Properties are irrelevant here, what we are talking about is substance.
That's not what I said. I said there's a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. In the first, you take a look at the world, you assess what you see, and you say "there's a dog." In the latter, you assert as an authority what the facts are.
I still don't see any difference. Assessing the facts amounts to taking a look and saying "there's a dog". Decreeing the fact amounts to saying "there's a dog". Before you can decree, as a fact, "there's a dog", you must necessarily assess the facts. And if you assess the facts, and say "there's a dog", all you are doing is decreeing the facts. If you are decreeing "there's a dog", with completely disregard for whether or not it is a fact, this is something completely different from decreeing facts, and is irrelevant to our case here.
I really do no not see any difference still, perhaps you could try again.
The priest must perform an act to make the transubstantiation occur, but that's not what is meant by performative. I must put water in the freezer to make it ice, but my act is not performative from a linguistic perspective. That is to say, the priest's acts do not constitute a performative act to the extent that what he does necessitates the metaphysical event of transubstantiation. It is entirely possible that what he does accomplishes nothing at all.
Clearly the priest's act is performative, because it is by this act that transubstantiation occurs. And, it is also very clear that it is impossible that this act accomplishes nothing, because following this act the participants respect the items as the substance of Christ's body and blood, and proceed to take part in the sacrament. The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here.
The tangible referent of the transubstantiation would be the transformation of the bread and wine to flesh and blood, which would occur, according to Catholicism in a non-empirically verifiable way. Regardless, something (whatever it might be) changed, and that changed thing would be the referent.
It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred.
That's what I'm saying. Words decribe things, they are not the things themselves.
I fully understand this, and I agree with you. But we are talking about "what the thing is". What I am asking is if you believe that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words, or some other type of symbol? I do not believe there could be. But if you do, I know you probably can't tell me in words what this "what the thing is" would be like, but could you give me some other indication of "what a thing is" which wouldn't be words or symbols?
I justify that claim by appealing to the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is.
This isn't quite right though. The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself, identical with itself. It does not say that a thing is what a thing is, it says that a thing is itself. So we cannot derive "what it is", from the law of identity. That's why we must proceed toward description to derive what the thing is. But I don't think you can have a "what the thing is" without words or some sort of symbols.
In English, "the body of Christ", in accordance with a literal interpretation, means the body of Christ, and nothing else. The word "body" would refer to his body, meaning his flesh, bones, organs, appendages, and so on. The name "Christ" refers to Jesus Christ of the Bible, who Christians believe to be the son of God, and who, so it is said, was crucified around two thousand years ago.
Right, now according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Why do you have difficulty with that? Do you not understand what transubstantiation means?
I already understand what transubstantiation is, so that entire explanation was unnecessary and a complete waste of time. It would help if you were charitable, but you have not been charitable. On the contrary, you have insinuated that I know nothing about transubstantiation, even though I can explain what it is, and in fact have already done so.
Like I said, I do not have a problem with that in principle, nor do I think that it's impossible. I just don't believe that it happens. And I don't believe that it happens, because I do not have good enough reason to believe that it happens.
I have a problem with this claim, so I'll be brutally honest. I think you are lying. I don't think you understand what transubstantiation is at all. I think that if you really understood what it means, and thought that it was possible, as you claim, then you couldn't avoid seeing that it is going on all the time. Instead, you do not believe that it happens, therefore I conclude that you lie when you claim to understand it.
See, my claim that you are lying is justified. You really know nothing about transubstantiation. It is all about change of substance, as the name implies, and nothing about change of properties, and this is stated in church doctrine. You and Michael both know nothing about transubstantiation.
Jesus Christ! If it's a matter of faith, then we agree. That's why I don't believe in transubstantiation. But if it's a matter of faith, then why the heck are you trying to argue the case? Arguing is what you do when you think that there's a reasonable case to be made. Faith is what you resort to when you don't have a clue, but are overcome with emotion.
I've been saying this from the beginning, transubstantiation relies on faith. When the faith is there, it occurs. If there is no faith it cannot occur. However, the fact that you do not have faith doesn't prevent transubstantiation from occurring, because it occurs by means of all those who do have faith. So no matter how much you argue against it, you will not prevent it from occurring unless you kill the faith in all of those involved, so that they quit doing it. Good luck with that, but you need a better approach. Claiming that transubstantiation does not occur, just because you don't believe in it, is not the right approach. This is like arguing that because you do not believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist.
Well maybe some Christians told you that, but these Christians obviously are not familiar with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is clearly stated that what is referred to is the substance, that's why it's called transubstantiation. It is also stated that the accidents, which are the sensible properties of the substance remain as those associated with bread and wine. Otherwise the Church would have no way of accounting for the fact that the body and blood of Crist look and taste like bread and wine.
Come on Michael, the Church has been an institution for close to two thousand years. Do you really think that it could have maintained that status by saying something so irrational as what you represent here?
As I say, you are very clearly, and totally wrong here. All you need to do is read some quick information about transubstantiation. Properties are irrelevant here, what we are talking about is substance.
You're being pedantic. The point is that they're not just choosing to use the term "Christ's body" to refer to whatever substance the bread actually has. They're claiming that it has a particular substance.
Your talk about whether or not "it ought to be called the body and blood of Christ, and not some other name" is misplaced. It has nothing to do with what name to use and everything to do with what the facts are.
I fully understand this, and I agree with you. But we are talking about "what the thing is". What I am asking is if you believe that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words, or some other type of symbol? I do not believe there could be. But if you do, I know you probably can't tell me in words what this "what the thing is" would be like, but could you give me some other indication of "what a thing is" which wouldn't be words or symbols?
I don't understand how you could fully understand and agree with what I said, yet respond with the above. Yes, like I said, there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words or some other type of symbol. The thing is what it is. The thing is the thing. If the thing is a cat, then that's what it is. A cat is not a word or a symbol. A cat is a cat. Please don't make the use-mention error. I beg of you.
And so what if I can't tell you that without telling you that? What on earth is that supposed to prove?
This isn't quite right though. The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself, identical with itself. It does not say that a thing is what a thing is, it says that a thing is itself. So we cannot derive "what it is", from the law of identity. That's why we must proceed toward description to derive what the thing is. But I don't think you can have a "what the thing is" without words or some sort of symbols.
This is[/I] quite right though. A thing is identical to itself. What is it? I just told you: a thing. That is explicit within the premise. What, therefore, is it identical to? A thing. What thing? [I]The thing. The thing I just referred to. It is identical to itself. The thing is the thing. It is what it is. The cat is the cat, the fish is the fish, the bread is the bread, the wine is the wine, and the body and blood of Christ is the body and blood of Christ.
If you don't get that, then I fear that there is little hope for you.
Right, now according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Why do you have difficulty with that? Do you not understand what transubstantiation means?
I know that [i]according to the doctrine of transubstantiation[/I] the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. The only "difficulty" I have with that is that it's false if taken literally, as it is supposed to be taken, as a Catholic would maintain, as has been corroborated. And yes, I do understand what transubstantiation means, so we can move on from that, unless you want to dwell on that a little longer. Perhaps you get a kick out of patronising me. I could understand that. But I don't know what your motive is, and I don't really care, to be honest. What matters is the fact that I'm right, you're wrong, and I know that to be the case.
I have a problem with this claim, so I'll be brutally honest. I think you are lying. I don't think you understand what transubstantiation is at all. I think that if you really understood what it means, and thought that it was possible, as you claim, then you couldn't avoid seeing that it is going on all the time. Instead, you do not believe that it happens, therefore I conclude that you lie when you claim to understand it.
Okay, my turn. I think that you think what you do because you're uncharitable and you're either not the brightest bulb in the pack or you let your emotions cloud your good judgement. What you don't see, or refuse to see, is that what is going on all the time is not what the Catholic claims. The Catholic has a conflict of interest. As a Catholic, he or she has committed to that claim, and to commit to that claim in the first place is telling. The Catholic would have to be willing to abandon that which is of central importance to them. That's not just an intellectual matter, but an emotional one.
See, my claim that you are lying is justified. You really know nothing about transubstantiation. It is all about change of substance, as the name implies, and nothing about change of properties, and this is stated in church doctrine. You and Michael both know nothing about transubstantiation.
This shows that it's not just me who you're uncharitable with. I agree with you that it's about substance, and I agree with Michael that you're being pedantic.
I've been saying this from the beginning, transubstantiation relies on faith. When the faith is there, it occurs. If there is no faith it cannot occur.
That's exactly the sort of thing that a brain washer would say, and that is no coincidence. That should send a red flag.
However, the fact that you do not have faith doesn't prevent transubstantiation from occurring, because it occurs by means of all those who do have faith.
No, it really doesn't. But, of course, you don't see that, because you're blinded by your faith. You've actually blinded yourself, it seems, and, furthermore, it seems to me that that's just how you like it.
So no matter how much you argue against it, you will not prevent it from occurring unless you kill the faith in all of those involved, so that they quit doing it. Good luck with that, but you need a better approach. Claiming that transubstantiation does not occur, just because you don't believe in it, is not the right approach. This is like arguing that because you do not believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist.
Yes, I am aware that no amount of arguing will achieve anything if you're arguing with someone who cannot be brought to their senses or reasoned with. If you are such a person, then I should probably give up trying.
Yes, I am aware that no amount of arguing will achieve anything if you're arguing with someone who cannot be brought to their senses or reasoned with. If you are such a person, then I should probably give up trying.
I've been reading this back and forth for several days. I want to make sure I understand your positions. To summarize - Metaphysician Undercover - yer fer transubstantiation. Sapieatia - yer agin it. Is that correct? I'm glad we've finally gotten that clear.
I've been reading this back and forth for several days. I want to make sure I understand your positions. To summarize - Metaphysician Undercover - yer fer transubstantiation. Sapieatia - yer agin it. Is that correct? I'm glad we've finally gotten that clear.
Yes, that's it, give or take a few minor details. :D
You're being pedantic. The point is that they're not just choosing to use the term "Christ's body" to refer to whatever substance the bread actually has. They're claiming that it has a particular substance.
Your talk about whether or not "it ought to be called the body and blood of Christ, and not some other name" is misplaced. It has nothing to do with what name to use and everything to do with what the facts are.
Again, I completely agree.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 03:59#1331530 likes
Right, the topic is substance. You come in and start to talk about properties as if properties were substance. I point out to you that we're talking about substance, not properties. You say I'm being pedantic, as if someone might think that the difference between substance and property is a trivial difference. Confusion with respect to this subject, "transubstantiation", is the result of failing to be pedantic. I thank you for expressing that you think I've demonstrated this virtue.
The point is that they're not just choosing to use the term "Christ's body" to refer to whatever substance the bread actually has. They're claiming that it has a particular substance.
Did you not read what I said about substance? Substance is what a thing, any thing, every thing, is assumed to have. There's no such thing as a particular substance, except as a particular thing, like there is no such thing as a particular existence other than as a particular thing. Substance, and existence are what all things are assumed to have, as things. The substance which a thing actually has can be no different from the substance which a thing is assumed to have, because substance is nothing more than an assumption in the first place, an assumption which is made to account for the claim that the thing has real material existence.
I went through this already. You misrepresented the law of identity. It does not state that a thing is what it is, it states that the thing is the same as itself. What the thing is, is something other than this. If a thing, and "what it is", are one and the same, then a thing would be a form without matter. We must account for the fact that a real thing has material existence. If a thing, and "what it is" were one and the same, then all kinds of imaginary things, like unicorns and such, which have a "what it is" would necessarily be actual things.
The only "difficulty" I have with that is that it's false if taken literally, as it is supposed to be taken, as a Catholic would maintain, as has been corroborated.
As I've explained to you, it is true if taken literally. There are items which are named body and blood of Christ, and these items are body and blood of Christ because that is what they are called. Take that literally! These particular items are referred to by these words, body and blood of Christ. Therefore these items are literally the items which are called body and blood of Christ. That is the literal meaning. There is no falsity here.
You create the falsity by insisting that "body and blood of Christ" must refer to something other than these items. You are not taking it literally, you are insisting on another meaning of "body and blood of Christ". Based on this other meaning, which you refer to, which is not the literal meaning given by the Church, that these items are the items which are called body and blood of Christ, you claim falsity. Therefore it is only by refusing the literal meaning, given by the Church, that these items are literally the items called the body and blood of Christ, and referring to some other meaning, which you conjure up in your mind, that you claim falsity.
I agree with you that it's about substance, and I agree with Michael that you're being pedantic.
Michael's argument relied completely on reference to "properties". You agreed with Michael. Now you agree with me, that we are talking about substance, and not properties. My argument is that if taken literally, transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. You may describe me as a pedant all you want, that's fine because my whole point is that adhering to the literal meaning is necessary for maintaining the validity of the Eucharist. But you seem to be lost, claiming that adhering to the literal meaning renders transubstantiation as false, but then you agree that I am the one being pedantic.
You're still missing my point. You think that the ritual is transubstantiation by fiat. But that's not the case, just as the world wasn't flat by fiat simply because people claimed that the world was flat.
The ritual is transubstantiation if and only if the substance changes, and whether or not the change occurs has nothing to do with what people believe or what people claim or what word people use to describe the ritual. Every Christian might be wrong. The bread is only ever bread and never Christ's body. The wine is only ever wine and never Christ's blood.
This isn't just an argument over nomenclature, which is where you keep going wrong.
I really do no not see any difference still, perhaps you could try again.
If you assess the facts and believe there to be a dog, you will have that belief even if you don't utter it.
If you are a judge and believe the witness to be in contempt of court, he will not be if you don't utter it.
I've said it every way I can. You're going to have to go online and look up the distiction between performative utterances and declarative statements because the distinction is real and not one I've concocted.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here.
The question isn't what the priest's words do to the minds of the congregants, but what it does to the wine and bread. Either the congregants stand in the presence of a miracle or they've been tricked. Are you saying transubstantiation might just be that event where a priest bullshits believers into thinking wine becomes blood?Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred.
This doesn't follow. I get that folks can be tricked into thinking that iron is gold, but the iron doesn't change because they were tricked. Their behavioral changes about the iron doesn't say anything about the iron. It just says something about them and maybe the guy who tricked them.
ProbablyTrueDecember 13, 2017 at 10:10#1332130 likes
It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred.
Clearly the priest's act is performative, because it is by this act that transubstantiation occurs. And, it is also very clear that it is impossible that this act accomplishes nothing, because following this act the participants respect the items as the substance of Christ's body and blood, and proceed to take part in the sacrament. The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here.
It seems MU is saying the act of transubstantiation is completely subjective. By MU's definition, "substance" is an assumption. Therefore, the only things that change are people's assumptions.
Reply to ProbablyTrue And I don't so much have a problem with that, and have pointed it out previously (indicating he was referencing relativistic notions of reality), but that attempt to describe transubstantiation is antithetical to official Church teaching. The Church is saying something actually changed in the bread and wine, even if it can't be empirically verified.
ProbablyTrueDecember 13, 2017 at 10:36#1332220 likes
Reply to Hanover
To be clear, I don't agree with his assessment. I'm just trying to make sense of how this conversation has persisted in these [s]fourteen[/s] pages since I left the debate.
Perhaps a more succinct version of MU's position would be something like this:
Transubstantiation occurs iff communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
There is objective evidence that communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
Therefore, transubstantiation occurs.
Maybe this is missing something? You can correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position Reply to Metaphysician Undercover. I'm not taking up the debate again. Just trying to clarify.
I would expect to see biological evidence of the body and blood of Christ
— Sapientia
Why? That's not what the doctrine claims.
That is exactly what the doctrine claims. That the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the magic of the sacrement.
Why do you think that Luther was so angry?
Why do you think the Anglicans wish to preserve the empty ritual decided to call it "consubstantiation"? And thereby implying that the bread and wine somehow coexisted in with Jesus?
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 11:25#1332310 likes
I'm not deep into the theology of this, but that doesn't seem right, though it may be MU's position. On the other hand, I don't think that transubstantiation quite amounts to ritual magic, such that physical changes occur in the material of the bread and wine.
What is left, for an atheist, is nothing. But for a theist there is another possibility, which is that God sees it differently. 'In the eyes of God' there is a difference, that we can see as a moral difference. It is a real difference, because God cannot be deceived, and hence substantial, but not a physical difference. Thus it is rather in line with holy water, consecrated ground, testimony sworn on the Bible, or the union of marriage. Ritual does nothing physical, and yet transforms the moral significance of things, not merely in the eyes of the faithful, but in the Eyes of God, such that though it might be a virtue to wash one's socks, it would be a sin to use holy water for such mundane purposes.
That is exactly what the doctrine claims. that the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the magic of the sacrement.
I recommend you go back to things you know, such as smoking weed. Clearly, you don't understand what "literarily" means.
means...
But I do understand what 'literally' means.
Can you explain what all the fuss was about when Luther rejected the sacraments or should he also go back to smoking weed?
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 11:42#1332390 likes
It does not state that a thing is what it is, it states that the thing is the same as itself.
Wow. If it states that the thing is the same as itself, then that's what it is. How can you not see that? Let me go through it step by step with you.
Do you see the part where it says, "the thing"? That tells us what it is.
Do you see the part where it says what the thing is? That's the part which begins, "the thing is...".
Do you see the next part where it tells us that it is the same as itself? That part, given the law of noncontradiction, tells us that not only is the thing the same as itself, but it cannot be so yet be a different thing at the same time and in the same respect.
What's more, the thing can be anything, like a cat or a wafer, and the same rules apply.
Why is this relevant? Because from that, we can determine that the wafer is the wafer, and not the body of Christ, and that the wine is the wine, and not the blood of Christ. They are what they are, and they're not what they're not, and there's no good reason to believe that they've somehow magically changed from the one to the other.
You need to be clearer. If you're saying that what a thing is, is something other than itself, then you're contradicting the law of identity, and are therefore mistaken.
If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that to identify a thing of which we do not already know the particulars as a particular thing, then the law of identity won't help, then I agree. That's not what I was saying, and that's not relevant. We already know what the particular things are before the ceremony. We are in agreement that they are wafer and wine. That's what matters. Where we disagree, is that you assert, [i]without good reason[/I], that, at some point during the ceremony, they literally change substance and literally become the body and blood of Christ.
If a thing, and "what it is", are one and the same, then a thing would be a form without matter. We must account for the fact that a real thing has material existence. If a thing, and "what it is" were one and the same, then all kinds of imaginary things, like unicorns and such, which have a "what it is" would necessarily be actual things.
I don't understand how you've arrived at any of those conclusions. It would require explanation, but I'm not sure whether that would help or hinder the discussion, as it might amount to a tangent. I suspect that you've got the wrong end of the stick.
As I've explained to you, it is true if taken literally.
But your explanation fails, and I've explained why your explanation fails. I shared my conclusion that, at best, you can only manufacture a trivial truth as a result of sophistry.
There are items which are named body and blood of Christ, and these items are body and blood of Christ because that is what they are called. Take that literally! These particular items are referred to by these words, body and blood of Christ. Therefore these items are literally the items which are called body and blood of Christ. That is the literal meaning. There is no falsity here.
I've addressed this already. That argument contains a [I]non sequitur[/I], and it uses language deceptively.
We've already been over this. Your argument has been refuted. You're just repeating yourself and sending us around in circles. Remember the following?
Why would the object be bread if it were called something else?
— Metaphysician Undercover
Because calling it something else means only that it would be called something else. It wouldn't change what it is, by which I mean the definition which truly describes the object, which would be the definition of bread. What you're doing is erroneously conflating two distinct things, and the logical consequences of doing that lead to an erroneous stance on the issue.
You create the falsity by insisting that "body and blood of Christ" must refer to something other than these items.
What items? You need to be clearer. We start with a wafer and wine. These items are consumed, and a ceremony is performed. I do not believe that the ceremony changes the items in any way. So we are left with consumed wafer and wine. End of.
If they've been given a different name, then they've been given a different name. That changes nothing other than the name.
Do you understand? Do you understand what Shakespeare meant when he wrote that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Do you accept that calling a cat "a fish" would cause it to grow gills all of a sudden? [B]You need to address this point, instead of evading it. It is very important, because it is a [i]reductio ad absurdum[/I] which refutes your argument[/b].
You are not taking it literally, you are insisting on another meaning of "body and blood of Christ".
No, I am taking it literally, and that's why it is false. Micheal and I are right on this point. It's not about the meaning of "body and blood of Christ". That's not being disputed. I told you what that means, it was in line with a literal interpretation, and you agreed! That should have settled the matter! One way of putting it is as Michael put it to you: it's not about meaning, it's about facts.
Based on this other meaning, which you refer to, which is not the literal meaning given by the Church, that these items are the items which are called body and blood of Christ, you claim falsity.
It [i]is[/I] the literal meaning given by the Church. You agreed to this. Have you since changed your mind? The alternative is contradiction.
I'm not disputing what is meant, I'm disputing that their meaning reflects reality. I think that your confusion arises out of mistaking the latter for the former.
Therefore it is only by refusing the literal meaning, given by the Church, that these items are literally the items called the body and blood of Christ, and referring to some other meaning, which you conjure up in your mind, that you claim falsity.
That conclusion, assuming it follows, follows from false premises, based on a misunderstanding of my position. That conclusion can therefore be rightly disregarded.
Michael's argument relied completely on reference to "properties". You agreed with Michael. Now you agree with me, that we are talking about substance, and not properties.
I know! Shocking isn't it? I was wrong in that respect, so I made a concession. If only you could do likewise! I agree that that was the wrong word to have used. So does Michael. Now it is time to move on.
Can you explain what all the fuss was about when Luther rejected the sacraments or should he also go back to smoking weed?
Luther didn't reject all the sacraments, he just disagreed with the Aristotelian interpretation of transubstantiation which was common in his day. Not to mention that there were times in Luther's life when he agreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation as well.
ProbablyTrueDecember 13, 2017 at 11:54#1332470 likes
It doesn't really seem right to me either. I can't tell if his argument is that transubstantiation is wholly subjective, or that it is objective, but the evidence for it is wholly subjective.
What is left, for an atheist, is nothing. But for a theist there is another possibility, which is that God sees it differently. 'In the eyes of God' there is a difference, that we can see as a moral difference. It is a real difference, because God cannot be deceived, and hence substantial, but not a physical difference. Thus it is rather in line with holy water, consecrated ground, testimony sworn on the Bible, or the union of marriage. Ritual does nothing physical, and yet transforms the moral significance of things, not merely in the eyes of the faithful, but in the Eyes of God, such that though it might be a virtue to wash one's socks, it would be a sin to use holy water for such mundane purposes.
This makes sense. If these things were presented as such, I doubt much debate would arise. It's when the doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it that it gets called into question.
Reply to Agustino
Aristotle said nothing about it, as it had not been invented in his time, living 100s of years before Xist. Aristotle would have called it bollocks too.
The fact was that the blood was taken totransform in substance. the clue is in the word DUH.
There is not one scrap of evidence to think that Luther ever took that to be true.
Obviously Wiki knows more than Agustino.
"Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharistic offering bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.[1] The reaffirmation of this doctrine was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215"
In 1551, the Council of Trent confirmed the doctrine of transubstantiation as Catholic dogma, stating that "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[34]
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 12:43#1332640 likes
Reply to charleton In law, a verbal contract confers a substantial obligation. This cannot be reduced either to a physical change in the environment, or to the brain states or beliefs of the participants, but is a matter of fact to be established by the courts. A matter of fact, but not a matter of physics. The utterance of an agreement changes things. The hammer comes down, and a bid becomes a contract and the contract becomes enforceable. I'm not suggesting that transubstantiation is this exactly, but that ritual functions in a substantial though non physical way in ordinary secular life.
Michael's argument relied completely on reference to "properties".
No it didn't. My argument relies on the distinction between naming a thing and asserting a proposition about a thing. When the Christian describes the ritual as being transubstantiation, they are not just naming the ritual (that would actually be an account of the term "Eucharist"); they are asserting that the substance of the bread and the wine has changed into something else. Whether or not the substance changes isn't determined by fiat or by belief. No matter how many times they claim it to happen, it might not actually happen. They might be wrong. Just as those who claimed that the world is flat were wrong.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 14:00#1332800 likes
I had a bad dream last night. I was back in school and I had to write a paper on transubstantiation. It was the day before the paper was due and I couldn't find any information on it. It was as if it didn't exist.
The ritual is transubstantiation if and only if the substance changes, and whether or not the change occurs has nothing to do with what people believe or what people claim or what word people use to describe the ritual.
Maybe this is missing something? You can correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position
That's about it. And the reason why transubstantiation occurs iff communicants have faith, is that substance is something we assume, to support our observed experience of the temporal continuity of existence. So there is no problem with saying that at any moment, this particular object ceases being bread, and starts being body of Christ, because it just requires shifting our assumptions concerning the temporal continuity of existence.
The further issue though, is what supports our assumption of substance. There is an observed temporal continuity, but why, what supports this? This is where we appeal to God. So if we say that the substance changes from bread to Christ, then without the assumption of God, we can say anything, because it's all human assumptions. With the assumption of God, it is necessary that God goes along with this transubstantiation, to ensure that it's true. Why wouldn't He?
. If it states that the thing is the same as itself, then that's what it is.
You are just asserting "that's what it is", in the very same way that the Church asserts "that's what it is", referring to the articles of the Eucharist. So you're being hypocritical now denying that the Church may do this, when you are doing the very same thing.
But that's not what the law of identity actually says though. Do you understand a difference between the word "same" and the word "what". If I say "X is the same as X", this says nothing about what X is. The word "same" indicates no options. "What" indicates a choice made from options. To say "what a thing is", indicates that one has made a choice from options. What it is, might be bread, might be body of Christ, whatever, "what" implies options.
If you're saying that what a thing is, is something other than itself, then you're contradicting the law of identity, and are therefore mistaken.
I've explained this very clearly to you. It's is absolutely necessary that what a thing is, is other than the thing itself, and this does not contradict the law of identity. It is necessary because all sorts of fictional ideas qualify as "what a thing is", but are not actually things. That is why Aristotle introduced the concept of "substance" into his logic, so we can distinguish fictional things (which are only logical possibilities), from existing things, substantial existence. "What a thing is" does not necessitate that the thing has substantial existence, therefore "what a thing is" is necessarily something other than the thing itself, because the thing itself has substantial existence.
What items? You need to be clearer. We start with a wafer and wine. These items are consumed, and a ceremony is performed. I do not believe that the ceremony changes the items in any way. So we are left with consumed wafer and wine. End of.
You've got the temporal order wrong. The ceremony is first, then the objects are consumed. I went through this with Hanover already. Hanover claimed that the ceremony accomplishes nothing, but clearly it does accomplish something. The attitude of the participants toward the items is changed. And, as I said "substance" is an assumption which we make concerning the physical existence of objects. If the substance of the objects changes, this implies that the assumptions of the people, concerning the objects changes, and therefore the attitudes of the people changes. The substance of the items changes, and the evidence, the change in the people's attitude demonstrates this. Is that so hard to understand?
If you believe in God, then the assumption of substance, which is made by human beings, is supported by God. If you do not believe in God, the assumption of substance is difficult to support, and that's why process philosophy is so popular today. But if you do believe in God, then the belief is that God goes along with transubstantiation to support this change of substance. And there is no reason to believe that God would not support this.
That wasn't the claim I was responding to. I was responding to this:
Why should you believe that the colour of the sky ought to be called "blue", and not some other name? Faith. Why should you believe that the items of the Eucharist ought to be called body and blood of Christ, and not some other name? Faith. There is no substantial difference between these two examples.
There's a difference between calling the colour of the sky "blue" (an act of naming) and calling the items of the Eucharist "the body and blood of Christ" (an act of asserting a proposition).
And I was also responding (albeit indirectly) to this:
That's not even an issue. Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. So the question is what is transubstantiation. To ask whether transubstantiation occurs, is to deny the fact in skepticism, then ask whether the fact is a fact. It's a pointless exercise because one will inevitably come to the conclusion, yes there is something which is going on which is called transubstantiation. Now let's proceed to see what this thing, transubstantiation, is. So it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can refuse to take part in the ceremony if you have no faith in it, but that doesn't matter. Unless everyone refuses, then it will still be going on, and there will still be something called transubstantiation, and therefore transubstantiation will still be a fact.
Transubstantiation (unlike the Eucharist) isn't the sort of thing that is established by fiat. One cannot simply dictate that the substance of the bread becomes the body of Christ, just as one cannot simply dictate that the shape of the Earth is flat.
Your argument fails to understand the distinction between a claim like "this planet is Mars" and a claim like "this planet is round".
Reply to unenlightened This is the exact conversation that I've been having with MU, although he doesn't seem to accept the analogy you've provided. I don't necessarily see a problem with the way you've characterized it to give the event personal meaning, but from what I've read about the Catholic doctrine, the Church isn't so willing to back away from there being an actual physical change to the bread and wine.
If a priest says "I now pronounce you man and wife," he has changed the status of the parties, but he hasn't changed the parties in any substantial way. Part of religious doctrine related to marriage is that the man and woman become a single flesh, which might have metaphorical implications, but certainly literally they do not. While we can say that the priest is fully empowered to change the legal relationship between the man and woman, he cannot change their physical state by melding their flesh by his simple utterance.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 14:25#1332860 likes
There's a difference between calling the colour of the sky "blue" (an act of naming) and calling the items of the Eucharist "the body and blood of Christ" (an act of asserting a proposition).
As I said with Hanover, I don't recognize the distinction you are making. To assert the proposition "this item is the body of Christ", is nothing other than to name the item as the body of Christ. A proposition is by nature a proposal, and no matter how it is asserted, it may be rejected. So your use of "asserting" here is just a red herring.
Transubstantiation (unlike the Eucharist) isn't the sort of thing that is established by fiat. One cannot simply dictate that the substance of the bread becomes the body of Christ, just as one cannot simply dictate that the shape of the Earth is flat.
Are you familiar with the term "substance"? It appears like you are not.
So, it strikes me that the philosophical grounds for this argument (as I really don't think anyone here is considering changing their minds on the idea of transubstantiation) is what originally was presented in the Shoutbox.
The question is: Do those accepting of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation employ a different epistemological standard for their beliefs than the materialists?
It seemed the thrust of much of the previous debate was that there was some level of logical inconsistency on the part of materialists in rejecting (and even ridiculing) transubstantiation as not being properly rooted epistemologically because both sides are using inherently faith based systems.
Not only do I think this is wrong, but I think the Catholic Church doesn't even present this argument. The official doctrine is described as follows: "The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."[5]:1333 The precise terminology to be used to refer to the nature of the Eucharist, and its theological implications, has a contentious history especially in the Protestant Reformation.[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
That is to say, transubstantiation surpasses understanding, meaning it does not make sense to us mere mortals. It's a mystery. It cannot be known. It therefore is accepted just as a doctrine, not subject to invalidation, and not something that can be derived by observation of the world. It is distinct among events, and it is therefore logical and consistent for a materialist to reject it on the basis of it lacking the epistemological basis consistently relied upon by the materialist.
As I said with Hanover, I don't recognize the distinction you are making. To assert the proposition "this item is the body of Christ", is nothing other than to name the item as the body of Christ. A proposition is by nature a proposal, and no matter how it is asserted, it may be rejected. So your use of "asserting" here is just a red herring.
That you don't recognize the distinction doesn't mean there's not one though. You're just indicating your inability to understand. The Catholic Church claims that the utterances of the priest result in the metaphysical alteration of the bread in an actual way. Those utterances would alter the substance even if the name remained the same and the substance would be whatever it is even if it lacked a name.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 14:34#1332890 likes
If a priest says "I now pronounce you man and wife," he has changed the status of the parties, but he hasn't changed the parties in any substantial way.
I disagree. The substantial change is that sexual relations that were formerly sinful become a sacrament and duty. The legal aspects give a way to approach things from a secular view, but trying to understand transubstantiation without God, and without granting substance to moral condition is not really possible.
Has anyone else noticed that 'substance' and 'understanding' are almost identical? What's that about?
Reply to unenlightened By "substantial," I mean something changed to the actual substance of the bread and wine, or, in my analogy, the substance of the man and wife. It is not just a change in status.
"The Catholic Church understands the real, objective presence of Christ as coming about by the replacement of the substance of the bread and wine with the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, with no change in the accidental properties of the bread and wine—such as its appearances, color, and shape; the change in substance is known as transubstantiation.[9"
"The Catholic Church understands the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as real, that is to say, objective and not dependent on faith."
The Catholic Church claims that the utterances of the priest result in the metaphysical alteration of the bread in an actual way. Those utterances would alter the substance even if the name remained the same and the substance would be whatever it is even if it lacked a name.
This is nonsense, the utterance are the name change. You are proposing a scenario in which the name change occurs (the utterances), without the name change occurring.
In the case of a named article, the name represents the substance, that's why an object can undergo changes while maintaining the same name. Transubstantiation occurs by the power of the Word. The priest changes the name, God goes along with this and changes the substance. If God changed the substance of something, and the name for it didn't change, we would have no way of knowing that the substance changed.
If God changed the substance of something, and the name for it didn't change, we would have no way of knowing that the substance changed.
That's an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one, but not even correct. We could know the substance changed by its behavior prior to altering its name.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover Are you going to address the rest of my post? Because there are some important parts, and one part of particular importance which I emphasised, that you've decided to leave unaddressed.
I haven't even read your reply yet, only skimmed over it. It's [I]quid pro quo[/I] or nothing. Take it or leave it.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 14:58#1332950 likes
To assert the proposition "this item is the body of Christ", is nothing other than to name the item as the body of Christ.
No it isn't. Just as to assert the proposition "I have £1,000,000 in my bank account" isn't just me naming the amount in my bank account (which is actually less than £1,000,000). If I were to assert such a thing then I would be wrong. And so the same could be the case for the Christian asserting that the item is the body of Christ. He's wrong if the item isn't what he says it is (and Sap's saying that it isn't; it's just bread, nothing more).
There is a difference between claiming that the facts are such that X is Y and stipulating that the term "Y" is being used to refer to X.
Just as to assert the proposition "I have £1,000,000 in my bank account" isn't just me naming the amount in my bank account (which is actually less than £1,000,000).
That's completely different, it's predication, stating a property of your bank account, it's not naming an object. The example is not relevant.
That's completely different, it's predication, stating a property of your bank account, it's not naming an object. The example is not relevant.
And in the case of the Eucharist, it's not just naming an object. The Christian isn't simply stipulating that he's using the term "the blood of Christ" to refer to the wine. He's saying that the facts are such that the wine satisfies the pre-established meaning of the term "the blood of Christ". His claim isn't true by fiat.
The doctrine of transubstantiation isn't just a terminological one.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 15:09#1333000 likes
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover But you think likewise, and I wouldn't believe you if you said any different. Plus you've been very uncharitable, yet I set that aside and got stuck in. All I ask is that you do as I have done, tit for tat. Not leaving out large and important chunks. That's only fair.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 15:14#1333020 likes
By "substantial," I mean something changed to the actual substance of the bread and wine, or, in my analogy, the substance of the man and wife. It is not just a change in status.
Yes, of course you do, but 'actual substance' doesn't 'actually' clarify what is meant. If the 'substance' of your claim is that 'substantial' means 'material' then I think you are substantially mistaken. There is a substantial difference between being married and being single. Plumbers marry female connectors to male connectors, and assembled plumbing is substantially different to disassembled plumbing despite the materials being the same. We call these differences emergent properties.
But again, secular examples are simply preliminary arguments that seek to open the conceptual way to a more charitable understanding of something that is not coming from a materialist perspective in the first place.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 15:15#1333040 likes
He's saying that the facts are such that the bread satisfies the pre-established meaning of the term "the blood of Christ". His claim isn't true by fiat.
Right, the pre-established meaning appears to be what the Church has established, and this is that the items referred to are in fact, the body and blood of Christ. You're like Sapientia, are trying to reach, in equivocation, for some other meaning. But this is the meaning you, or Sapientia attempt to establish, and therefore not the pre-established meaning.
Right, the pre-established meaning appears to be what the Church has established, and this is that the items referred to are in fact, the body and blood of Christ. You're like Sapientia, are trying to reach, in equivocation, for some other meaning. But this is the meaning you, or Sapientia attempt to establish, and therefore not the pre-established meaning.
You're making no sense.
I can't make it the case that the water in my glass is the blood of Zeus just by saying that it is, or by creating a religion and having others perform some ritual and claim that the water is the blood of Zeus.
Claims of transubstantiation are more than just word games. If you can't understand that then this discussion will go nowhere.
You are making Michael's mistake, mixing up properties for substance.
Nope, I've got that straight. The accidental properties remain unchanged but an essential change to the substance occurs, thus rooting this whole discussion in ancient Greek philosophy, I assume to offer an explanation for why there is nothing empirically verifiable when transubstantiation occurs.
Regardless, I don't see how this is responsive to what I said, which is that a substantial change can occur without a name change, as I don't see how linguistic theory impacts metaphysical change.
In fact, I don't know you deal with the problem that any time anyone says any set of special words over a physical object that changes the attitudes of those hearing it that something mysterious won't happen to that physical object.
If I say "Alacazam" over a rock and everyone thinks I have a rock that contains the blood of Moses, is the rock now different?
But you think likewise, and I wouldn't believe you if you said any different. Plus you've been very uncharitable, yet I set that aside and got stuck in.
If the 'substance' of your claim is that 'substantial' means 'material' then I think you are substantially mistaken.
It doesn't have to be material, but it has to be some substance in the wafer that changed. If wafers have spirits or some non-material composition, that has to actually change. No one says a man changes in literal substance when married (except maybe he gets fat and gives up the notion of happiness). As I see it, you're changing from a literal to a figurative definition of substance. I'm using it literally, but I'm not committed to it being material.
You think I'm very uncharitable, I think you are extremely uncharitable. So there!
Okay. You win a point. Congratulations. But my request is for you to set that aside and get stuck in, as I have done. I will try to be charitable if you do likewise. Like I said, [I]quid pro quo[/I]. The offer still stands. The ball is in your court.
Would you rather continue the discussion topic or discuss the discussion itself?
Reply to Michael We created the same analogy cross posting where I used the blood of Moses and you used the blood of Zeus in an amazing moment of synchronicity. I now believe in transubstantiation. There's more out there than either of us know.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 15:27#1333140 likes
I can't make it the case that the water in my glass is the blood of Zeus just by saying that it is, or by creating a religion and having others perform some ritual and claim that the water is the blood of Zeus.
I know, you need the will of God to assist you. If everyday you refer to that item as the blood of Zeus, and everyone else around you refers to it as the blood of Zeus, you will keep thinking, it's not really the blood of Zeus, it's really just water. But if by the will of God, it is the blood of Zeus, and you have faith in this, then you will believe that it is the blood of Zeus. And of course, it really is the blood of Zeus, by the will of God.
I know, you need the will of God to assist you. If everyday you refer to that item as the blood of Zeus, and everyone else around you refers to it as the blood of Zeus, you will keep thinking, it's not really the blood of Zeus, it's really just water. But if by the will of God, it is the blood of Zeus, and you have faith in this, then you will believe that it is the blood of Zeus. And of course, it really is the blood of Zeus, by the will of God.
Then you accept that it is false to argue that transubstantiation happens by fiat simply because the Church says it does. Your arguments are a non sequitur.
For transubstantiation to occur the wine must actually turn into the blood of Christ, which requires divine intervention – something that many will say never happens (and, of course, divine intervention doesn't happen just because the Church says it does).
Glad we got there in the end.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 15:37#1333170 likes
The accidental properties remain unchanged but an essential change to the substance occurs, thus rooting this whole discussion in ancient Greek philosophy, I assume to offer an explanation for why there is nothing empirically verifiable when transubstantiation occurs.
Ok, now you've distinguished between accidental properties and essential properties. A change to essential properties doesn't constitute a change in substance, it constitute a change in the type of object, the substance would stay the same.
I don't see how this is responsive to what I said, which is that a substantial change can occur without a name change, as I don't see how linguistic theory impacts metaphysical change.
Since "substantial change" is something we judge, and somewhat arbitrarily, according to our principles of judgement, I don't see how you can support that claim, unless you appeal to God to support this type of substantial change. Then like I said, God could make a substantial change which we wouldn't even notice.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 15:44#1333180 likes
But my request is for you to set that aside and get stuck in, as I have done.
I don't like that phrase "get stuck in". What do you mean by that? I only conjure up an image of being Catholic, and being "stuck in" this sacrament, without the will power, nor capacity, to free myself from it.
So for now, I will reply to what interests me and not get "stuck in" to something that I might regret later, like quicksand. In case you're not there to pull me out.
I don't like that phrase "get stuck in". What do you mean by that? I only conjure up an image of being Catholic, and being "stuck in" this sacrament, without the will power, nor capacity, to free myself from it.
So for now, I will reply to what interests me and not get "stuck in" to something that I might regret later, like quicksand. In case you're not there to pull me out.
Okay, but unfortunately for you, I think that it's too late for that. I think that you got yourself stuck in the quicksand early on, and I would be surprised if you managed to get yourself out of it. I did offer you my hand, but you rejected it. There may still be hope for you yet, as Hanover and Michael are here, continuing on without me: their one true leader.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 15:52#1333210 likes
It doesn't have to be material, but it has to be some substance in the wafer that changed. If wafers have spirits or some non-material composition, that has to actually change. No one says a man changes in literal substance when married (except maybe he gets fat and gives up the notion of happiness). As I see it, you're changing from a literal to a figurative definition of substance. I'm using it literally, but I'm not committed to it being material.
Ok. Now imagine being a moral realist. The marriage ceremony makes a real, literal, substantial, actual, change in the moral landscape.
Likewise, just as you say, the non-material composition of the wafer is actually changed: - but this does not mean that one can detect human or Godly DNA that wasn't there before.
Not that I personally subscribe to any of this, you understand, but I think I can defend that it makes sense at least, in the context of there being moral and spiritual aspects of reality.
This makes sense. If these things were presented as such, I doubt much debate would arise. It's when the doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it that it gets called into question.
Agreed.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 15:55#1333230 likes
Then you accept that it is false to argue that transubstantiation happens simply because the Church says it does. Your arguments are a non sequitur.
It's not "simply" because the Church says so, nothing with the Church is simple, but it is because the Church says so. God follows the word of the Church. The Church requests this from God, and God gives. Therefore what the Church says is the cause of the occurrence. It's like requesting something in prayer, which comes true. God is the immediate cause of that thing occurring, but God does this in response to the prayer, so the prayer is the cause of the occurrence.
The Church requests this from God, and God gives. Therefore what the Church says is the cause of the occurrence. It's like requesting something in prayer, which comes true. God is the immediate cause of that thing occurring, but God does this in response to the prayer, so the prayer is the cause of the occurrence.
Right, so your original arguments were non sequiturs. You're accepting now that transubstantiation requires divine intervention. But that there is a God who intervenes in such a way is certainly something that can be argued against.
That's not even an issue. Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. So the question is what is transubstantiation. To ask whether transubstantiation occurs, is to deny the fact in skepticism, then ask whether the fact is a fact. It's a pointless exercise because one will inevitably come to the conclusion, yes there is something which is going on which is called transubstantiation. Now let's proceed to see what this thing, transubstantiation, is. So it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can refuse to take part in the ceremony if you have no faith in it, but that doesn't matter. Unless everyone refuses, then it will still be going on, and there will still be something called transubstantiation, and therefore transubstantiation will still be a fact.
The Church might say that transubstantiation happens, but if there isn't a God who changes the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, then the Church is wrong, and transubstantiation isn't a fact.
I'm not suggesting that transubstantiation is this exactly, but that ritual functions in a substantial though non physical way in ordinary secular life.
Transubstantiation is a nonsense. The question here is what nonsense is believed by Catholics.
It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality. It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation. This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide.
Ok, now you've distinguished between accidental properties and essential properties. A change to essential properties doesn't constitute a change in substance, it constitute a change in the type of object, the substance would stay the same.
Alright, so you have an object, a cracker. It's accidently made of wheat and essentially made of crackerness. The priest says his prayer and now it's essentially made of Jesusness and accidently made of wheat. The substance has changed. It's now made of Jesusness and wheat whereas it used to be made of crackerness and wheat. I get that Jesusness and crackerness aren't necessarily made of matter because essences are a bit mysterious, but it's not a regular old cracker any more, right? Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Since "substantial change" is something we judge, and somewhat arbitrarily, according to our principles of judgement, I don't see how you can support that claim, unless you appeal to God to support this type of substantial change. Then like I said, God could make a substantial change which we wouldn't even notice.
I don't know that we can never judge a substantial change, mostly because I don't know what happens when you pepper something with essence.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 16:11#1333300 likes
Right, so your original arguments were non sequiturs. You're accepting now that transubstantiation requires divine intervention. And that there is a God who intervenes in such a way is certainly something that can be argued against.
No, there's no non-sequitur, because the arguments hold with or without God. Without God, substance is a human assumption, it is whatever we say it is. With God, substance is assumed to have objectivity. Divine intervention just provides objectivity to transubstantiation.
See, you still haven't demonstrated a difference between asserting something as fact, and what is really fact. If something is supposed to be fact, this means that it has somehow been judged as fact. If the judgement is not made by God, then it is made by humans. So if God is not the one judging that the items are body and blood of Christ, then it is humans who are making that judgement. Either way, the argument holds. To assume God is to assume real objectivity, to assume human judgement is to assume objectivity by means of inter-subjectivity.
No, there's no non-sequitur, because the arguments hold with or without God. Without God, substance is a human assumption, it is whatever we say it is. With God, substance is assumed to have objectivity. Divine intervention just provides objectivity to transubstantiation.
See, you still haven't demonstrated a difference between asserting something as fact, and what is really fact. If something is supposed to be fact, this means that it has somehow been judged as fact. If the judgement is not made by God, then it is made by humans. So if God is not the one judging that the items are body and blood of Christ, then it is humans who are making that judgement. Either way, the argument holds. To assume God is to assume real objectivity, to assume human judgement is to assume objectivity by means of inter-subjectivity.
When the Christian claims that transubstantiation occurs he is claiming that the bread's objective substance changes into the objective substance of Christ's body. He isn't just claiming that this is his (inter-)subjective judgement. Therefore if there isn't a God who changes the bread's objective substance into the objective substance of Christ's body then the Christian's claim is false. Transubstantiation, as he means by it, never happens.
It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality. It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation. This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide.
Yep. That's the cold hard truth.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 16:26#1333370 likes
Alright, so you have an object, a cracker. It's accidently made of wheat and essentially made of crackerness. The priest says his prayer and now it's essentially made of Jesusness and accidently made of wheat. The substance has changed. It's now made of Jesusness and wheat whereas it used to be made of crackerness and wheat. I get that Jesusness and crackerness aren't necessarily made of matter because essences are a bit mysterious, but it's not a regular old cracker any more, right?
To begin with, that the object is a cracker, is a judgement. So let's just say we have an object. That it is an object requires that it has substance. Therefore we assume that it has substance. You judge it as essentially crackerness. This is a judgement made from your perception of its properties. That judgement says nothing about its substance. Since the object is essentially crackerness to you, you claim its substance is the substance of a cracker. The priest tells you its substance is now the substance of Christ, regardless of how you judge its properties. So if you have faith, you follow, and accept this. For you, being one of faith, the substance of the object is now the substance of Christ. And it is a fact because God ensures that it is a fact. Without God, any assertion that X is a fact, amounts to nothing more than a hocus pocus language game.
When the Christian claims that transubstantiation occurs he is claiming that the bread's objective substance changes into the objective substance of Christ's body. He isn't just claiming that this is his (inter-)subjective judgement. Therefore if there isn't a God who changes the bread's objective substance into the objective substance of Christ's body then the Christian's claim is false.
I don't recall any reference to "objective" or "objectivity" in the claims of the Church. That's the term I was using to describe the difference between whether or not there is a God. The Church claims that it is fact, and as I demonstrated, it is fact whether or not there is a God. God makes it a truly objective fact, while the lack of God makes it a fact by means of inter-subjectivity. Without God we have no facts other than those provided by inter-subjectivity.
I don't recall any reference to "objective" or "objectivity" in the claims of the Church.
"The presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective. Ontological, because it takes place in the order of being; objective, because it does not depend on the thoughts or feelings of the minister or the communicants. The body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament by reason of the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, which are attached to the proper performance of the rite by a duly ordained minister. In so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that brings about Christ’s presence in the sacrament. According to Catholic teaching, faith does not make Christ present, but gratefully acknowledges that presence and allows Holy Communion to bear fruit in holiness. To receive the sacrament without faith is unprofitable, even sinful, but the lack of faith does not render the presence unreal" - Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial, Avery Dulles (Jesuit priest, theologian, and cardinal of the Catholic Church)
BuxtebuddhaDecember 13, 2017 at 16:45#1333470 likes
I have to wonder how many here have sifted through the hundreds, thousands of pages of Christian theology that pertains to one of Christianity's most essential mysteries. Getting through many of the scholastic theologians who articulated transubstantiation the most clearly is an absolute chore. Everybody here seems to be winging it as it goes.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 16:45#1333480 likes
if there isn't a God [...] then the Christian's claim is false.
And if there is, then the atheist's claim is false. I doubt we can resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction here. In which case, the best one can do is to try and understand how such positions are and are not coherent in their own terms.
It is pointless arguing about the meaning of substance or reality.
It is a plain and simple fact that the Catholic Church in its arrogance codified in ecclesiastical law a massive deception upon the people that their priests had the exclusive ability to mobilise divine forces to physically transform ordinary bread and wine in into the flesh and blood of Jesus, with the claim that failure to enter church and receive (with due payments) that sacrament would put the person in jeopardy of salvation.
This deception still holds much sway over millions of people world-wide.
— charleton
Yep. That's the cold hard truth.
It seems a bit heated to me. It is at least a charitable and likely assumption that most of the Catholic Church do not intend to deceive, but genuinely believe the tenets of their faith. Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's.
And if there is, then the atheist's claim is false. I doubt we can resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction here.
Sure. But I'm not trying to argue against transubstantiation. I'm trying to argue against this claim by Metaphysician Undiscover:
That's not even an issue. Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. So the question is what is transubstantiation. To ask whether transubstantiation occurs, is to deny the fact in skepticism, then ask whether the fact is a fact. It's a pointless exercise because one will inevitably come to the conclusion, yes there is something which is going on which is called transubstantiation. Now let's proceed to see what this thing, transubstantiation, is. So it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can refuse to take part in the ceremony if you have no faith in it, but that doesn't matter. Unless everyone refuses, then it will still be going on, and there will still be something called transubstantiation, and therefore transubstantiation will still be a fact.
It is simply false to say that transubstantiation occurs by fiat. MU needs to do more than argue that because the Church says that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ then it must be so.
Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's.
I have to wonder how many here have sifted through the hundreds, thousands of pages of Christian theology that pertains to one of Christianity's most essential mysteries. Getting through many of the scholastic theologians who articulated transubstantiation the most clearly is an absolute chore. Everybody here seems to be winging it as it goes.
Ooh, yes. Very mysterious. Should we dedicate the same amount of time and effort towards the great mystery of the celestial teapot? What if there were hundreds of thousands of pages of celestial teapotology to sift through?
Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's.
It seems a bit heated to me. It is at least a charitable and likely assumption that most of the Catholic Church do not intend to deceive, but genuinely believe the tenets of their faith.
Whether it's intentional or not, deception is what it is. Or, if that term's problematic, then swap it for another one. Wouldn't that be the charitable thing to do, since you brought up that old chestnut? The bottom line is that these people are under an illusion, and the Church propagates this illusion.
Reply to Sapientia An incredible comment. You must be joking, and yet obviously you're not.
Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 17:38#1333550 likes
The presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective.
The presence of Christ is real whether or not God exists, but what "real" means differs accordingly. That something is "true", "fact", or "real" requires a judgement. If it is not God which makes this judgement then it is human beings.
In so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that brings about Christ’s presence in the sacrament.
I agree, the church would stipulate that it is God which brings this about. But for the atheist there is no God. For the atheist what is "real" is so by human judgement (including assumptions that there is reality without human judgement, which itself is a human judgement). So that there is reality, for the atheist, requires faith in human judgement. And, by the same means that any reality is real for the atheist, faith, the presence of Christ in the sacrament is also real.
Of course the Church rejects that faith is the means by which Christ is present, because the Church recognizes the role of God in this occurrence. But for those of us who do not recognize God as real, the presence of Christ in the sacrament, is just as real as anything else. This is because without God, our entire reality is based on faith in human judgement. And, without God, so is the presence of Christ in the sacrament, real by faith in human judgement. So even for the atheist, the presence of Christ is real, in the same sense that anything else is real, it is real by faith.
The difference being that the faith is not attributable to the atheist, it is only attributable to the participant. So the atheist only claims that the judgements which I have faith in are more real than the judgements which you have faith in. Of course one human judgement is not more real than another, so this is not a proper approach. The proper approach is to argue that one judgement is better than another.
It would be fact if God existed, and if God did so, but God doesn't, so God can't.
If God doesn't exist, then the only way that fact is determined is human judgement. That there is fact independent of human judgement is a matter of faith, if there is no God. So if there is no God, then whether or not transubstantiation is a matter of fact, is determined by human judgement. The Fathers of the Church are in a much better position to make this judgement than you are. And if you suppose that there is a "fact" of this matter which is independent from human judgement, then this "fact" is solely a matter of faith.
And incredible comment. You must be joking, and yet obviously you're not.
Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people.
Does that answer my question about arrogance? You expressed your wholehearted agreement with a comment that was about arrogance, so it is fair to question what relevance arrogance has to who is right and who is wrong. But since you've chosen not to answer, I will answer it myself. It has no relevance to who is right and who is wrong. I could be arrogant and right, arrogant and wrong, humble and right, or humble and wrong.
Now, going back to what really matters, which is who is right and who is wrong - I have already said a great deal about that. So, what do you expect from me? That I restart the whole discussion from scratch?
Reply to Sapientia I didn't respond to it because it was a silly point, and since you know I'm an intelligent person, you must know my answer: obviously you could be arrogant and right. I happen to think you are. But that's irrelevant to the point unenlightened was making.
I didn't respond to it because it was a silly point, and since you know I'm an intelligent person, you must know my answer: obviously you could be arrogant and right. I happen to think you are. But that's irrelevant to the point unenlightened was making.
It wasn't a silly point. I think that that's a silly thing to say, in addition to being unnecessary and provocative, which is just what you reproached me for doing earlier.
It's not irrelevant, and I addressed his point.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 17:49#1333600 likes
You tell me, since you applauded its use as the cold hard truth.
I didn't applaud anything. Isn't it interesting how words can be manipulated to your advantage like that? I said it how it is. The cold hard truth is the cold hard truth, whether it is stated arrogantly or modestly. And that is itself the cold hard truth.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 17:58#1333620 likes
So the cold hard truth is an ad hom pontification? In my roundabout way, I am disagreeing with you that what you quoted is cold, hard or true. Rather it is heated, wet, and false. It also fails utterly to even address the question because the whole thing is an ad hom.
In my roundabout way, I am disagreeing with you that what you quoted is cold, hard or true. Rather it is heated, wet, and false. It also fails utterly to even address the question because the whole thing is an ad hom.
Well, we'd have to actually go into details. So, what is it, specifically, that you're claiming is false? What is it, specifically, that you're claiming is of no relevance? And why do you think that that's the case?
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 18:47#1333690 likes
Not me! If we can't get the details of who brought up what agreed, details are going to be beyond us.
Ok, fine. You've established that it wasn't you. But let's all stop talking about arrogance, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 19:05#1333720 likes
Reply to Sapientia I'm happy to let the whole post alone as a somewhat unpleasant irrelevance. It was only your endorsement of it that provoked me to respond to it at all.
I'm happy to let the whole post alone as a somewhat unpleasant irrelevance. It was only your endorsement of it that provoked me to respond to it at all.
Agreement, not endorsement. And what I was agreeing with was more than that one minor detail which we've been unduly focussing on. I mean, really? A single word?
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 19:23#1333810 likes
Agreement, not endorsement. And what I was agreeing with was more than that one minor detail which we've been unduly focussing on.
Oh, the irony!
endorsement
?n?d??sm(?)nt,?n?d??sm(?)nt/Submit
noun
1.
the action of endorsing someone or something.
"the issue of full independence received overwhelming endorsement"
synonyms: support, backing, approval, seal of approval, agreement, acceptance, recommendation, advocacy, championship, patronage; affirmation, confirmation, authorization, authentication, ratification, sanction, warrant, validation, licence; rubber stamp; informalthe nod, the thumbs up, the OK
"the proposal received their overwhelming endorsement".
Let's spend a few pages wondering whether you agreed or endorsed, and whether one can declare an agreement that does not constitute an endorsement. Or perhaps not. I think I'll leave you to imagine that, and all the other details we might go into.
Let's spend a few pages wondering whether you agreed or endorsed, and whether one can declare an agreement that does not constitute an endorsement. Or perhaps not. I think I'll leave you to imagine that, and all the other details we might go into.
So predictable. That they are listed as synonyms does not mean that their meanings or connotations are identical. I think that you know this, and that you are choosing these words on purpose precisely because of their connotations. First it was "applaud", now "endorsement". What next? Cheering it on? The word "agreement" will do just fine, if that's okay with you. And I'll remind you that it is a fallacy to appeal to emotion. Given that you think that the original comment is heated, wet, and false, it would of course be in your interest to make it appear as though I support it more than I do, so that it appears as though I am guilty by association, in the hope that it might save you the trouble of having to dig any deeper into any more substantive content contained therein.
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2017 at 20:29#1334110 likes
it would of course be in your interest to make it appear as though I support it more than I do,
No it wouldn't, because I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transubstantiation. You agree with what you quoted, you support it (your word) to the extent of claiming its truth, but you neither applaud nor endorse it. Fine. But let's all stop talking about endorsement, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake. I mean, really? A single word?
No it wouldn't, because I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transubstantiation.
I know you want to have the last word, but so do I.
It would be in your interest, not for that reason, but for the reason that I gave: because you think that what was said was, in your own words, heated, wet, and false.
I'll remind you that I gave you the opportunity to elaborate with regards to your claim of falsity, and that might have set us on off in a more linear direction, but you did not answer my question. You were too caught up about that of which we should not speak, for sake of goodness.
As a young, devout RC with a very questioning mind I used to be tortured by transubstantiation. My devotion said I MUST believe in it (by which I mean that the consecrated host is actually the body of Christ - I acknowledge that a number of other meanings of transubstantiation have been used above), but my analysis of it said it could not make sense.
Now, being older, no longer RC and having since encountered Aristotle's Essentialism, I can see that that angst was unnecessary. If one accepts Essentialism - that every object has a metaphysical 'essence' which is what it really 'is', and which is only accidentally and unreliably associated with its sensible properties. If one accepts that then transubstantiation is simply the act of replacing one object with another that has the same sensible properties as the first but a different essence.
In a recent thread I opined to MU that the gulf between Aristotelians and non-Aristotelians was greater, more fundamental, than the gulf between theists and non-theists.
For an Aristotelian, transubstantiation is no contradiction at all. It fits in fine to the metaphysical framework. If one is not then it doesn't, and one rejects it. I'm not, and I reject it, but I don't think those that accept it are in cognitive dissonance, as they just have a different (Aristotelian) worldview within which it makes sense.
Here's my question then: Is there any more to it than that?
And - a supplementary question: if there is no more to it than that, why did the scholastics feel the need to write thousands of pages about it (and a nineteen-page thread about it to pop up while I was asleep!)? Why not just summarise the Aristotelian doctrine of Essences (which can be done in a single paragraph) and then say the last sentence of the second para above? Was it perhaps that they were focusing on how or why the transub happened, and what its consequences were, rather than trying to prove that it could happen?
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 22:17#1334660 likes
If one accepts Essentialism - that every object has a metaphysical 'essence' which is what it really 'is', and which is only accidentally and unreliably associated with its sensible properties.
It's not quite essentialism which is at play here, because it is the concept of substance which the Church latches on to. The reason why there has been so much to debate on the subject is that "substance" is left rather ambiguous by Aristotle. It is introduced to "substantiate" logic. But Aristotle discusses "substance" in a primary sense, as well as "substance" in a secondary sense. In the secondary sense, it appears to substantiate "what a thing is", referring to its species (and this might be what you refer to with essentialism). But in the primary sense "substance" substantiates "that a thing is", referring to its material existence.
Here's my question then: Is there any more to it than that?
The varying worldviews here are fundamentally different, and a worldview provides the basis for any epistemology, so the potential ramifications with respect to human knowledge are broad. Consider, as I said earlier in the thread, that one could adopt the premise of process philosophy, and deny the need for substance altogether. This would completely avoid the need to consider the reality of substance.
However, as the most influential process philosophers have found out, there is an aspect of reality which I would describe as a temporal continuity of sameness, which needs to be accounted for. If we do not have "substance" as Aristotle suggests, or God as the theologians suggest, to account for this, we'll just end up turning to some other mystical principle. How we account for this continuity will influence our knowledge concerning the world. For instance, Newton's laws of motion take this temporal continuity for granted, as inertia, in the first law. If it can be demonstrated that the temporal continuity of massive (substantial) existence ought not be taken for granted, then Newton's first law is undermined as unsound.
Consider, as I said earlier in the thread, that one could adopt the premise of process philosophy, and deny the need for substance altogether.
If by process philosophy you have in mind the sort of thing proposed by Whitehead, then that would be my approach. Was it him or somebody else that said an object is just a slow event?
A similar (seemingly, to me) approach that comes from a very different heritage is that of Nagarjuna, who makes intricate quadrilemmic arguments that the notion of substance is incoherent. I don't agree with his arguments, finding them logically flawed, although I agree with his conclusion. Nagarjuna was not arguing against Aristotle. I expect he had never come across his writings. He was arguing against the prevailing Indian philosophies of his time. But those philosophies seem to have similarities with Aristotle.
A Nagarjunan phrase I really like (heavily paraphrased) is that each object, living or not, is just what the universe is doing at that time and place. Alan Watts says it is the universe waving (to whom? to itself, would be my guess). Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
we'll just end up turning to some other mystical principle
Yes, we need to turn to something mystical. 'Principle' sounds a bit too concrete for me - as if a 'mystical principle' might be an oxymoron. I would think that we just turn towards (contemplate, meditate upon) 'the fundamental incomprehensibility of the universe', which is a lovely phrase I picked up from a fictional philosophical book written by the Abbé something-or-other, that was being read by the heroine Flora Poste in 'Cold Comfort Farm'.
I would say that Newton's laws, and any other scientific theory, are rules of thumb that have worked well for us. Like the Hong Kong Dollar exchange rate, it is something that remains very stable until it stops doing so. So it seems to make sense to proceed on the basis that the stability will continue, while the more philosophical will bear in mind that the stability could cease at any instant.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 13, 2017 at 23:05#1334790 likes
A similar (seemingly, to me) approach that comes from a very different heritage is that of Nagarjuna, who makes intricate quadrilemmic arguments that the notion of substance is incoherent. I don't agree with his arguments, finding them logically flawed, although I agree with his conclusion.
I agree that the concept of substance is fundamentally incoherent. It's just like the concept of God in that way, it is something assumed because we apprehend a need to assume it. Then it ends up being just an assumption which stands in place of real knowledge, and this is why it is fundamentally incoherent, it is not real knowledge.
So it seems to make sense to proceed on the basis that the stability will continue, while the more philosophical will bear in mind that the stability could cease at any instant.
That the stability which we've known in the past, (what was), will continue indefinitely into the future (what will be), is precisely that fundamentally incoherent concept, which stands in place of real knowledge. So if we want real knowledge we need to approach this issue.
Wrong. I was looking for the difference that makes this bread and wine different from normal bread and wine, as the doctrine claims. Without this difference, the doctrine would be internally inconsistent, claiming that bread and wine is different in this case, when it really isn't. But you've already told me you don't have any internal criticism, so I hope you don't start running back with the goal posts now. We established that this difference must not physical. So what kind of difference must it be then?
Your original question makes no sense to me in this context, if I interpreted it correctly. When you asked me what I would see, I took that literally, as in, asking what it is that I would observe. I would observe no difference in the bread and wine.
The purported difference is that the substance has changed, and that the elements of the Eucharist which were formerly bread and wine are now the body and blood of Christ. But that isn't something I'd expect to see, and I don't know how I could know that to be the case.
And I didn't say that I had no internal criticism. I do. The internal criticism is epistemological: how can we know this? Even under the assumption that it is true, that question remains. What I did was emphasise the distinction between external and internal criticism, because the absence of that distinction seemed to be the cause of some confusion.
Supernatural doesn't entail being against the laws of physics. Someone coming back from the dead is not against the laws of physics either. Time moving backwards is not against the laws of physics either (just extremely unlikely). So the laws of physics don't actually preclude any of these miracles to begin with.
You have an erroneous notion of what a miracle is. Walking on water is not against the laws of nature. It may just be that all of a sudden, all the particles of the water find that their velocity is directed to the surface, and so I am maintained floating above it. Now that probability is very very very very super tiny. But it's still there.
I disagree, but I think that this is semantic. I'd call that a miracle, as would countless others. In fact, I think that if you put it to the general public in the form of a survey, then the vast majority would agree that it's a miracle. So you're just not speaking the same language as the rest of us.
Coming to the example with the girl, why isn't it supernatural? You know of a certain law of nature that dictates that the girl will suddenly start meaning something different to you? Not really. So the only reason why it's not supernatural, is because it's become a habit as old Hume says - you're used to it.
You agree that it's not supernatural, which is all I require.
Nope. Independent accounts of a phenomenon are not sufficient by themselves to establish it happens. In the case of Christ we have collective examples, with many people having seen the risen Christ all at once, and then being willing to die, all of them, for this belief. Are those peeps who claim to have seen a ghost willing to die for that?
There are no doubt collective accounts of ghosts too. And what you are or are not willing to die for is irrelevant as a proposed criterion. I wouldn't be willing to die for most of what I'd testify to having witnessed, but that doesn't discount my testimony.
Yes, you can add mystical experience and metaphysics to that list. Anecdotal evidence BY ITSELF may be weak and insufficient. As may an appeal to the masses. But combined, all those form a solid case.
No, I can't add metaphysics to the list. That's far too vague and unexplained. And if you think that you've got a solid case, then you must have much lower evidential standards than me - at least when it comes to what we're talking about here. Elsewhere you raise the standards, creating a double standard. The stuff that we're talking about here gets special treatment, because it's your religion. But that isn't a reasonable, objective stance to take, and you should admit that.
You don't seem to be understanding Christianity. The ethics are absolutely NOT the centre of it. Christianity claims precisely that man cannot save himself, so the ethics, by themselves, are useless. Commit them to the flames. What matters is Christ - it is only through faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit that one may uphold the Law. Now seeking to maintain the Law, but taking out the central role of Christ is against the teachings of Christ.
No, it's not that I don't understand it, it's just that I have a different take on it. Can't you appreciate that? I certainly didn't suggest taking out the central role of Christ or that Christ is not what matters or that faith in Christ is not essential. These would just mean different things to me. We would be abiding by different interpretations.
Yeah, if you told me the story about the giant fire-breathing sea lion, I'd want to see some evidence for it, including testimony, and I'd also be interested in the significance of the event. If he just came to say hello, it's probably not very significant, even if it was a giant fire-breathing sea lion. I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection, the unique significance of the event, etc. etc. and your little monster story.
Yes, I know that you'd want to see some evidence for it. That's why I asked what it would take. How much testimony? What if it was a central tenet of your religion? What if people reported mystical experiences which they attributed to the sea lion? These were not rhetorical questions.
This is where your double standard becomes evident. You are hesitant to bite the bullet because it strikes you as so ridiculous, but it isn't all that different from the claims of religion, and if you were able to stand back and assess the situation from an objective viewpoint, then I think that you'd agree.
So if we want real knowledge we need to approach this issue.
Do you feel that real knowledge is achievable? Do you think anybody has achieved it? Perhaps some might say that Lao Tzu, Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Zoroaster achieved it, although I feel that Enlightenment - impossible to pin down as it is - sounds very different in concept to knowledge.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 14, 2017 at 00:49#1335110 likes
Reply to andrewk
I believe that real knowledge with respect to this subject is a noble goal. Whether or not it will ever be obtained by anyone, in any absolute sense is not really relevant. I think it is only by having a belief like this, that it is to some extent achievable, that we can be inspired to broaden our horizons and uncover principles previously unknown. By previously unknown, I mean unknown to any human being. I think that enlightenment involves getting a glimpse of what is unknown to everyone, somehow seeing that it is there. By getting a glimpse of the unknown, we realize how vast the realm of the unknown actually is, and in some instances how and where it relates to the known. We can then proceed to develop strategies to approach it.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 14, 2017 at 02:48#1335270 likes
This discussion was created with comments split from The Shoutbox
Just out of curiosity Michael, how did you separate all these transubstantiation related comments from the non-transubstantiation related comments in The Shoutbox thread?
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I read though 20-odd pages and individually selected the appropriate ones (ignoring any joke comments that only belong in the shoutbox). Took some time.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover The problem is that transubstantiation is no different than any other faith based belief, where followers just accept the impossible as a tenet of their faith. Some might have studied the underlying justifications for the beliefs, most not. The basis presented for it seems to be a biblical passage or two then supported by some Aristotelian philosophy then in vogue, which draws upon distinctions not really supportable.
We would need to split off into another thread if we wanted to really break down Aristotle's theory of substances. It's not clear why my substance isn't one of my properties, but I grew tired of reading about it online last night, so I gave up for now.
My point is that I don't agree that the path to enlightenment is paved with being open to the legitimacy of all other beliefs, but more often the opposite: rejecting nonsense and moving on. So , coming to the party with no preconceived notions about the legitimacy of the Church, these beliefs strike me as no more or less valid than a faith based system I could create on the spot.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 14, 2017 at 13:02#1336200 likes
I read though 20-odd pages and individually selected the appropriate ones (ignoring any joke comments that only belong in the shoutbox). Took some time.
Wow, that's a lot of work, it takes me fifteen minutes just to find a particular post sometimes.
The problem is that transubstantiation is no different than any other faith based belief, where followers just accept the impossible as a tenant of their faith.
Isn't any type of word use essentially the same type of "faith based belief"? So if you reject transubstantiation, you make the statement, "I have no faith in the way that they use words". But you cannot make any valid statement about whether what is expressed by transubstantiation is true or false, without addressing the nature of substance. And if you do, you'll most likely realize that there is nothing there to prevent the validity of the concept of transubstantiation.
From the perspective of a modern scientific viewpoint, substance is taken for granted. And what is taken for granted cannot change or else that would contradict "taken for granted". In religions, substance is not taken for granted, it relies on the will of God. So "taken for granted" is not absolute, it is relative to God as "granted by God"; therefore substance can change by the will of God. How can we ever make a judgement about which of these perspectives is "true", when they are probably equally false, just different ways of representing the unknown?
My point is that I don't agree that the path to enlightenment is paved with being open to the legitimacy of all other beliefs, but more often the opposite: rejecting nonsense and moving on. So , coming to the party with no preconceived notions about the legitimacy of the Church, these beliefs strike me as no more or less valid than a faith based system I could create on the spot.
I see a big problem with this perspective. Very few things persist through time, the ones which do are massive objects like the earth, sun and stars. An "idea" or "belief" is not at all massive, it's very fleeting, and as we grow older they slip away to failing memory, until we die, and they're gone. To have a belief which may persist for generation after generation of human beings requires a very structured system of communication, word use. Ever play the game "Whisper Down the Valley"? Your decision to reject as "nonsense" a system which has allowed ideas to persist for hundreds, even thousands of years, is not a rational decision.
Isn't any type of word use essentially the same type of "faith based belief"? So if you reject transubstantiation, you make the statement, "I have no faith in the way that they use words".
This is the part of the discussion I disagree with you the most I suppose, which I'll get back to in a second.
As it relates to transubstantiation and the references to arcane Aristotlian philosophy, I'll acknowledge you simply wore me down. I don't really think anyone truly adheres to those views and his various categories and so it seemed an exercise in learning a purely historical system for academic purposes. I couldn't really sort out all the distinctions, and so when I began reading up on it online, it became clear that the issues of concern for me were concerns for everyone.
One thought I did have, for example, from a Cartesian perspective, is that I am composed of two substances: mind and body. It would make sense to say therefore that the properties of the person-object are that it is composed of those two things. That would make a substance a property, and while the identification of the mind substance/property could not be empirically shown by putting it under the microscope and seeing it, it could certainly be identified behaviorally in the person through the display of consciousness. This whole issue made me question your claim that the interjection of the body of Jesus into the wafer could not be known by the person except by faith because it is not the case that substance changes are per se undetectable.
In fact, the way I saw it is that you simply divided the world into two sorts of properties: those that were detectable and those that were not. A wafer therefore has things you can know about it and things you can't. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the real words one should use instead of essential versus accidental properties is undetectable versus detectable, at as it relates to this discussion.
Whether I'm a better person for having thought about this, I really don't know.
But to your over-riding point that this is all some sort of language game and that I am just rejecting their word usage, I'm really not. I'm being offered no evidence whatsoever of the claim they're making, and when I ask, I'm being given an explanation based upon a thousands year old antiquated logic system that no one really adheres to. What happened was that the Church arrived at a notion based upon biblical passages and then used the contemporary logic to try to explain how it could be. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Your decision to reject as "nonsense" a system which has allowed ideas to persist for hundreds, even thousands of years, is not a rational decision.
And so the difference between a system that I make up on the spot and the Catholic one is simply they came up with theirs first? We can pretend its longevity is based upon its validity, but that would simply overlook certain political and historical realities.
unenlightenedDecember 14, 2017 at 14:33#1336580 likes
Your decision to reject as "nonsense" a system which has allowed ideas to persist for hundreds, even thousands of years, is not a rational decision.
That's interesting. It does have some force against the comparisons some people have made with things they have made up on the spot and that have no meaning or function. But I think ideas can be persistent because they are functional without being true.
And so the difference between a system that I make up on the spot and the Catholic one is simply they came up with theirs first?
No, stuff you make up on the spot is likely to be functionless. The stuff that L Ron Hubbard made up on the other hand, clearly functions psychologically as a cohesive force, and has attraction to outsiders looking for answers and meaning in their lives. But longevity does have its own attraction too, as advertisers know. 'Transubstantiation - tried and trusted for 2000 years. Recommended by your ancestors.' As against 'New improved religion, with added science and no nasty morals. Scientology, the only religion designed for the modern age'.
Whereas 'Truth - you probably won't like it, and it'll do you no good.' is not a great advert.
That's interesting. It does have some force against the comparisons some people have made with things they have made up on the spot and that have no meaning or function. But I think ideas can be persistent because they are functional without being true.
Longevity can be the result of all sorts of things, from it being true, to it being functional, to it being a way to manipulate the masses, to it being just something that stuck and became local legend, to whatever. The point being that longevity offers us nothing in terms of proof of value or whether it'd be better to finally abandon it and move on.
This all seems an argument for tradition for tradition's sake. And they call me conservative.
unenlightenedDecember 14, 2017 at 15:12#1336780 likes
The point being that longevity offers us nothing in terms of proof of value or whether it'd be better to finally abandon it and move on.
I quite agree. But moving on does not come with a guarantee either. Seems like there's nothing for it but to think things over and discuss them back and forth and make the best choices we can. Sounds like hard work.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 15, 2017 at 00:27#1337380 likes
One thought I did have, for example, from a Cartesian perspective, is that I am composed of two substances: mind and body. It would make sense to say therefore that the properties of the person-object are that it is composed of those two things. That would make a substance a property, and while the identification of the mind substance/property could not be empirically shown by putting it under the microscope and seeing it, it could certainly be identified behaviorally in the person through the display of consciousness. This whole issue made me question your claim that the interjection of the body of Jesus into the wafer could not be known by the person except by faith because it is not the case that substance changes are per se undetectable.
I think you still misunderstand the nature of substance. If a person is composed of two substances, then the person is two individual objects. To say that one thing is two substances would really be contradictory because substance is what validates the existence of the thing, so this would be like saying one thing has two existences. So substance dualism says that the human person is composed of two distinct things, body and soul, and this is why the soul can persist as a thing even without the body. It is usually argued that Aristotle's system is not consistent with substance dualism.
You're really just turning things around, saying that there is one thing (person) with two substances mind and body. This allows you to say that the one thing, person, has two properties, body and mind. The proper understanding of substance dualism would be more like two things, body and soul, each with properties. Each of these would be an individual substance.
If you check Aristotle's "Categories" Ch. 5, "Substance in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse." In no way can primary substance be a property, this is what is explicitly excluded from the definition. "Substance" refers to the individual thing itself, not a property of the thing.
In fact, the way I saw it is that you simply divided the world into two sorts of properties: those that were detectable and those that were not. A wafer therefore has things you can know about it and things you can't. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the real words one should use instead of essential versus accidental properties is undetectable versus detectable, at as it relates to this discussion.
It's really not a matter of dividing the world into two sorts of properties, it's a matter of dividing the world into properties and the particular thing (substance), which has the properties. This is sometimes explained as "what the thing is" (properties), and "that the thing is" (substance). In any case, the substance is the existing thing which is said to have the properties. In the case of transubstantiation the existing thing, substance, changes from being the substance called "bread", to being the substance called "body of Christ", while all the sensible properties stay the same. So at this time all those sensible properties, which were prior to this, attributed to the substance that was known as bread, are now attributed to the substance known as body of Christ.
But to your over-riding point that this is all some sort of language game and that I am just rejecting their word usage, I'm really not.
Yes that is exactly what you are doing, rejecting their word usage. When you accuse someone of saying something untrue, you are rejecting their word usage. The Church has said, that for the purpose of our ceremony, we are not going to call this object "bread" we are going to call it "body of Christ". You object, saying that it shouldn't be called body of Christ unless it really is body of Christ, so they are engaged in some sort of deception. They say it really is the body of Christ, God ensures this, so there is no deception. It's just a matter of you rejecting the way that they use words, and how they turn to God to justify this usage.
I'm being offered no evidence whatsoever of the claim they're making..
The only claim they're making is that they are authorized to call this object "body of Christ". What you're failing to grasp, is that anyone is allowed to use any words they want to refer to any object. We don't need evidence to support our usage when we refer to objects with words, but if someone thinks that the word usage is wrong, then they'll point this out. If people are ok with the usage, they'll go along with it.
And so the difference between a system that I make up on the spot and the Catholic one is simply they came up with theirs first? We can pretend its longevity is based upon its validity, but that would simply overlook certain political and historical realities.
This is pure, unabashed, conceited vanity. Do you really believe that you could come up with a ceremonial practise which would be in use two thousand years from now? Come on. Not only is it a "system", but it is a practise. That's where I think the root of your misunderstanding lies. You are looking at this as if it were a logical system or something like that, which is reducible to a set of claims. It's not, it's a practise. And that's why "word usage" is the proper representation of transubstantiation rather than "assertion", or "claim". So if you look at it for what it is, a practise, (not instinctual, but learned practise), which has persisted for that long, then you might start to grasp the gravity of it.
But I think ideas can be persistent because they are functional without being true.
You may have noticed that I have been purposely staying away from "truth" here. My argument from the beginning has been that transubstantiation is a valid verbal practise, this would most likely base its validity in its functionality. Only when Michael pressured me on the fact that my position is inconsistent with that of the Church, did I turn to truth. I agree that there's a claim of truth, as it's God who makes the spoken words true. But I believe that without God we do not have real objective truth to any words, as truth and objectivity are based in inter-subjectivity without God. At this point, without God, I don't think there's a real line between true and functional, as true appears to be a special type of functionality.
The point being that longevity offers us nothing in terms of proof of value or whether it'd be better to finally abandon it and move on.
This is false though, longevity is proof of value. For human beings to preserve something, it must be of value to them, so if it is preserved it has value. Value though is inherently subjective, what I value is not necessarily what you value. Longevity is proof of a value which is passed from one generation to the next. Because it is not of value to you, you can refuse the practise. But if the practise still continues, you cannot deny that it has any value, just because it has no value to you, because the fact that it continues demonstrates that it has value.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 15, 2017 at 14:43#1339060 likes
Reply to Hanover
Here's another way of demonstrating how your way of looking at this issue is completely backward. We can designate names to objects for any purpose, whether its for a logical proceeding, or any other proceeding, we name objects. Wittgenstein explains this at the beginning of the Philosophical Investigations, the tradesperson names the object, the apprentice learns the name. So for example in a trial court there may be an object labeled "exhibit A". What this says, is that for the following intent and purpose, i.e. the following trial procedure, this object will be known as exhibit A. And in a logical proceeding we'll say "let X be...", so that the object described is known as X.
In a similar way, the Church stipulates that for the intent and purpose of the following sacrament, the objects will be known as body and blood of Christ. Furthermore, the Church insists that for all intents and purposes these items will be known as such. What this stipulates is that there cannot be a practise in which these objects are known as anything other than body and blood of Christ. Therefore in relation to any practise, these objects must always be known as body and blood of Christ, so it is impossible that the objects might be known by any other name. What the Church has claimed, is nothing more than ownership of these objects; it has claimed all rights of usage for these objects, as well as naming rights with respect to that usage. Would you deny them these rights?
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 15, 2017 at 14:49#1339090 likes
Reply to Michael
I have yet to see a demonstration otherwise. Hanover was trying to make a distinction between reporting what is the case, and decreeing what is the case, but failed to substantiate this distinction.
As far as I see, there are objects of the sacrament which are named, and the objection is to the naming of these objects.
There's a difference between naming and predication. When I claim that the 45th President of the United States is Barack Obama I'm not simply stipulating that the 45th President of the United States is to be named "Barack Obama"; I'm claiming that the thing referred to by the name "the 45th President of the United States" and the thing referred to by the name "Barack Obama" are the same thing. And, of course, my claim is false.
Claims of transubstantiation are of the latter kind (where it is said to be literal and not just a metaphor).
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 15, 2017 at 15:02#1339160 likes
Reply to Michael I don't see the relevance of your example. There is no predication, simply naming of objects
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover There is predication where there are claims of literal transubstantiation. It isn't just a case of naming. Just ask those Christians who believe in the miracle. I gave an example of a cardinal's take on it here.
Their claims are far more substantial than just word games as part of a ritual. That's exactly why there are theological discussions on the matter.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 15, 2017 at 15:13#1339180 likes
Reply to Michael
I'm not really interested in what some individual Christians believe, as those beliefs are all over the place. What I'm interested in is the act of transubstantiate itself, and this is how it is presented by the Church itself, in the sacrament. I have never taken part, so I cannot claim to know exactly what takes place.
Your objection seems to rely on the claim that there is some sort of predication going on here. Could you justify this claim by referring to the sacrament, and the act of transubstantiation itself, and not by referring to what some Christians believe about it.
Your question doesn't make any sense to me. There are people eating bread and drinking wine. Some claim that the substance of the bread and the wine literally changes into that of the body and blood of Christ. Any competent speaker will understand that their claim isn't to be understood simply as some stipulated naming convention, but as predicating some fact about the world. What proof can there be except asking those who claim such a thing what they mean by their claim?
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 15, 2017 at 16:26#1339340 likes
Your question doesn't make any sense to me. There are people eating bread and drinking wine. Some claim that the substance of the bread and the wine literally changes into that of the body and blood of Christ.
This is a very peripheral, perspective dependent, subjective, description of the situation. Let's get beyond that, right to the point. You are describing the people as drinking wine and eating bread. The Church is describing them as drinking the blood of Christ, and eating the body of Christ. Clearly there is inconsistency between these two descriptions.
My claim is that you have no respect for the naming practise of the items of their sacrament. So you are using unacceptable names to describe the items being consumed. Unless you can justify your use of unacceptable names, then your description is also unjustified. You might attempt to justify your description, that the people are consuming bread and wine by referring to the sensible properties of these items. But the principles of the sacrament request that you do not refer to the sensible properties of the items, as these are accidental to the substance which is being consumed. Such an attempt would only prove that you have no respect for the naming practises of the sacrament.
So how do you justify your description that they are consuming bread and wine, without demonstrating the validity of my charge, that you have no respect for the naming practises of the items of their sacrament?
unenlightenedDecember 15, 2017 at 16:31#1339350 likes
So for example in a trial court there may be an object labeled "exhibit A". What this says, is that for the following intent and purpose, i.e. the following trial procedure, this object will be known as exhibit A. And in a logical proceeding we'll say "let X be...", so that the object described is known as X.
If the court instead labeled the object 'incontrovertible evidence of the defendant's guilt', then one might start to question their judgement.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover It has nothing to do with naming practices and everything to do with the facts. Whether or not the wine is the blood of Christ is a factual matter (where transubstantiation is said to be literal), not a naming convention, much like whether or not the 45th President of the United States is Barack Obama.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 15, 2017 at 17:14#1339390 likes
It has nothing to do with not respecting naming practices. It has to do with stating the facts. Whether or not the wine is the blood of Christ is a factual matter (where transubstantiation is said to be literal), not a naming convention, much like whether or not the 45th President of the United States is Barack Obama.
See, you are still making the same mistake. You are referring to the object as wine, when in fact, it is called the blood of Christ. We are trying to determine what it is in fact, what is the proper name for it. So when you ask what is the fact, is the wine wine, or is the wine blood of Christ, you have just begged the question because you have already premised that it is wine. The appropriate question is whether the object is properly called wine or whether it is properly called blood of Christ.
I'll make things easier for you, in light of unenlightened's comments. Instead of you justifying your description, which calls the stuff wine and bread, you can show how the Church's naming is logically inconsistent. Let's say that "body and blood of Christ" refers to the flesh and blood of the person, Jesus, who died on the cross, as well as the items in the sacrament. All you need to do is to show inconsistency in this naming practise.
The Church claims that the substance of the flesh and blood of Jesus are the same substance as the items of the sacrament, and this justifies the naming practise. So we need to provide an understanding of "substance", which denies that this is possible, or at least to make it highly unlikely. It appears to me, like "substance" is what all individual, particular things have in common, it is one universal. So I don't see how the substance of one particular object could differ from the substance of another particular object, if it is one universal, therefore all objects would be of the same substance and there is no inconsistency.
You are referring to the object as wine, when in fact, it is called the blood of Christ.
There's a difference between what a thing is and what a thing is called. They might call it the blood of Christ, but if it isn't the blood of Christ then they are wrong, just as if I call the 45th President of the United States Barack Obama then I am wrong because the 45th President of the United States isn't Barack Obama.
It appears to me, like "substance" is what all individual, particular things have in common, it is one universal. So I don't see how the substance of one particular object could differ from the substance of another particular object, if it is one universal, therefore all objects would be of the same substance and there is no inconsistency.
This isn't what the Church means by "substance", given that transubstantiation is the change from one substance (namely bread and wine) to another (namely the body and blood of Christ). If there is just one universal substance then the substance doesn't change and so no transubstantiation happens.
Whatever it is you're talking about it has nothing to do with Christian theology.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 16, 2017 at 06:46#1341010 likes
There's a difference between what a thing is and what a thing is called. They might call it the blood of Christ, but if it isn't the blood of Christ then they are wrong, just as if I call the 45th President of the United States Barack Obama then I am wrong because the 45th President of the United States isn't Barack Obama.
I look at that as a pointless argument. What a thing is, is dependent on two things, how you define your terms, and your judgement of the thing in question. Naming a thing is much more fundamental than this, allowing us to avoid both of these problems. We assign the word to the thing, and the thing goes by that name. This is not saying what a thing is, it is identity, it is giving a thing an identity. In the case of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it appears very clear to me that the ceremony is a ceremony of naming the objects, giving them a new identity in the eyes of God, like baptism is, and marriage is, these are instances of giving things (people in these cases) an identity within the structure of the religion.
It is very clear, that in the sacrament, the Church is assigning these names to these objects, giving them a particular identity. It is not looking at these objects and judging whether or not they fulfil the conditions required by a definition to be called by these names. Your argument is really a straw man because the sacrament is a case of naming items, not a case of describing what a thing is. The priest does not look at the object, and state the name suited for describing the object, the priest assigns a name of identity, to the object This is what such sacraments consist of, giving things a particular identity (naming them) in relation to God.
Whatever it is you're talking about it has nothing to do with Christian theology.
The fact that you started into this discussion talking about properties, instead of substance, demonstrates that you have even less knowledge of Christian theology than I have. And I must say that your understanding of such sacraments is very deficient. When the priest declares the man and woman husband and wife, do you believe that what the priest says is a falsity, because the man and woman are not married at that time? That appears to be the logic you are using. Do you not see that they are husband and wife because the priest has named them as such. Likewise, the articles of the Eucharist are body and blood of Christ because the priest has named them as such. Your argument, that even if the priest has named them as such, the priest is wrong if they aren't really such, is completely missing the point, because they only are such by virtue of the priest naming them as such.
To make a coherent argument you need to demonstrate that it is wrong for the priest to name them as such. Or, you need to demonstrate that the priest has no right to name them as such. But to say that the priest is wrong, if they aren't really such, is just nonsense, because they are really such by virtue of the priest naming them as such, just like the man and woman are husband and wife by virtue of the priest naming them as such. That is the way these sacraments work. The Church is wrong only if it is wrong for it to assign these names. The question of whether or not the objects are the proper objects which the words refer to, can only be determined by determining whether or not the church is wrong in assigning these names. So to go at this from the opposite direction, and say that the Church is wrong if the items are not the body and blood of Christ is just backwards. We must take it for granted that these items really are the body and blood of Christ, because that's what the Church calls them, and determine whether or not the Church is wrong in calling them this.
In the case of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it appears very clear to me that the ceremony is a ceremony of naming the objects, giving them a new identity in the eyes of God, like baptism is, and marriage is, these are instances of giving things (people in these cases) an identity within the structure of the religion.
It is very clear, that in the sacrament, the Church is assigning these names to these objects, giving them a particular identity. It is not looking at these objects and judging whether or not they fulfil the conditions required by a definition to be called by these names. Your argument is really a straw man because the sacrament is a case of naming items, not a case of describing what a thing is. The priest does not look at the object, and state the name suited for describing the object, the priest assigns a name of identity, to the object This is what such sacraments consist of, giving things a particular identity (naming them) in relation to God.
Just ask a Christian what they are doing when they claim that the bread and wine literally changes into the body and blood of Christ. Just ask them what they mean by the term "transubstantiation". They'll tell you that this isn't just a word game or name-assignment. I've shown you a cardinal's take on the matter here.
You don't seem to understand the difference between those who claim that transubstantiation is literal and those who claim that it isn't. Although the latter is just a case of naming items, the former is a case of describing what a thing is (and open to being wrong). We're supposed to be talking about the former.
Reply to ????????????? I don't think we're talking past each other. I think he's just wrong, and not making any sense. Take this where he says that the will of God is required for transubstantiation, as without it there's just people making false claims (as with me saying that the water is the blood of Zeus). But then here he says that transubstantiation happens even if there isn't a God to miraculously change the substance.
He seems to want to say that if it doesn't literally happen then it happens by fiat, which is ridiculous.
If there isn't a God (or, I suppose, some other power) who (or which) changes the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ then transubstantiation doesn't happen. You can't simply say, as he says here, that because people refer to something as being "transubstantiation" then ipso facto it is transubstantiation. Else I might as well argue that because I refer to him as being "wrong" and me as being "right" then ipso facto he is wrong and I am right. It's a bastardization of Wittgenstein's "meaning is use", which he seems to be pushing.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 16, 2017 at 15:29#1341900 likes
The body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament by reason of the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, which are attached to the proper performance of the rite by a duly ordained minister.
See, the presence of Christ is dependent on "the proper performance of the rite".
You don't seem to understand the difference between those who claim that transubstantiation is literal and those who claim that it isn't.
That's right, I look at this whole question of whether or not it is "literal" as a red herring, and nothing more. "Literal" is a vague, ambiguous term which holds no force in comparison with the law of identity which allows for the direct association of a symbol to an object. Am I "literally" MU, or is that just a name I call myself? When we are discussing the identity of an object, the question of "is it literal?" is not even relevant
The issue is whether or not it is correct, or right, for the Church to name (identify) the items as they do. It makes no sense to ask whether the items are literally what they are called, because it is implied that there is a direct symbolic relation between the words and the items, such that if the relationship were anything other than direct, it would not be an instance of these items having this name.
Although the latter is just a case of naming items, the former is a case of describing what a thing is (and open to being wrong). We're supposed to be talking about the former.
That we're "supposed" to be talking about a description of what a thing is, is your false presupposition. Descriptions refer to properties, and that's where I corrected you when we first engaged. Now you keep wanting to slip back into descriptions of what the thing is, as if that is what we are "supposed" to be talking about. It is not, we are talking about identity, not description. Is it correct for the Church to identify these objects as body and blood of Christ? You want to turn to descriptions of the objects, and a description of what "body an blood of Christ" refers to, in order to address this question. But this is not what we're supposed to be talking about, and it is completely irrelevant because of that, we are supposed to be talking about substance. Clearly we're not supposed to be talking about descriptions and this is made clear by the word "transubstantiation".
Look at the quote above. This is what is claimed. There is "the proper performance of the rite". There is the promise by Christ to appear, which is carried out by the Holy Spirit. That is the description. If it is true, as you seem to be insisting, that there is no presence of Christ, then one or both of these conditions must not have been met. Either the rite was not properly performed, or the Holy Ghost did not fulfill the promise of Christ. There is nothing else to describe.
He seems to want to say that if it doesn't literally happen then it happens by fiat, which is ridiculous.
If, "proper performance of the rite", means "fiat" to you, then it happens by fiat. What you do not seem to recognize is that assigning identity to an object is an act of fiat. The proper performance of the rite is the act of fiat which assigns identity to the objects.
Your claim seems to be that these words, which are assigned to the objects for the means of identification, have a meaning (some sort of "literal meaning") other than the meaning which is created by the direct association of identification. Your argument seems to be that this "literal meaning" is inconsistent with the meaning created by direct association. I can only assume that the objects named by direct association do not appear to you to fulfill the conditions of your "literal meaning", and that is the basis of your rejection. But the Church has dealt with this objection, it is not a matter of appearance here.
Else I might as well argue that because I refer to him as being "wrong" and me as being "right" then ipso facto he is wrong and I am right. It's a bastardization of Wittgenstein's "meaning is use", which he seems to be pushing.
This is exactly the problem with "meaning is use". I am wrong because you say I am, in reference with your rules of usage, and you are wrong because I say you are, according to my rules of usage, and that's the way it is. Right and wrong are relative to our rules of usage so we may both refuse to compromise because we are both right. What recourse do we have but to appeal to God?
God is, assuming he exists, a useless ambiguous cunt who "moves in mysterious ways" but not so mysterious as to allow the powers that be to use his "word" to enforce definitive rules on others. 21 pages of semantics. Wonderful. The only thing religion is good for is illuminating what the religious feel comfortable accepting without thinking.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 16, 2017 at 18:50#1342340 likes
Reply to Benkei
How would you address the problem then? My way of using words is right according to my rules, and Michael's way of using words is right according to those rules. The two ways are very contrary, so they can't "really" be both right. You could claim to know the right way, and that both mine and Michael's are wrong, or you could side with one or the other, but that still wouldn't make your way any more right than either of ours, even if it were two against one. Furthermore, we can't appeal to pragmatics because my rules are good for my purposes and yours are good for your purposes. How would we determine which purposes are the right purposes? If we all insist that we are using words in the correct way because we are following our rules, how do you propose that we might compromise and find agreement? And if we do not find agreement, won't our ability to communicate be jeopardized?
God is, assuming he exists, a useless ambiguous cunt who "moves in mysterious ways" but not so mysterious as to allow the powers that be to use his "word" to enforce definitive rules on others. 21 pages of semantics. Wonderful. The only thing religion is good for is illuminating what the religious feel comfortable accepting without thinking.
The non-believers are arguing semantics as much as the believers. More than 400 posts and people are still making the same arguments they did at the beginning. My sympathies are with the believers. They are simply stating their belief. In arguing against that belief, not a single believer I've read has put himself imaginatively in the place of the believers and come ready to listen. If you don't do that, it's not reason.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 16, 2017 at 19:16#1342400 likes
Your original question makes no sense to me in this context, if I interpreted it correctly. When you asked me what I would see, I took that literally, as in, asking what it is that I would observe. I would observe no difference in the bread and wine.
The purported difference is that the substance has changed, and that the elements of the Eucharist which were formerly bread and wine are now the body and blood of Christ. But that isn't something I'd expect to see, and I don't know how I could know that to be the case.
And I didn't say that I had no internal criticism. I do. The internal criticism is epistemological: how can we know this? Even under the assumption that it is true, that question remains. What I did was emphasise the distinction between external and internal criticism, because the absence of that distinction seemed to be the cause of some confusion.
Right, so no wonder you haven't adequately judged the matter if you don't know the criterion of truth in this case. I suggested that the criterion of truth, in this case, is experiential. You have to experience it, and it is that internal change that is the substantial change mentioned. So bread and water remain physically bread and water, but their meaning has changed for the believer. So, by all means, this is a mystical experience, that is open to those who take part in the Eucharist.
I disagree, but I think that this is semantic. I'd call that a miracle, as would countless others. In fact, I think that if you put it to the general public in the form of a survey, then the vast majority would agree that it's a miracle. So you're just not speaking the same language as the rest of us.
A miracle it might be, so long as you understand that the traditional definition of a miracle as something that "breaks the laws of nature" is silly.
I wouldn't be willing to die for most of what I'd testify to having witnessed, but that doesn't discount my testimony.
Yes, it actually does discount your testimony in comparison to someone who is willing to die for what they've witnessed. If you have no skin in the game, it's easy to testify for anything. And don't be silly now - if you were a judge and a man risked his life to testify something, while the other didn't risk anything, who would you believe?
No, I can't add metaphysics to the list. That's far too vague and unexplained. And if you think that you've got a solid case, then you must have much lower evidential standards than me - at least when it comes to what we're talking about here. Elsewhere you raise the standards, creating a double standard. The stuff that we're talking about here gets special treatment, because it's your religion. But that isn't a reasonable, objective stance to take, and you should admit that.
That's not true from my perspective at least. I apply the same standard to all claims in intellectual matters.
How much testimony? What if it was a central tenet of your religion? What if people reported mystical experiences which they attributed to the sea lion? These were not rhetorical questions.
Sure, I can absolutely imagine a world - not our world though - where the sea lion produced mystical experiences, and everything around the universe revolved around it. Sure, nothing ridiculous in that. Just a different world from ours. In ours, as we know it today, that would indeed be ridiculous.
And don't be silly now - if you were a judge and a man risked his life to testify something, while the other didn't risk anything, who would you believe?
The basis presented for it seems to be a biblical passage or two then supported by some Aristotelian philosophy then in vogue, which draws upon distinctions not really supportable.
I think you still misunderstand the nature of substance. If a person is composed of two substances, then the person is two individual objects. To say that one thing is two substances would really be contradictory because substance is what validates the existence of the thing, so this would be like saying one thing has two existences. So substance dualism says that the human person is composed of two distinct things, body and soul, and this is why the soul can persist as a thing even without the body. It is usually argued that Aristotle's system is not consistent with substance dualism.
You're really just turning things around, saying that there is one thing (person) with two substances mind and body. This allows you to say that the one thing, person, has two properties, body and mind. The proper understanding of substance dualism would be more like two things, body and soul, each with properties. Each of these would be an individual substance.
If you check Aristotle's "Categories" Ch. 5, "Substance in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse." In no way can primary substance be a property, this is what is explicitly excluded from the definition. "Substance" refers to the individual thing itself, not a property of the thing.
Excellent exposition. I would add that this view of substance is inescapable for Aristotelians and even Cartesians, however substance can also be seen, as per the Schopenhaurian understanding of it, as the inner meaning of things - that is their substance, as opposed to their appearance. So in this Kantian/Schopenhaurian framework, what is substantial is defined as opposed to what merely appears. The Will is substance (or conatus as Spinoza calls it) - the phenomenal world is appearance.
I'd think bias would count against the witness, offering a motive to fabricate.
No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weight.
In arguing against that belief, not a single believer I've read has put himself imaginatively in the place of the believers and come ready to listen.
There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. It's why I never substantively participate in philosophy of religion to begin with (which I think is akin to beating a dead horse). There's selection bias going on on both sides as to defining transubstantiation. To those participating I'd suggest that they, before moving on to particulars, try to agree on a single definition if this thread is to have any chance of moving forward.
No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weigh
I would agree that statements against interest carry greater weight, the most significant being a confession (which is precisely why they must be given freely to be admissible). In your scenario, perhaps someone in fear for their life who offers testimony that places them in greater danger might be considered more honest, although exaggerating the testimony might also occur in that situation in an effort to assure the conviction. That is, once you've taken a swing, make sure you win the fight. I guess the point is that it really depends on all the facts.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 17, 2017 at 15:09#1344830 likes
To those participating I'd suggest that they, before moving on to particulars, try to agree on a single definition if this thread is to have any chance of moving forward.
Now that's a pointless suggestion. The reason why we cannot decide whether transubstantiation refers to something real, is because we cannot agree on what the word means. If we came to an agreement as to what the word means, the discussion would be over.
There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. It's why I never substantively participate in philosophy of religion to begin with (which I think is akin to beating a dead horse). There's selection bias going on on both sides as to defining transubstantiation.
The problem here, is that what a word means, or refers to, any word, is a matter of faith. You are adverse to arguing faith, as you've stated here, so you say "let's just agree on a definition, and get on with the discussion". But if we remove "faith" from this discussion, there is nothing left to discuss.
Reply to T Clark On the other hand, if you regard something as pernicious, arguing against it might seem to be the right thing to do, even if it's not exactly the done thing within philosophy.
On the other hand, if you regard something as pernicious, arguing against it might seem to be the right thing to do, even if it's not exactly the done thing within philosophy.
Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher.
I've made this point before in a number of places - I'm not a theist in any normal sense of the world. I don't have any belief in a personal God or in any supernatural phenomena. I'm an engineer and I love science. But - I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. They talk and think about it differently than I do, but then again, just about everyone talks and thinks differently than I do about just about everything.
Of course, a reasonable person would know that reasoning is not "arguing against." You're playing a game, that's not reason.
You're reversing it though. An argument is giving reasons for a specific idea or theory and you were talking about arguing against belief. It's generally accepted those reasons should be reasonable, which is why we don't accept "because I felt like it" when you kick the cat.
But - I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do.
Uhuh. That's so vague that it doesn't mean anything.
As to transubstantiation, it has no basis in the Bible as in the relevant passages they are symbols of his sacrifice. Transubstantiation is therefore an elaborate ritual totally made up by the Church where people eat disgusting bread and drink bad wine and have to wait in line annoyingly long and get confused about which hand goes on top of the other. According to the Catholic church, transubstantiation happens in a manner surpassing understanding. Which is double-speak for "it beggars belief so you'll have to take it from us in faith".
So, the only thing for atheists to do at this point is to shrug and get on with the important things in life, which is eat a fresh, crispy baguette with a selection of cheeses and drink velvet wine at home in the company of friends or family.
Deleted UserDecember 18, 2017 at 08:50#1346770 likes
Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer.
Why? I can list the horrors caused directly by Catholicism - The inquisition, the persecution of 'witches', the sanctioning (and more horrifically, later cover-up ) of child abuse the execution of heretics. All of these things directly the result of a belief that one person (the Pope) has the power to directly communicate God's wishes. The persecution of Gays, the opposition to condoms in AIDS prevention, the unequal treatment of women, the persecution of the native south-americans, early support for the slave trade... shall I go on?
You either have to take the view that these things are not directly the result of Catholic teaching but rather the result of humans just being bad, in which case the same is true of all the good things the Catholic church has done - or you take Catholic teaching as being responsible for all the actions of it's followers, including the horrific ones.
Catholicism is either irrelevant to the actions of humans or it is directly responsible for some pretty horrific mass murders and abuses. I don't think it's unreasonable for the victims of such abuse, still going on to this day, and their supporters to carry just a little antipathy towards the Church.
Reply to Inter Alia That's just selection bias. I'm not a fan of institutionalised religion or faith as evidence of things unseen. But here's a list of wonderful things that wouldn't exist but for the church:
a well-defined system of virtue ethics
they kept alive the ancient Greeks
invented arbitration
and the principle of impartiality necessary for just judgments
our system of human rights
the just war tradition
Deleted UserDecember 18, 2017 at 11:17#1346880 likes
No, that's my point entirely, you can't have one without the other. Either the Catholic Church is no force for anything whatsoever, or it is a force encouraging both good and bad things, neither of which are exclusive to it.
In neither of these cases are the importance given to its tenets in philosophical discussions justified. Either it is an irrelevance because it has little influence on human thought, or it a an influence like any other, capable of inducing both good and bad behaviour.
The reason why the bad behaviour it has encouraged is so important is that the judgement of such must take place outside of religious belief. To be truly religious is to believe that someone else (the book, the prophet, the guru) has access to a truth to which you do have access, and that therefore their word cannot be questioned by your own faculties (it is not 'faith' otherwise). So how would a true Catholic be able to say that the inquisition, the witch hunts, the child abuse etc was wrong? Their church told them it was right.
As to the detail of your list;
Virtue ethics existed in a pretty well defined system through Aristotle (and well before then).
The first recorded example of arbitration in law was in the wars of the Summarian king mesilim hundreds of years before Christ.
The independence of the judiciary, at least in the UK was written in the 1701 Act of Settlement which was directly a response against the influence of the Catholic Church.
The first declaration of universal human rights was on the Cyrus Cylinder in 539bc.
Virtue ethics existed in a pretty well defined system through Aristotle (and well before then).
The first recorded example of arbitration in law was in the wars of the Summarian king mesilim hundreds of years before Christ.
The independence of the judiciary, at least in the UK was written in the 1701 Act of Settlement which was directly a response against the influence of the Catholic Church.
The first declaration of universal human rights was on the Cyrus Cylinder in 539bc.
'Just' as in the massacre at Acre?
This doesn't refute any of the points but I really don't care to go in depth into these things. It's sufficient that I consider them great for the argument I made.
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 12:26#1346980 likes
No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weight.
Delusional people have risked their lives in order to maintain their delusions. They are even willing experience ridicule because the risk of losing the delusion is greater (be ridiculed or lose one's eternal status in heaven?).
And what risk is there really when losing your life brings the greatest things for you (going to heaven for eternity)?
The only way to distinguish between the validity of different claims is to apply the principle of falsification.
Deleted UserDecember 18, 2017 at 12:53#1347020 likes
here's a list of wonderful things that wouldn't exist but for the church:
I gave you examples of them existing before, or in opposition to, the establishment of the church.
it doesn't get much more refuted than that.
It is not sufficient that you think they're great, this is a philosophy forum, not an evangelical platform. If you're not prepared to argue your case I suggest you don't make it.
I gave you examples of them existing before, or in opposition to, the establishment of the church.
it doesn't get much more refuted than that.
It is not sufficient that you think they're great, this is a philosophy forum, not an evangelical platform. If you're not prepared to argue your case I suggest you don't make it.
That would be boring and not the issue in this specific thread. Suffice is to say that stones in the shape of wheels existed before the wheel was invented. So no, you haven't refuted my points but as I said, I don't feel like writing an exposé on this. Anybody who's studied law can tell you where my examples came from, you can bother them with it.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 18, 2017 at 12:57#1347050 likes
Exactly. A good point to stop talking then and move on.
The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher.
The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher.
Yeah, nice value judgment. :-*
Of course people have faith and they have religious experiences. Yet neither faith nor religious experiences have anything useful to say about reality. You just get a "says you" "no says you" discussion that never ever goes anywhere. So take out faith and religious experiences and we can start talking about the things we both at least agree on exist.
Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer.
... and its perfectly on topic, good point to make. Someone brings up some of the atrocities done in the name of religion and refutes the idea that it has provided substantial benefits and all of a sudden its 'boring' and 'not the issue'.
I wasn't aware that this was a forum reserved for apologists.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 18, 2017 at 13:35#1347150 likes
Of course people have faith and they have religious experiences. Yet neither faith nor religious experiences have anything useful to say about reality. You just get a "says you" "no says you" discussion that never ever goes anywhere. So take out faith and religious experiences and we can start talking about the things we both at least agree on exist.
But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away.
But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away.
This is the type of nonsense I'd like to avoid and I'll probably quit this thread soon.
Equating and conflating faith to the point it becomes meaningless is really just semantics. I defined faith earlier in this thread as "the evidence of things unseen". When I say "remove faith" we are removing any evidence submitted for things unseen such as souls, God, miracles and transubstantiation. Instead we can talk about the aesthetic appeal of J-Lo's ass (can we still do that in the #metoo era?), which is actually real but no faith is necessary to hold an opinion on the matter.
Only a philosopher will ask. 23 pages on transubstantiation and nothing happened. We can pin a link to this thread next to the word "useless" and let that be a definition by demonstration.
The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher.
I stepped away a minute and a few pages went by, so sorry if I've missed a point here or there.
I'd draw a distinction between faith generally and religion specifically. To the extent there's an underlying current of "physicalists and Catholics both rest on faith at some fundamental level, so neither can assert greater validity," I don't find that at all persuasive. To a large degree, the foundational beliefs of a physicalist (or someone generally non-religious) are things like there being an objective reality that is knowable through our senses, as opposed to fairly specific and structured claims like transubstantiation. If attempting to decipher the nature of reality, I rely upon my senses and reason and you rely upon the five books of Moses, surely you can see that we don't just have different foundational anchors, but they are of a significantly different type altogether. My point being that I am relying upon some fairly basic means of acquiring information, whereas you are relying upon some old book, and I therefore can say that we are not using faith in the same way.
I also don't find it all useful to refer to the antiquity of a doctrine to determine its validity, nor do I think it matters much how many good or bad things a faith has cast upon the world when assessing its value. Religion generally, and most certainly Catholicism, is as much a political institution than anything else, and just like a government can feed the hungry, it can engage in wholesale murder. Its success or failure to speaks also to its political pull in gaining and keeping adherents, not to its inherent rootedness in truth. It's clear that there are all sorts of religions worldwide with tremendous diversity among them, many thousands of years of old and many with hundreds of thousands and even millions upon millions of followers. Surely they can't all be right, which would indicate their being right has little to do with their success.
Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher.
The question isn't whether it has nothing (as in zero) to offer. The question is whether its fundamental beliefs are true, from the resurrection to transubstantiation. It takes no hubris for me to say those things are false. It takes blind faith for you to say they are true.
But sure, if the Catholic Church had a food drive, I might throw a can of green beans in the bin and be thankful to the Church for offering something of value to those in need. And to the extent the institution survives by offering a strange mythology to a susceptible people, I'm in favor of it, so long as it keeps having food drives and the like. But to the extent anyone should argue that the mythology has a value outside of its political influence in creating group cohesiveness, as in suggesting that the mythology must be rooted in reality, I say such simply does not logically follow.
Only a philosopher will ask. 23 pages on transubstantiation and nothing happened. We can pin a link to this thread next to the word "useless" and let that be a definition by demonstration.
I believe it's actually a very relevant question. What you mean by useful is very important. Many things are not useful in the sense that they don't have immediately observable results, but without them, everything falls apart.
In the Christian tradition, for example, prayer, worship, meditation and contemplation are means for the believer to get in closer communion with the Lord through His Son Jesus Christ. You may say that getting in closer communion with God is useless - it doesn't put food on the table, it doesn't make your wife happier, it doesn't make you more successful, it doesn't save your kid from an illness, etc. etc. While it's true that very often it may not directly do those things, it does help.
For example, without meditation or contemplation, you find that you lack motivation. You don't feel like going to the gym, you don't really feel like working hard anymore, you become more depressed, etc. All these things impact every single area of your life. So while the spiritual side may not play any direct role in providing what is useful, it plays an absolutely critical role in making what is useful possible for you in the first place.
So I think that without a solid spiritual foundation many aspects of life are impossible. And that doesn't necessarily require that you are a Christian, or even a believer of any of the particular religions when it comes to the box that you tick on surveys. But it does require that you are a believer in heart.
For example, the one version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation...
Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"
Of course it now remains for you to show that they were delusional.
From Wikipedia
The following can indicate a delusion:
The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force. That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent. Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it. The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief. There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly. An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background. The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche. The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.
Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder. It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong. The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent. The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs. The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.
I have indicated the parts you exhibit in bold. The ones in italics are the clear indications that you have a delusion.
Reply to Harry Hindu I think you really do have problems in understanding the meaning of what you read. When you have a headache, do you think you have brain cancer? >:O
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:00#1347620 likes
Reply to Agustino I think you have problems in understanding what you experience.
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:02#1347630 likes
I think you have problems in understanding what you experience.
No, you listed to me a bunch of symptoms and shown ZERO understanding of how medicine actually works or what those words mean. Headaches are the primary symptom of brain cancer. Does having a headache mean that you have brain cancer? Probably not - and not just statistically, but also because brain cancer usually produces a SPECIFIC TYPE of headache, that is different from what you've likely experienced before as headaches. When you just regurgitate a list of symptoms, you miss all that.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
Yeah this is a case in point. You have no clue what "inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility" means. That means that the person starts swearing at you, cursing you, threatening you, being physically violent, etc. That's what a delusion actually looks like. But of course, you know none of that.
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:05#1347670 likes
I'm not talking about headaches. I'm talking about delusions. There are a plethora of symptoms - most of which should be met to say that someone is delusional. A headache is only one symptom out of many that could indicate brain cancer or something else. You have to look at ALL the symptoms and perform tests to know what the root cause is. Going by one symptom doesn't get you to the cause. I didn't list one, I listed many, most of which you meet.
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:07#1347680 likes
Reply to Agustino Read again. It says OFTEN, not always. Maybe you should check what you read?
I didn't list one, I listed many, most of which you meet.
No, you listed many, and failed to understand all of them. I don't meet probably any of those, I might meet a few, but definitely not all that you've bolded.
You have to look at ALL the symptoms and perform tests to know what the root cause is. Going by one symptom doesn't get you to the cause.
Yeah, you do have to look at ALL the symptoms, and in addition, you have to understand what they mean. Delusions are usually part of psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are manifestations which halt someone's ability to function in society, that's one key characteristic. So unless my "delusions" harm my ability to function in society, they can't be medically qualified as delusions.
Yeah, you do have to look at ALL the symptoms, and in addition, you have to understand what they mean. Delusions are usually part of psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are manifestations which halt someone's ability to function in society, that's one key characteristic. So unless my "delusions" harm my ability to function in society, they can't be medically qualified as delusions.
The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
In other words, you can behave normally, except when your delusion is questioned.
Most people with delusions have them as a means of coping with the stress of life and the knowledge of death and an unfair world.
Persistent sad, anxious, or “empty” mood
Feelings of hopelessness, or pessimism
Irritability
Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or helplessness
Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities
Decreased energy or fatigue
Moving or talking more slowly
Feeling restless or having trouble sitting still
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Difficulty sleeping, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
Appetite and/or weight changes
Thoughts of death or suicide, or suicide attempts
Aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems without a clear physical cause and/or that do not ease even with treatment
Now someone may think they meet all of them, because they don't understand what they mean. Take the first one... If you feel sad every now and again, and get a little anxious when you go out of the house, etc. you may think you have a tick for that one. FALSE. The sadness, anxiety, and empty mood described there actually mean that you're so sad that you can't bring yourself to wash, you're so anxious you can't go out of the house anymore, etc.
In other words, you can behave normally, except when your delusion is questioned. Most people with delusions have them as a means of coping with the stress of life and the knowledge of death and an unfair world.
Those are not delusions in a medical sense.
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:15#1347740 likes
Yes, that's the problem. You never made that distinction, but you gave me a list used to diagnose a medical condition. Is your claim that I suffer of the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no?
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:17#1347770 likes
Yes, that's the problem. You never made that distinction, but you gave me a list used to diagnose a medical condition. Is your claim that I suffer of the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no?
You suffer from delusions. You asked me to show you that you are delusional. I did.
>:O - yes, quoting the dictionary certainly does make my point very well. You don't understand what ANY of those synonyms mean in the context of diagnosing a psychiatric condition.
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:26#1347850 likes
No you haven't. You said I suffer of delusions. What does that mean? Do you mean the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no?
I mean that you hold beliefs that alleviate the stress of knowing you will die and cease to exist. In other words, you cover up reality with your nice beliefs in order to feel better about your finite existence.
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:27#1347860 likes
- yes, quoting the dictionary certainly does make my point very well. You don't understand what ANY of those synonyms mean in the context of diagnosing a psychiatric condition.
It seems that you don't know what any of those words mean in the context of THIS conversation.
I mean that you hold beliefs that alleviate the stress of knowing you will die and cease to exist. In other words, you cover up reality with your nice beliefs in order to feel better about your existence.
Good, so you don't mean delusions in a medical context, therefore the list of symptoms used to diagnose the psychiatric condition of delusions that you provided is worthless, and that's a fact.
Now let's discuss this new assertion of yours. So it seems to me that you want to say that I hold beliefs solely for the purpose of alleviating the fear of death. Correct?
Harry HinduDecember 18, 2017 at 19:32#1347890 likes
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
Let's start with this one: Do you not accept your premise unquestioningly (that God, the afterlife, the supernatural, spirits, etc., exist) which then has an influence on how you interpret your experiences - that these experiences are "spiritual"?
No, not unquestioningly. It would be most productive if you answer my questions before anything else though. Please try to concentrate, it will facilitate having a discussion.
So it seems to me that you want to say that I hold beliefs solely for the purpose of alleviating the fear of death. Correct?
Not solely. You hold your beliefs for the purpose of alleviating the stress of knowing the world is a certain way that you don't like or agree with. Also, to make yourself feel more meaningful, more special, than your really are.
There are several types of delusions, which religion seems to overlap:
Again from Wikipedia:
Erotomanic type (erotomania): delusion that another person, often a prominent figure, is in love with the individual. The individual may breach the law as he/she tries to obsessively make contact with the desired person. Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator. Jealous type: delusion that the individual's sexual partner is unfaithful when it is untrue. The patient may follow the partner, check text messages, emails, phone calls etc. in an attempt to find "evidence" of the infidelity. Persecutory type: This delusion is a common subtype. It includes the belief that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way. The patient may believe that he/she has been drugged, spied upon, harassed and so on and may seek "justice" by making police reports, taking court action or even acting violently. Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition Mixed type: delusions with characteristics of more than one of the above types but with no one theme predominating. Unspecified type: delusions that cannot be clearly determined or characterized in any of the categories in the specific types.
So religious beliefs would be a mixed type encompassing a degree of erotomanic (God loves me and is interested in my life), grandiose (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter)), and maybe a bit of persecutory (War on Christmas when there is no war on Christmas).
In the Christian tradition, for example, prayer, worship, meditation and contemplation are means for the believer to get in closer communion with the Lord through His Son Jesus Christ.
Yeah, so right now you're talking to an atheist so starting out like this is just begging the question to me. Let's not shall we?
Not solely. You hold your beliefs for the purpose of alleviating the stress of knowing the world is a certain way that you don't like or agree with. Also, to make yourself feel more meaningful, more special, than your really are.
If eternal hell exists and if you are someone who is likely to be in hell in the afterlife, would hell be something to be afraid of? Yes or no?
Erotomanic type (erotomania): delusion that another person, often a prominent figure, is in love with the individual. The individual may breach the law as he/she tries to obsessively make contact with the desired person.
This makes no reference to God. Clearly the delusion applies to actual human persons.
delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator.
>:O doesn't sound like what you were quoting above.
Yeah, so right now you're talking to an atheist so starting out like this is just begging the question to me. Let's not shall we?
Nope, not begging the question at all. I expressed something in Christian discourse, you want me to translate to atheist? It's just a question of translation. You cannot figure the meaning of those terms. Read the rest of what I wrote. You don't have to be a theist to meditate for example.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 18, 2017 at 21:18#1348160 likes
meaningless is really just semantics. I defined faith earlier in this thread as "the evidence of things unseen". When I say "remove faith" we are removing any evidence submitted for things unseen such as souls, God, miracles and transubstantiation.
What about the meaning of words, aren't they things unseen? Or do you claim to have seen the body and blood of Christ? If you've taken part in the Eucharist, you have evidence that the items are body and blood of Christ, because you've seen them, and seen that this is what they are called. If you think that the words refer to something else, or that the items should be called something else, you are going on faith in something unseen.
If attempting to decipher the nature of reality, I rely upon my senses and reason and you rely upon the five books of Moses, surely you can see that we don't just have different foundational anchors, but they are of a significantly different type altogether. My point being that I am relying upon some fairly basic means of acquiring information, whereas you are relying upon some old book, and I therefore can say that we are not using faith in the same way.
I don't see that we use "faith" in a different way. I would think that you have as much faith in modern books, like the stuff taught to you in schools, as you have in your senses, just like me. So for instance, you probably believe that things are made of molecules and atoms, though you don't sense them. And you probably believe things about the universe which you don't sense, and about historical things which you weren't there to sense. But I have very little faith. That's why I scour the books for consistency, reserving my faith for things which have been demonstrated to be deserving of faith. And, I believe that it is reasonable to have more faith in ancient books than modern books because they have stood the test of time, by demonstrating their consistency.
The thing about faith is that it is the means by which knowledge is passed from one person to the next without immediately testing that knowledge. If the knowledge turns out to be faulty, this will eventually be exposed, it will be dropped, and will not stand the test of time, like the geocentric universe. In relation to the vast amount of knowledge that was produced thousands of years ago, only a very small part has remained, the rest has been dropped because it wasn't really worthy of our faith in the first place. In relation to the vast amount of knowledge which is produced in the modern environment, we have no way of knowing which aspects will persist, and which will be dropped. Therefore the probability is much higher that the knowledge from ancient times is more deserving of our faith. Compare fragile ideas which have been in existence for two thousand years, with fragile ideas that were created yesterday. The person who created the ideas yesterday insist that they will be around for a long time into the future. Which do you think are more deserving of your faith?
It's clear that there are all sorts of religions worldwide with tremendous diversity among them, many thousands of years of old and many with hundreds of thousands and even millions upon millions of followers. Surely they can't all be right, which would indicate their being right has little to do with their success.
The different religions have fundamental principles which are very similar, God, communion, good behaviour, etc., especially if you allow for the different social conditions within which they exist. And if they have similar fundamental principles, then your claim "surely they can't all be right" is unjustified. Atheists like to pick at accidental differences and say "see they're all different, they can' t all be right". But look at all the different people out there in the world. Would you say "see they're all different, they can't all be human beings"?
The different religions have fundamental principles which are very similar, God, communion, good behaviour, etc., especially if you allow for the different social conditions within which they exist. And if they have similar fundamental principles, then your claim "surely they can't all be right" is unjustified. Atheists like to pick at accidental differences and say "see they're all different, they can' t all be right". But look at all the different people out there in the world. Would you say "see they're all different, they can't all be human beings"?
Yes, I think this is about right. There are differences between religions, but there certainly is a shared mystical core in all of them.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 18, 2017 at 22:03#1348410 likes
Yes, I think this is about right. There are differences between religions, but there certainly is a shared mystical core in all of them.
The shared core is one of the things which validates religion as a real thing. It is a real property of human existence. Likewise, as much as we are all very different, as human beings there is a "shared core", and it is the shared core which validates the claim that there is a single species called human being.
The shared core is one of the things which validates religion as a real thing. It is a real property of human existence. Likewise, as much as we are all very different, as human beings there is a "shared core", and it is the shared core which validates the claim that there is a single species called human being.
Uhuh. That's so vague that it doesn't mean anything.
I have expanded on that thought much more in other threads. I even started one where I tried to discuss it in depth. I made a valid point - in my opinion, theists have a more complete understanding of the nature of reality than atheists, materialists, realists, and their ilk do. It's a respectable philosophical argument with a history. My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand.
Catholicism is either irrelevant to the actions of humans or it is directly responsible for some pretty horrific mass murders and abuses. I don't think it's unreasonable for the victims of such abuse, still going on to this day, and their supporters to carry just a little antipathy towards the Church.
Knock yourself out. Have as much antipathy as you want. What does that have to do with the value of a Catholic world view? And the sins you have enumerated are small change. A few tens of thousands of lives. What they did in the new world with the Indians and slaves is the real game. So what?
Some of the arguments that have been presented here are hilarious. If I throw a blanket over my cat and call it a grizzly bear, is that evidence that my cat has become a grizzly bear? Evidence or not, it's a long way off from being sufficient to reasonably conclude that my cat has become a grizzly bear. This kind of argument, which is of the kind that has been employed in this discussion, is fallacious - whether it's an irrelevant conclusion, a conclusion which doesn't follow, or equivocation. It's lose-lose.
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover The shared core argument you're making is the same flawed argument that gets dragged out in Philosophy 101 classes every semester as proof against moral relativism: There must be absolutes because every culture shares the same basic moral truths.
Don't get me wrong, I do hold there are moral truths, but I also think some cultures think wrong is right. The same holds true of religion, and you can't arbitrarily reject those you feel are too primitive or that hold to satanic beliefs.
You're also departing the crux of this thread, and that is the question of the validity of the Euchrist. I'm pretty sure the Jewish faith, for example, rejects that to the core.
Reply to Sapientia Your cat is an emaciated bug eyed dwarf. Throwing a blanket over it doesn't make it a grizzly bear. It just makes it more tolerable to be around.
And, I believe that it is reasonable to have more faith in ancient books than modern books because they have stood the test of time, by demonstrating their consistency.
Your test for validity uses a stopwatch, not a petri dish. Monarchies have existed longer than democracies, so let's stick with that.
The shared core argument you're making is the same flawed argument that gets dragged out in Philosophy 101 classes every semester as proof against moral relativism: There must be absolutes because every culture shares the same basic moral truths.
One of the first principles taught to you in philosophy class, and you dismissed it, without reason, as "flawed". Some people just weren't meant to be philosophers.
That's why I got out of mathematics, I couldn't grasp what they were teaching in algebra, so I knew mathematics was not my calling.. You can't grasp what they teach in philosophy, yet for some reason you still want to be a philosopher.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 19, 2017 at 01:42#1349410 likes
Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator.
This type seems to sum you up quite well, but I'm sure you won't see that irony.
It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher.
I'm struggling to see how that's not a statement clearly suggesting that an accurate assessment of the Church's virtues is essential to good philosophy on this subject. Apart, it would seem, if you want to conclude that the Church has little or no net virtue when all of a sudden you're claiming it becomes irrelevant. This is just fashionable fence-sitting.
the sins you have enumerated are small change. A few tens of thousands of lives.
I'm speechless... A few tens of thousands is OK? How many people need to be victims of genocide for you to move of the fence, does it have to get into the millions? Or is it all made better if they do a bit of good work for charity' later on? If Hitler had done a bit of leafleting for Oxfam would it become 'monstrous hubris' to keep going on about the holocaust?
I find your dismissive lack of value for human life and dignity quite shocking. The Catholic Church killed tens of thousands of people and subjected probably ten times that amount to abuse in the form emotional and physical torture in the name of it's bullshit religion, Nothing... absolutely nothing makes up for that.
You can't buy your way out of crimes against humanity with a bit of charity work.
What about the meaning of words, aren't they things unseen? Or do you claim to have seen the body and blood of Christ? If you've taken part in the Eucharist, you have evidence that the items are body and blood of Christ, because you've seen them, and seen that this is what they are called. If you think that the words refer to something else, or that the items should be called something else, you are going on faith in something unseen.
I am a raised Catholic. I've already set out above what I think about transubstantiation. And obviously I'm not going by faith at all. After you named it "the body and blood of Christ" we can run every conceivable test on it and establish that it's still stale bread and bad wine. So my statement actually corresponds to reality and isn't something "unseen" as it is a claim about the world as-is. I'm the one that is saying something that can be proved by conventional means. Your point can only be proved through faith which renders it a fairy tale. This is the same "really real" nonsense expounded every time people have a religious experience except that it has been ritualised.
I have expanded on that thought much more in other threads. I even started one where I tried to discuss it in depth. I made a valid point - in my opinion, theists have a more complete understanding of the nature of reality than atheists, materialists, realists, and their ilk do. It's a respectable philosophical argument with a history. My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand.
You might have, I'm not familiar with your posts on the subject. On it's own the sentence is meaningless and not something I can really respond to. Perhaps if you link me to the relevant thread I can give you a more substantive reply as it's quite a claim. Theist seem to have an understanding of nature that you happen to agree with. That's very nice.
My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand.
Why not? All theists have is tradition, a couple of anecdotes and a few books as proof. And of course faith. Mustn't forget that one. In light of the weak evidence (e.g. none whatsoever) and the failure of every conceivable philosophical argument for God then it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society.
EDIT: Oh wait, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. :-}
Nope, not begging the question at all. I expressed something in Christian discourse, you want me to translate to atheist? It's just a question of translation. You cannot figure the meaning of those terms. Read the rest of what I wrote. You don't have to be a theist to meditate for example.
You're begging the question as you already assumed the existence of God and go from there. Since I don't accept the premise, the argument is unnecessary to be considered. And yes we can meditate but you specifically related those things to becoming closer to God. I don't ascribe to that either. As a result we cannot have a meaningful discussion on the subject.
I see you're not very cultured. It's a conditional statement. If X is true, then Y. Do you know the truth conditions of a conditional statement? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that if X is false, then the conditional X -> Y is still true.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 12:21#1350950 likes
I see you're not very cultured. It's a conditional statement. If X is true, then Y. Do you know the truth conditions of a conditional statement? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that if X is false, then the conditional X -> Y is still true.
It's not a matter of being cultured. I was a believer the first half of my life. It's a matter of being logical and reasonable.
IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell, the God that wants to put me there for the simple infraction of not believing in it's existence, and of people like you who agree that I should be put there for not believing in their stories for which there is no evidence.
Isn't the existence of hell a big IF? You say that you don't accept it's existence unquestioningly, but if you are changing your behavior as a result of you believing it does exist, then that is a true symptom of a delusion. You are changing your behavior based on an IF, for which there is no evidence of it's existence.
Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator. — Harry Hindu
This type seems to sum you up quite well, but I'm sure you won't see that irony.
No. Questioning someone's premise for which there is no evidence is not indicative of having a grandiose delusion. It IS indicative of having delusions if you go about believing in things, unquestioningly, for which there is no evidence in order to make you feel better in the face of things for which there is evidence.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 12:30#1350980 likes
grandiose (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter))
So you don't believe that you are an eternal spirit and that the body is just a faulty (sinful) copy of yourself? If eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist, then what it the point of a body? What is the point of a soul when all that does is make me a faulty copy of myself?
IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell
Okay. Thanks for that admission. It was a simple yes or no question, you could have answered it sooner and avoided all this dragged conversation. I'm not trying to ask you difficult questions.
Now onto the next part.
If the existence of hell would be a source of fear, then couldn't someone be an atheist and disbelieve in God so that he can go on under the delusion that there is no hell in the afterlife and not have to worry about it now while living his life? I mean you certainly have a nicer night's sleep knowing that whatever you happened to have done, nothing will happen in the afterlife.
This would be exactly like the theist who, because he is afraid of death under your conception, hearkens unto the notion of God. So too the atheist, because he is afraid of responsibility and being held accountable for what he has done, hearkens onto the notion that there isn't a God.
You say that you don't accept it's existence unquestioningly, but if you are changing your behavior as a result of you believing it does exist, then that is a true symptom of a delusion. You are changing your behavior based on an IF.
Right, and you too - you're changing your behaviour based on the if that God doesn't exist. You claim that the theist believes in God because he is afraid of death and mortality, while the theist claims that you disbelieve in God because you are afraid of hell. So either position is as much a delusion as the other based on the criteria you have offered.
All this shows is the limitation of thinking that either position is intellectually based on fear, as if there couldn't be rational reasons for believing or disbelieving. So this psychologising is kindergarten level philosophy. We have to go beyond those stupidities and finger pointing if we want to gain a deeper understanding of the issues.
Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that?
You have no clue what "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" means, so don't try to talk in languages that you don't understand. Go back to the experience of meditation.
Questioning someone's premise for which there is no evidence is not indicative of having a grandiose delusion. It IS indicative of having delusions if you go about believing in things, unquestioningly, for which there is no evidence in order to make you feel better in the face of things for which there is evidence.
Affirming with your conviction that there is no evidence (which is actually a negative) is much more likely to be a delusion than not. You can say that you have not personally found the evidence, that is different than saying there is no evidence. Because, how do you know there isn't any evidence?
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 12:55#1351040 likes
Reply to Agustino You're missing a very important point. There is no evidence of God's existence. Delusions are covering up things for which there is evidence, with things for which there is no evidence.
Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it make them delusional?
So you don't believe that you are an eternal spirit and that the body is just a faulty (sinful) copy of yourself? If eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist, then what it the point of a body? What is the point of a soul when all that does is make me a faulty copy of myself?
Who told you eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist? As far as I'm aware, Christianity talks of a BODILY resurrection of the dead, so, by all means, it doesn't suggest there are spirits without bodies around.
Did you read, for example, Genesis? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve did have bodies. So the body in its natural state is holy, it is meant to be a temple for the spirit, and together the two form the person.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 12:57#1351080 likes
Because, how do you know there isn't any evidence?
?
How do you know there isn't any evidence that unicorns exist? Do you live your life based on all the claims that have no evidence? Why do you change your behavior based on just one claim that has no evidence, and not all the others, which have the same amount of evidence - none?
You change your behavior based on the IF of God's existence, but not the IF that unicorns exist?
How do you know there isn't any evidence that unicorns exist?
I have not found evidence that unicorns exist, but there might be horses with horns somewhere in the Universe, how am I supposed to know there aren't? :s However, whether there are or not, isn't very relevant to my life. Whether there is a God, on the other hand, is a lot more relevant.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:01#1351110 likes
Did you read, for example, Genesis? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve did have bodies. So the body in its natural state is holy, it is meant to be a temple for the spirit, and together the two form the person.
In other words, you made up a story, for which the only evidence is an ancient book written by people with no access to the knowledge we have today, and is filled with slavery and murdering people who's only "crime" was believing in a different God. Is The Lord of the Rings evidence that elves exist?
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:09#1351170 likes
If God uses the clear-cut evidence of my thoughts and actions to judge me, then where is the clear-cut evidence of God's existence? To design me with ignorance and then show no evidence of God's existence and then judge me based on that when God doesn't need to rely on faith that I'm a believer, is hypocritical.
Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional?
There are two different issues at play here. Short analogy before I answer:
Plato talked about a "true falsehood". A true falsehood is something that is believed in your heart, and thus makes you ACT falsely. A regular falsehood though, is something that is just words - that isn't believed in the heart. So if you study yourself, you will probably see this distinction - there are things you believe in your heart, and they reflect on how you act, and then there are things that you believe just in words.
That distinction is important here. Because "God" and "hell" (as words) are referring to experiences. They are not self-referential - you don't find the meaning of those words by reading a dictionary entry. And it is their propositional content that is important, not the words themselves. So someone can absolutely never have heard of "God" or "hell" and yet still know what God and hell are. I'm sure there are even atheists who have this knowledge.
So the answer to your question is no - not necessarily.
Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it make them delusional?
If they just hear the words? Words must be understood first. That requires understanding their referrents within experience, not just being able to cite dictionary definitions. So if they just hear the words, don't understand and find no evidence, then they are not delusional. But if they do find evidence, which they reject, then they are indeed delusional.
In other words, you made up a story, for which the only evidence is an ancient book written by people with no access to the knowledge we have today, and is filled with slavery and murdering people who's only "crime" was believing in a different God.
Have you read the Bible from cover to cover? I can suggest to you a series of videos that explains it quite well. The Bible is formed of different literary genres, so it's by no means meant to be taken literarily. And the Bible is just one source of revelation - Apostolic Tradition is another, and personal revelations are yet another. So when trying to find the truth, you're looking for evidence being affirmed by all sources of revelation, and, where possible, also by reason. If there is a conflict between reason and revelation that must be resolved.
To design me with ignorance and then show no evidence of God's existence and then judge me based on that when God doesn't need to rely on faith that I'm a believer, is hypocritical.
Plato talked about a "true falsehood". A true falsehood is something that is believed in your heart, and thus makes you ACT falsely. A regular falsehood though, is something that is just words - that isn't believed in the heart. So if you study yourself, you will probably see this distinction - there are things you believe in your heart, and they reflect on how you act, and then there are things that you believe just in words.
To give an example of this.
A true falsehood is if you believe that your brother had sex with your wife (for example) and you rush and kill him, even though he hasn't actually done it.
A regular falsehood is when you're delusional because of high fever and want to commit suicide, and I tell you that this pill is a euthanasia pill, while in truth it's just an anti-anxiety medication. I have told you a lie, and you will act according to the lie, but it is not a true falsehood because you don't misinterpret the correct nature of reality - which you would do if you were to commit suicide.
You have no clue what "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" means, so don't try to talk in languages that you don't understand. Go back to the experience of meditation.
I'll take this personal attack and your failure to answer the question as an admission that your earlier points were silly.
I'll take this personal attack and your failure to answer the question as an admission that your earlier points were silly.
Then tell me - what does "God doesn't exist" mean?
And it's not a failure to answer a question. It's wisdom. You don't go around answering stupid questions. If I asked you "are you still beating your wife?" would you answer it?
And it's not a failure to answer a question. It's wisdom. You don't go around answering stupid questions. If I asked you "are you still beating your wife?" would you answer it?
So that's why, actually struggling and trying to understand so that you can ask good questions is important. If you just come with a destructive attitude, you cannot make any progress in understanding the other. Not any question that you can ask is a good question and merits answering.
So that's why, actually struggling and trying to understand so that you can ask good questions is important. If you just come with a destructive attitude, you cannot make any progress in understanding the other. Not any question that you can ask is a good question and merits answering.
The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED.
The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED.
Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that?
The only conclusion to be taken from your statement above is that you did assume the non-existence of God, otherwise your question is stupid. In which case, you were begging the question. QED.
When you stop playing childish games like that, please get back to me, otherwise, it's really a waste of time for both of us, and doesn't get us anywhere.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 19, 2017 at 13:25#1351250 likes
The shared core argument you're making is the same flawed argument that gets dragged out in Philosophy 101 classes
The argument is an argument from probability, it is not an argument from necessity. These are two different types of arguments applied to different types of subject matter, just like inductive and deductive are two different types of logic, used for different purposes. That the argument is a different type from what you are used to, does not make it a flawed argument.
When I was in high school I may have considered the principles of algebra and trigonometry as flawed because I was having difficulty understanding them. The lack of a concrete referent troubled me, so I could not proceed to the level of abstraction required because I was unwilling to accept the articles on faith alone, I needed to understand through concrete reference. The teacher did not provide concrete reference, because the time for concrete reference was grade school and I was supposed to be far beyond that. I now recognize that my unwillingness to accept these principles on faith did not make those principles faulty, but it did make me a bad mathematician.
Faith is one of the methods which we employ in our approach to the unknown. When we apprehend someone as authoritative we may be inclined to accept on faith what is given to us by that authority. Another method of approach is probability. When the solution to the problem at hand cannot be known, we judge the likelihood of success in various solutions, and proceed on probability.
Plato demonstrated that virtue is associated with how we approach the unknown. Courage for instance is an approach to the danger within the unknown, which involves a judgement of risk, in today's term, "probability". To judge all forays into the unknown as risky, leaves one without courage, cowardice. And inversely, to judge all such forays as without risk leaves one as rash. The capacity to judge such probabilities (risk) correctly is courage, and courage is a virtue. So Aristotle described virtue as the mean between the extremes.
If an individual is unwilling to accept the articles of faith, this person still requires an approach to the unknown, in order to maintain one's status as virtuous. That approach is the approach of probability, likelihood. When you reject the approach of probability, as you did when you said these arguments of probability are flawed, this makes you a bad philosopher, just like my rejection of the articles of faith made me a bad mathematician.
After you named it "the body and blood of Christ" we can run every conceivable test on it and establish that it's still stale bread and bad wine. So my statement actually corresponds to reality and isn't something "unseen" as it is a claim about the world as-is.
After you run all your test, you still have the issue of what qualifies as "stale bread" and "bad wine", your definitions. This is necessary in order to make your judgement as to whether the test results are according to the definitions. That these terms ought to be defined in the way that you define them is something "unseen".
The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED.
And by the way, I don't assume the existence of God in such a discussion, I assume the POSSIBILITY for the existence of God. If God's existence is impossible, a priori, then you could adopt your attitude, but you haven't shown that to be the case.
So if you want to have a discussion, you must assume the possibility of God's existence too. Otherwise, no discussion can be had.
After you run all your test, you still have the issue of what qualifies as "stale bread" and "bad wine", your definitions. This is necessary in order to make your judgement as to whether the test results are according to the definitions. That these terms ought to be defined in the way that you define them is something "unseen".
Open a dictionary, try using language on an everyday basis. No faith involved. Although admittedly your language use is getting increasingly idiosyncratic.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:33#1351290 likes
A true falsehood is if you believe that your brother had sex with your wife (for example) and you rush and kill him, even though he hasn't actually done it.
A regular falsehood is when you're delusional because of high fever and want to commit suicide, and I tell you that this pill is a euthanasia pill, while in truth it's just an anti-anxiety medication. I have told you a lie, and you will act according to the lie, but it is not a true falsehood because you don't misinterpret the correct nature of reality - which you would do if you were to commit suicide.
I wouldn't believe the my brother had sex with my wife without evidence. Your words are evidence, but not proof. When someone claims something, I need more evidence.
I wouldn't believe the my brother had sex with my wife without evidence. Your words are evidence, but not proof. When someone claims something, I need more evidence.
I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. God isn't something or someone that can be shown in a photograph, the way I'd show you a gazelle, or a black swan. And even then, you could say that the photograph doesn't correspond to something that exists in reality, but was altered with Photoshop, etc. So some faith is inescapable to live in the world. Whatsoever knowledge is transmitted to you requires some faith to be accepted.
When someone claims something, I need more evidence.
My claims are with regards to the cumulation of my experiences, which includes time spent studying Christianity, the Bible, Buddhism, mysticism, philosophy, and other such subjects. So I am trying to convey you my experiences through words. I cannot make you, through those words, to have the same experiences. You have to do the work yourself, as it were.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:37#1351330 likes
I have not found evidence that unicorns exist, but there might be horses with horns somewhere in the Universe, how am I supposed to know there aren't? :s However, whether there are or not, isn't very relevant to my life. Whether there is a God, on the other hand, is a lot more relevant.
Fair enough. I admit that that was a bad example. I can admit that I'm wrong. You have yet to do that - a symptom of being delusional.
Let's use another example. How do you know that your god is the right god? There have been so many devised by human beings. There may be evidence that a god other than any devised by humans exists, so why don't you change your behavior based on that? Isn't it because you were raised in a family that believes in that particular kind of god?
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:38#1351350 likes
I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. God isn't something or someone that can be shown in a photograph, the way I'd show you a gazelle, or a black swan. And even then, you could say that the photograph doesn't correspond to something that exists in reality, but was altered with Photoshop, etc. So some faith is inescapable to live in the world. Whatsoever knowledge is transmitted to you requires some faith to be accepted.
No, it requires logic and reason - by integrating all knowledge into a consistent whole. God doesn't use faith and neither do we when determining someone's guilt or innocence. Faith is accepting a premise unquestioningly - a symptom of a delusion.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:39#1351360 likes
My claims are with regards to the cumulation of my experiences, which includes time spent studying Christianity, the Bible, Buddhism, mysticism, philosophy, and other such subjects. So I am trying to convey you my experiences through words. I cannot make you, through those words, to have the same experiences. You have to do the work yourself, as it were.
Exactly, you have already accepted the premise unquestioningly and made it your life's work to study this particular god.
If all you have to go on is other people's words, then how is it that you don't believe in other gods, or everything anyone says, for that matter? What of their experiences of different things than what you experience? How do you explain why we experience things differently?
And by the way, I don't assume the existence of God in such a discussion, I assume the POSSIBILITY for the existence of God. If God's existence is impossible, a priori, then you could adopt your attitude, but you haven't shown that to be the case.
So if you want to have a discussion, you must assume the possibility of God's existence too. Otherwise, no discussion can be had.
So now you're moving the goal posts because at no point did you assume the possibility by, for instance, saying: "meditation could move one closer to God, were he to exist". Instead you put it out there as a fact. Also, you and I both know you don't assume the possibility since you have faith in his existence.
As far as I'm concerned there is no data or observations available to rationally assume the possibility as it is as likely as the existence of unicorns. So if you want me to entertain the possibility, get me data or observable facts. Until then any discussion about God, his properties or my relation to him is indeed moot.
God is a referent to something or someone that can be experienced. So I know that my God is the right God because I experienced Him. This isn't to say that the Christian God is the real God, and the Muslim God is the false God, etc. No. The word "God" in all religions refers to the same underlying reality, approached through different manners and understood to different extents. Catholicism for example freely admits that salvation is possible for Muslims, for Buddhists, and even for atheists. I had a post about it in this thread earlier. And Eastern Orthodoxy admits the same.
So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know.
Isn't it because you were raised in a family that believes in that particular kind of god?
No, my family are mostly atheists. It's true that the prevailing faith in my country is Christianity, and that did play a significant role as to why I became a Christian, and not a Buddhist, or something else. Keep in mind that religion is also a communal activity - that's one of the reasons for being a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and not an independent seeker. I think it's best for people to delve deeper in the religion of their country, wherever they happened to be born. It is their tradition, and they are most equipped to understand it and progress most fully in it, rather than switch.
God is a referent to something or someone that can be experienced. So I know that my God is the right God because I experienced Him. This isn't to say that the Christian God is the real God, and the Muslim God is the false God, etc. No. The word "God" in all religions refers to the same underlying reality, approached through different manners and understood to different extents. Catholicism for example freely admits that salvation is possible for Muslims, for Buddhists, and even for atheists. I had a post about it in this thread earlier. And Eastern Orthodoxy admits the same.
So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know.
LOL. Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. You've just proved my point.
So now you're moving the goal posts because at no point did you assume the possibility by, for instance, saying: "meditation could move one closer to God, were he to exist". Instead you put it out there as a fact.
By doing that I tried to show to you that I'm referring to different things by God than you are. You refuse to accept my usage of "God", because you want to stick to whatever understanding you have of God. And this is deeper than the question of whether God exists, because that question requires that we use the same definition. So far, we're not even using the same definition (and more importantly, the same understanding) of the term.
Also, you and I both know you don't assume the possibility since you have faith in his existence.
That is true, just like you have faith in his nonexistence. But - for the purposes of this discussion I did assume the possibility of his existence. And we both must assume that for a conversation to be possible.
So what about the Christian God is inconsistent with our knowledge?
Let's start with our moral codes. People call the Christian God loving, yet the Bible shows otherwise. If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving.
Keep in mind that religion is also a communal activity - that's one of the reasons for being a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and not an independent seeker. I think it's best for people to delve deeper in the religion of their country, wherever they happened to be born. It is their tradition, and they are most equipped to understand it and progress most fully in it, rather than switch.
In other words, Christianity is a mass delusion perpetuated by the culture. By surrounding yourself with people with like-minds reinforces those beliefs, but it doesn't prove them.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:54#1351470 likes
Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. — Harry Hindu
I didn't make the underlined comment.
You did say to "come and see for yourself". I don't understand the distinction you are making between seeing and experiencing.
I'll re-prhase, but that doesn't take away from my point:
Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by experiencing things the way I experience them. If that's not a symptom of a grandiose delusion, I don't know what is.
The lack of a concrete referent troubled me, so I could not proceed to the level of abstraction required because I was unwilling to accept the articles on faith alone, I needed to understand through concrete reference.
I don't see how this is analogous. Algebra and trigonometry do in fact have concrete references, and I agree that it's a poor way to teach to simply itemize the steps the students are to perform without offering an understanding as to why those steps must be performed. The problem I have with transubstantiation is not that the teacher has failed to provide the underlying concrete basis for it, but it's that the teacher has specifically told me that it's a mystery.
The argument is a resort to humility, to argue I should just accept there are certain things beyond my comprehension, and instead of smugly rejecting them, I should take pause and recognize it is my limitations that keep me from understanding it. If you were trying to explain to me some complex physics problem, I'd agree with you, but it's a bit hard to accept the same with reference to transubstantiation when the explanation you offer is to tell me that it's just one of those mysteries. I think a better response would be to take pause and then declare that the emperor wears no clothes. That often takes more courage than blind acceptance.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 13:56#1351490 likes
So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know.
What does it mean to "come and see for yourself"? Try what out?
Reply to Benkei Take it like this. If you don't know English, and I'm speaking to you, and I say "water" and point to a glass of water, you will know what I mean by water. And we will have the same definition. You don't know the language, so, on faith, you accept it that "water" refers to whatever I point to.
You're not a believer, you used to be one. So you don't understand, at least anymore (maybe you never have, I wouldn't know that) how the term "God" is best to be used, and what it refers to. I, who am a believer, am more likely, by the fact that I devote more time to study and understand this than you do, to understand what "God" refers to. So it's best if you accept the definition of God that I point to, and then ask constructive questions about it. Such as, if God is found in this experience (meditation), why does the Church insist on these particular set of rituals? Why do I have to say I believe in order to be saved? Etc.
The problem with God is that I cannot point to God the way I point to a glass of water. God is not a sense experience, but more like a meaning, or a pattern, something that is subtle and must be directly perceived. So I can force you to experience a glass of water and become aware of it, but I cannot force you, on command, to experience God.
If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving.
Depends. According to Christianity, the gates of hell are locked from within. God cannot force people out of hell against their own will - at least He can't if He is loving and respects their free will.
You're not a believer, you used to be one. So you don't understand, at least anymore (maybe you never have, I wouldn't know that) how the term "God" is best to be used, and what it refers to. I, who am a believer, am more likely, by the fact that I devote more time to study and understand this than you do, to understand what "God" refers to.
The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. It would make as much sense to argue that you should open your mind to the enlightenment of atheism by someone who insists they have had ineffable experiences of the lack of a supreme being as it makes for you to argue the opposite.
And I think this conversation has changed objectives to something far more moderate, which is simply to argue for the possibility of a higher power, which, from my perspective, is far more defensible than arguing for the validity of transubstantiation. The vagueness of what God is allows plenty of room for acceptance, whereas transubstantiation is a very specific doctrine clarified by the Catholic Church that does not offer much wiggle room for skeptics to take it seriously.
But to the extent that we're now just arguing that there might be some higher power out there, there seems not to be much controversy in accepting such a claim other than by pretty committed atheists. I'm not saying atheists have nothing significant to say in that regard, but I do know that if that were the focus of the OP, we wouldn't be in the 28th page. It was the outlandish attempts to defend transubstantiation to a secular crowd that generated the discussion.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:19#1351590 likes
Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation.
You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them.
What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion.
What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion.
In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:23#1351610 likes
What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age?
What about what happened before we were born? Were we non-existent? What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected? How did you come by this information? Have you asked any of these questions of yourself, or do you simply believe in this stuff unquestioningly?
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:24#1351630 likes
I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation.
Exactly. My point is that in order to receive salvation, one must experience things the way you experience them. In other words, we must simply accept your own understanding of your own experiences and hope that ours is like yours without fully knowing what your experience is.
The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. It would make as much sense to argue that you should open your mind to the enlightenment of atheism by someone who insists they have had ineffable experiences of the lack of a supreme being as it makes for you to argue the opposite.
I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it.
I, personally, made no mention of a "higher power" as of yet, as that is another thing that requires definition and must be sought for within experience.
It was the outlandish attempts to defend transubstantiation to a secular crowd that generated the discussion.
What actually happened in this thread was that the secular crowd rejected the definitions (and understandings) of transubstantiation offered by the theistic crowd, and therefore they've been off-topic all along. The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation.
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:28#1351670 likes
I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it.
It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word "God" refers to, you ignorant dolt.
I devoted my entire first half of my life to God. I was saved, baptized, read the Bible, went to church, and I still ended up rejecting it when I opened my mind to other alternatives, which included other religions, philosophies and science, that didn't carry all this unnecessary and contradictory baggage. How do you, Agustino, explain how people who have studied it, come to different conclusions?
What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected?
Who said just to be resurrected? The point was to live in communion with God, and be an image of God on Earth. But man sinned, and things spiralled out of control. God was faithful to mankind and has kept saving and protecting man, and ultimately guiding him towards redemption. That is our history.
It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word God refers to, you ignorant dolt.
What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined, at least with reference to what "God" refers to?
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:36#1351690 likes
What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined?
Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion.
Do people who study astrology really know more that those that don't? You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge?
You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge?
Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to.
Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife.
That didn't answer my question about what age we will be when ressurrected. Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means?
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:38#1351720 likes
Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to.
A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others?
Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means?
It will very likely be different, since creation is in a fallen state now, and after the Resurrection it won't be. How it will be different, it hasn't been revealed to us. Some people, including in the Church, do have opinions, but those are just opinions. I'm personally of the opinion that bodies will not age in the afterlife. If you want, I can explain to you why I think so.
A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others?
Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them (while others don't).
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:42#1351750 likes
Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them.
So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life?
Harry HinduDecember 19, 2017 at 14:50#1351770 likes
I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it.
And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? Your argument suggests that they know better what the term, "God" refers to. You seem unwilling to admit that there are others that have studied "God" more than you and have come up with a different idea of God, or that it doesn't exist at all - a symptom of a grandiose delusion.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 19, 2017 at 14:52#1351780 likes
Open a dictionary, try using language on an everyday basis. No faith involved. Although admittedly your language use is getting increasingly idiosyncratic.
Correctness in language use is totally faith. The fact that I can remove myself from good faith and get idiosyncratic if I want, demonstrates the reality of this. You seem to already recognize this so I don't see why I need to tell you.
Algebra and trigonometry do in fact have concrete references, and I agree that it's a poor way to teach to simply itemize the steps the students are to perform without offering an understanding as to why those steps must be performed.
If you think that the reasons for making the particular steps which are made, in these mathematical proceedings having concrete references, then I think you are hallucinating. The reasons why the steps are performed, are complex, often ambiguous, and in no way constitutes a concrete reference; just like the Church's reasons for performing their rites cannot constitute a concrete reference. In mathematics, the reasons for the steps of procedure being as they are, are extremely vague, and sometimes completely arbitrary. That the circle has 360 degrees for example, is completely arbitrary.
The problem I have with transubstantiation is not that the teacher has failed to provide the underlying concrete basis for it, but it's that the teacher has specifically told me that it's a mystery.
That these symbols, 1,2,3, etc., are the symbols which are used, to signify what they do, is just as much of a mystery, or more, as the mystery of transubstantiation. But that does not incline anyone to loose faith in the use of these symbols. So I really don't believe that it is the simple fact that transubstantiation is a mystery which inclines you to have no faith in it. I think that there is something else about it that you do not like, so you refer to this "mystery" as a scapegoat, an excuse to reject it. It's as if I didn't like mathematics for some reason, so I turn to the mystery of why "2" is used, and why "3" is used, and why all the other symbols are used, instead of some other symbols, as an excuse to reject the proceedings of mathematics for being based in something "mysterious". The very act of having faith is the means for accepting that which is a mystery. To withhold faith from everything which is a mystery would produce the ultimate skeptic. You don't appear like the ultimate skeptic, so I think your withholding of faith is not really because it is a mystery.
The argument is a resort to humility, to argue I should just accept there are certain things beyond my comprehension, and instead of smugly rejecting them, I should take pause and recognize it is my limitations that keep me from understanding it.
The argument is that your rejection is unjustified. If you are so smug in your rejection, that demonstrating this to you requires humility, then the blame for this humility is your smugness, not the argument.
Correctness in language use is totally faith. The fact that I can remove myself from good faith and get idiosyncratic if I want, demonstrates the reality of this. You seem to already recognize this so I don't see why I need to tell you.
Correctness in language use is a matter of correspondence with reality. Or use in itself and convention, or whatever other theory you'd like to adhere to. Faith isn't involved as these are things we can observe. People say "goodbye" or point to the "moon". We can try to ascertain whether they correspond with reality or we can ascertain that the convention exists. In your case, I simply pointed out the idiosyncracy of claiming "faith" is involved when deciding something is bread or wine. Hmmm... guess what! These are observable facts! Amazing! No faith involved.
So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life?
That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.
And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to?
Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.
And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination.
I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point.
This isn't the starting point for a conversation about God, it's the ending point. What you've done here is no different than it would be if I simply declared myself an authority on any subject, declared I knew better than you, and then proclaimed that you should defer to me for guidance. That posits you as Socrates, where I suppose I'm supposed to listen carefully to your comments and questions and try to obtain your wisdom. Anyway, this entire line of conversation hinges upon the fallacy of appealing to authority, although in this case, you appeal to yourself as the authority. Quoting Agustino
The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation.
I don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout.
If you think that the reasons for making the particular steps which are made, in these mathematical proceedings having concrete references, then I think you are hallucinating. The reasons why the steps are performed, are complex, often ambiguous, and in no way constitutes a concrete reference; just like the Church's reasons for performing their rites cannot constitute a concrete reference. In mathematics, the reasons for the steps of procedure being as they are, are extremely vague, and sometimes completely arbitrary. That the circle has 360 degrees for example, is completely arbitrary.
I really don't understand this comment. I could draw you a unit circle, show you tangents and whatever else you need if you really want me to graph out the basis of trigonometry. That the measurement system is arbitrary (360 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees in a circle) hardly impacts the validity or usefulness of the conclusions. And, even to the extent that mathematics is abstract, it hardly puts it in the same epistemological class as religion.
The best I can decipher this argument is that you're saying that the world's a complex, confusing place, and there are things none of us understand in the physical world, so it's just as acceptable to posit religious truths as explanations. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That these symbols, 1,2,3, etc., are the symbols which are used, to signify what they do, is just as much of a mystery, or more, as the mystery of transubstantiation.
The reason "2" means 2 is because someone declared it a while ago. How's that mysterious? The reason we refer to transubstantiation as "transubstantiation" is for the same reason. That's not where the mystery lies. The mystery lies in how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The argument is that your rejection is unjustified. If you are so smug in your rejection, that demonstrating this to you requires humility, then the blame for this humility is your smugness, not the argument.
My point remains that your argument was from the point of view that we ought be humble regarding those things we don't understand and try to understand them. The concept of humility when faced with otherwise preposterous beliefs if often presented by theists as the best way to try to understand them.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 19, 2017 at 15:52#1351920 likes
We can try to ascertain whether they correspond with reality or we can ascertain that the convention exists.
So I go to a number of different Catholic churches and observe that the items are referred to as body and blood of Christ, so I ascertain that this convention exists. You perform your tests, and insist that the items are stale bread and bad wine. Why should I accept your unclarified claim that what you say "corresponds with reality", over the convention of the church, which are very clear. Your claim of "corresponds with reality" is just a covert appeal to convention with your definitions of bread and wine being nothing but convention. I am very suspicious of such covert activity so I prefer the Church's position where the role of convention is fully exposed, and not concealed by a claim of "corresponds with reality"
I really don't understand this comment. I could draw you a unit circle, show you tangents and whatever else you need if you really want me to graph out the basis of trigonometry. That the measurement system is arbitrary (360 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees in a circle) hardly impacts the validity or usefulness of the conclusions. And, even to the extent that mathematics is abstract, it hardly puts it in the same epistemological class as religion.
Without the measurement system, there is no procedure. You cannot proceed without accepting on faith, these arbitrary assumptions, the numerals. You could draw me circles, and whatever shapes you like, showing me how they are related, but these are useless without the numerals.
The best I can decipher this argument is that you're saying that the world's a complex, confusing place, and there are things none of us understand in the physical world, so it's just as acceptable to posit religious truths as explanations.
The argument is that faith underlies all we do. To reject something simply because it is faith based, is an unjustified rejection.
The reason "2" means 2 is because someone declared it a while ago. How's that mysterious? The reason we refer to transubstantiation as "transubstantiation" is for the same reason. That's not where the mystery lies. The mystery lies in how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago.
You haven't quite stated the analogy properly here. We interpret "2" not as 2, but as having a meaning, "2" has a meaning. The meaning is roughly one individual is grouped with another individual, to make a unit, and this unit of distinct individuals is signified by one symbol, "2". That is how I interpret "2", maybe you don't interpret the meaning in exactly the same way as I do, but we do not interpret the meaning of "2" as 2 because that is circular and it doesn't give us any meaning at all. Further, the reason why "2" has such a meaning is not because someone declared it as such, but because this belief is upheld, and this is faith.
You interpret "transubstantiation" as "bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago". As is the case with "2", the reason why "transubstantiation" means this is because the belief that this is what it means, is upheld, and this is faith. You say that it's a mystery as to how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died a thousand years ago. I say that it is a mystery as to how one individual is grouped with another individual to make one unit. Why are they one unit under the symbol "2", which is what is declared in mathematical proceedings, and they are not two distinct units, as the meaning of "2" indicates? Now how is your mystery any more mysterious than my mystery?
This isn't the starting point for a conversation about God, it's the ending point.
I don't think so. In order to determine whether God exists or not, then we must first agree on a definition. If you go back as far as Socrates and Plato, you will find that before going any further, any philosophical discussion must agree on definitions (and that doesn't mean purely agreeing on the words of a definition, but more importantly on their meaning). For how can we answer the question of whether there is a God or there is not a God if we don't first agree what God refers to or means?
The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists. The theists aren't interested to discuss the strawman God (or transubstantiation) of the atheists on the other hand. So no progress can be made. I told you to accept the definitions of the theist, for the sake of progress, and because, the theist studying these aspects of reality more, is likely more aware than you what God refers to.
What you've done here is no different than it would be if I simply declared myself an authority on any subject, declared I knew better than you, and then proclaimed that you should defer to me for guidance. That posits you as Socrates, where I suppose I'm supposed to listen carefully to your comments and questions and try to obtain your wisdom. Anyway, this entire line of conversation hinges upon the fallacy of appealing to authority, although in this case, you appeal to yourself as the authority.
That's not true, but if you want to discuss transubstantiation or God, you must agree with the definitions of the person you seek to combat in this case, or otherwise make clear why you disagree. Without agreeing to the definitions you are actually discussing something different.
I don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout.
Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change.
You don't need The Lord of the Rings. Just follow these instructions:
1. Pick any item that you know exists.
2. Call it "elves".
Now elves exist. Impressive, huh?
No, that's not what is being said. You have to go to the propositional content of the words. When you call any item that exists as "elves", assuming that others adopt that usage of the word elves, that means that elves has taken on the propositional content of whatever item you have picked. So when used in those particular contexts, elves now refers to whatever that item refers to. Elves could also have other meanings (referents) in different contexts - in the context of Lord of the Rings, it refers to particular humanoid characters which have certain traits.
But the Lord of the Rings is evidence that, for example, power corrupts, the same way that the Bible is evidence that immorality is self-destructive. You have to understand the literary genre of what you're reading. If you read the Bible like an asinus (much like many incapable New Atheists or fundamentalists are doing), taking it as a book of latest physics, you're going to miss the whole point.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 19, 2017 at 17:56#1352040 likes
The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists.
Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole.
Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole.
Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.
I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural.
BuxtebuddhaDecember 19, 2017 at 19:22#1352140 likes
Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.
I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural.
You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious.
You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious.
Where was that suggested?
BuxtebuddhaDecember 19, 2017 at 19:35#1352210 likes
I told you to accept the definitions of the theist, for the sake of progress, and because, the theist studying these aspects of reality more, is likely more aware than you what God refers to.
This is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it suggests that the theist has some superior method of understanding God, as if the skeptic lacks the capacity at the same understanding, that the skeptic hasn't spent just as long as the theist in considering these issues, and that the skeptic might not have reached a very different conclusion than the theist. It's also very wrong to think that there is some monolithic thought process among theists, ignoring that the definition of God that one theist might have from another may vary widely even in the same church and same pew on any given Sunday. And, of course there are very different views from one church to the other, one denomination to another, and certainly one religion than another. Then there are those who take the idea of God very seriously but who find that no religious doctrine does it justice and who find that the study of religious literature is not the avenue to enlightenment in that area.
Your assertions that you know exactly what God is and that you stand with some authority on that question speaks loudly that your views bear no relation to my own, as I see one's relationship with God as personal, subjective, unprovable, and unverifiable by definition. To present God as this object fully subject to a complete knowable definition candidly feels to me like you have no idea what god is, but are instead just trying to define another object. Consistent with what I've said though, you may have that belief, and it is certainly yours to have, but it offers nothing for me, seems overly simplistic, and by positing yourself as a guru of sorts, it makes it impossible for me to take you seriously. Quoting Agustino
Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change.
By literal change, I mean not symbolic. The bread is the same in substance than it was before and after the prayer.
Without the measurement system, there is no procedure. You cannot proceed without accepting on faith, these arbitrary assumptions, the numerals. You could draw me circles, and whatever shapes you like, showing me how they are related, but these are useless without the numerals.
I'm not following your argument that "arbitrary" = "faith." I don't see the correlation and I don't understand why I can't accept that we use all sorts of arbitrary symbols to describe reality without having faith.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The argument is that faith underlies all we do. To reject something simply because it is faith based, is an unjustified rejection.
There are foundational beliefs that anchor us into reality, sure. We might accept that our senses report to us what is occurring in the real world, and we might accept that reason and logic provide us insights into reality. Those foundational beliefs might at some level have to be accepted on faith, simply because a foundational belief can't have a further foundation; it's the origin of our belief.
If you're saying that your foundational belief is whatever the Catholic Church happens to tell you is true, I'd say that foundation is a much less rudimentary foundation than mine that no doubt relies upon many other more rudimentary beliefs, thus making it not truly foundational. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I say that it is a mystery as to how one individual is grouped with another individual to make one unit. Why are they one unit under the symbol "2", which is what is declared in mathematical proceedings, and they are not two distinct units, as the meaning of "2" indicates? Now how is your mystery any more mysterious than my mystery?
You find it mysterious why people notice similarities among things and group them into categories?
I'm struggling to see how that's not a statement clearly suggesting that an accurate assessment of the Church's virtues is essential to good philosophy on this subject. Apart, it would seem, if you want to conclude that the Church has little or no net virtue when all of a sudden you're claiming it becomes irrelevant. This is just fashionable fence-sitting.
Sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say. I went back and looked at what I wrote and I can't figure it out.
I find your dismissive lack of value for human life and dignity quite shocking. The Catholic Church killed tens of thousands of people and subjected probably ten times that amount to abuse in the form emotional and physical torture in the name of it's bullshit religion, Nothing... absolutely nothing makes up for that.
You didn't read my post carefully. Actually, it's significantly worse than you say. I said the church, in complicity with Spain, is responsible for the deaths and slavery of millions in the new world. So, do we say that Spain has no value? How about Great Britain, Germany, the US, etc., etc. They are all responsible for the deaths of millions and 10s of millions. Are they without value. Are their cultures without value.
I'm perfectly willing to accept it as reasonable if you answer "yes" to those questions, although I disagree. If you don't, then you are applying your rules in an inconsistent manner.
You might have, I'm not familiar with your posts on the subject. On it's own the sentence is meaningless and not something I can really respond to. Perhaps if you link me to the relevant thread I can give you a more substantive reply as it's quite a claim. Theist seem to have an understanding of nature that you happen to agree with. That's very nice.
I can not figure how to link to one of my old posts on a different thread. The thread is called "objective reality vs. the Tao". I'll go learn how to link.
Doesn't make sense to start this discussion up again here. If you want to open a new thread, I'll participate.
I don't agree with the understanding of nature theists have. Did I say that? Is it an ad hominem attack if I call you Mr. Snooty-pants?
Why not? All theists have is tradition, a couple of anecdotes and a few books as proof. And of course faith. Mustn't forget that one. In light of the weak evidence (e.g. none whatsoever) and the failure of every conceivable philosophical argument for God then it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society.
@Agustino, I have no particular reason or obligation to take the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc, seriously.
If some deity of theism existed and wanted me to know it did, or had critically important messages for me, then it would have no problems what so ever letting me in on that.
Isn't that what qualifies something as a deity in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, non-deceptive, trustworthy, etc)? And, ex hypothesi, such a deity would be the only authority on its messages. It's not like I'm strangely "resistant" or anything, and such a deity would know that already.
Meanwhile, I'm certainly not going to take all the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans for it. Why would anyone? (Could anyone, even, given all the incompatibilities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, ...?) Requiring other humans to indoctrinate me isn't something I'd expect of a worthwhile deity. No, that's just gullible, biased, non-thinking tomfoolery. (Perhaps akin to delusion, as mentioned by @Harry Hindu.)
Where does that leave things? Those claims can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. What's the simplest coherent explanation?
Reply to Agustino The problem with your assessment is that it neglects to mention that this discussion is not about the theistic crowd, but specifically about the Eastern Orthodox or Catholic interpretation of transubstantiation. As the instigator of this discussion, I think that I have greater authority than others when it comes to what we're supposed to be talking about here. And, contrary to the rather misleading impression that you create, and as the preceding discussion demonstrates, not only is my definition of transubstantiation in sync with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholicism, Metaphysician Undercover's is not, despite my association with the secular crowd and his association with the theistic crowd.
Deleted UserDecember 20, 2017 at 07:26#1354330 likes
Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher.
I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do.
From those statements I understood that;
1. To come to a discussion without understanding the good things the Church had to offer was the sign of a bad philosopher (virtually word for word what you said). It seems then completely prejudicial to say that bringing to the discussion all the bad things that same church has caused is pointless, "so what?" as you put it.
2.You suggest that, were we talking about Nazism, this would somehow be different. i.e an accurate assessment of the net harms/benefits of the institution would become relevant. After all, Nazism brought full employment, security, gave a lot of people hope and a sense of identity but you're implying that, were we talking about Nazism, we would not have to bear these benefits in mind alone because they would be outweighed by the atrocities, and yet you seem unwilling to carry out the same calculation with Catholicism.
3. You feel something, directly resulting from being Catholic (or some other theist position), provides an enlightenment about reality (from your last statement above). This means the question of Spain (I understood the reference, by the way), Great Britain, Germany etc is irrelevant because you're not claiming that something intrinsic about being Spanish, British or German provides any benefit unavailable to other nationalities. Were you to claim such a thing I would indeed point to the atrocities carried out by these countries as evidence against such an argument, so there is no inconsistency in the application of my rules. If the enlightenment you're referring to still encourages people to engage in genocide then I'm not interested in it.
Basically, I'm struggling to understand why mention of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church (or any other religion) is constantly being stonewalled on this thread. Quoting Benkei
That would be boring and not the issue in this specific thread.
The question isn't whether it has nothing (as in zero) to offer. The question is whether its fundamental beliefs are true, from the resurrection to transubstantiation.
My understanding was that the question centred around why someone would have the faith they do in something as seemingly inexplicable as transubstantiation. Answers given seem to revolve around the fact that faith in Catholicism is not like faith in unicorns or Santa Claus because the catholic church is a meaningful organisation. An assessment of what it means to be part of the catholic church seems to be the crucial next step in that discussion, but everyone seems to want to avoid that in favour of a further 6 pages of "I believe this...well I don't...well I do...well I don't" ad infinitum. If that's what you guys enjoy, I will leave you to it.
Reply to Agustino That's the same reasoning employed by Metaphysician Undercover in his argument about transubstantiation. His argument has been refuted by a reduction to the absurd.
I don't disagree with what you said after you stated your disagreement, but that doesn't change anything. You're just preaching to the choir and missing the point. Of course, if I were to call my cat "elves", then, in this language, which I'll call "Sapienglish", "elves" would "take on that propositional content", i.e. it would mean my cat. That's just meaning as use, which I have stated my agreement with. But Sapienglish is not English as we know it, it's just a made up language.
Now, if you relate this back to what Metaphysician Undercover is doing, hopefully you'll see the problem. Benkei was right to draw attention to the idiosyncrasy of his language use, and I was right earlier on to question whether Metaphysician Undercover was speaking English, despite that being taken out of context and used against me by Buxtebuddha in a fairly successful attempt at character assassination. Metaphysician Undercover is not, despite the appearance, speaking the same language as the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is your own church, yet your inclination seems to be to jump to his defence, despite the implications of doing so, perhaps because you associate yourself with him as part of the theistic crowd, which you contrast with the secular crowd which you associate with myself and others. Tribalism can be an unfortunate distraction.
Reply to AgustinoReply to Hanover With regards to the meaning of "literal", this shouldn't even be an issue. I put the matter to rest twenty pages back and ten days ago by copy-pasting from two different dictionaries and giving an example. I don't recall getting any disagreement. Others here have affirmed this meaning on both sides of the debate. So why are people still bringing this up? I did not think that Hanover was speaking a language alien to myself and others, although I wouldn't put it past some people. I thought that he meant what he said, and that, if he had meant something else, then he would have used a different word or made that clear in some way. Hanover is sensible like that, but unfortunately not everyone is like that.
So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life? — Harry Hindu
That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean..
Let's pick some astrological terms then:
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/astro_gloss.html
Take your pick.
Looking at those terms, is seems to me that astronomers, use many of those terms as well, and would know what they mean. It's only astrologers that add more "meaning", that can't be falsified, and therefore can't be predicted. Horoscopes are to general to mean anything. Reading horoscopes of other signs that I am not indicate that I share traits of all of them, not just one.
And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? — Harry Hindu
Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.
And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination.
This is an appeal to popularity - a logical fallacy (tell me how you are using reason to get at your truths again). At one point in history, most people believed the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Did that make them right? This is just evidence of a mass delusion. Most humans fear death, including atheists. It's just atheists have rejected or haven't succumbed to the delusion the fear feeds. We accept our finite existence and get on with our lives as atheists understand better than any theist the value of life. An afterlife diminishes the value of this life, the only one we have. Imagine how much more precious this life is without an afterlife.
Harry HinduDecember 20, 2017 at 12:41#1354620 likes
I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences.
Watch this video. This video was done in Brazil, which has the largest number of Catholics in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUD4cuTQn2E
The people in the elevator experienced something different than what a scientifically-minded atheist would experience. Why?
Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? You're simply misconstruing the meaning of your experience based on a faulty premise.
You're simply misconstruing the meaning of your experience based on a faulty premise.
Quite right.
I also think that @Inter Alia was onto something when he mentioned fashionable fence-sitting and apologetics. Prejudice against that which is associated with New Atheism might be another factor. It's like some people find it so distasteful that they overcompensate, tiptoe around certain subjects, and give credit where it's not due.
Prejudice against that which is associated with New Atheism might be another factor.
It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree.
The people in the elevator experienced something different than what a scientifically-minded atheist would experience. Why?
:s so you think a scientifically-minded atheist would not be afraid in that situation? Fear is a normal reaction when strange, out of order events happen. That event was out of order. If the elevator stops, electricity goes out, and then you find that another random person is inside the elevator who wasn't there before wouldn't you be scared? I'd be very scared, and I might even attack that person out of fear. Becuase I just wouldn't know what happened. Maybe someone hijacked the elevator, some psycho, and they're trying to kill me. How am I supposed to know in just a few seconds reaction time?
I wouldn't necessarily assume it was a ghost, but by all extents something abnormal is happening. I would definitely assume that.
Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences?
No. It's because an event that they didn't expect - actually multiple events that they didn't expect - happened all at once. So they were confused and afraid because they couldn't understand what was happening. Anyone would be afraid, regardless of religious convictions.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 20, 2017 at 22:09#1356030 likes
I'm not following your argument that "arbitrary" = "faith." I don't see the correlation and I don't understand why I can't accept that we use all sorts of arbitrary symbols to describe reality without having faith.
If it's not readily apparent to you that the use of arbitrary symbols requires faith, then you may not grasp this even with an explanation. But it's very simple. There is a reason why you use the particular arbitrary symbol which you do, rather than some other arbitrary symbol. The reason is that you have faith that the other person will understand better, what you want to say, by your use of that particular symbol rather than some other. Since the symbol is arbitrary, there is no other reason for you to use it except that you have faith it will get you the desired result, the other person will understand you. All communication is based in faith.
There are foundational beliefs that anchor us into reality, sure. We might accept that our senses report to us what is occurring in the real world, and we might accept that reason and logic provide us insights into reality. Those foundational beliefs might at some level have to be accepted on faith, simply because a foundational belief can't have a further foundation; it's the origin of our belief.
If you're saying that your foundational belief is whatever the Catholic Church happens to tell you is true, I'd say that foundation is a much less rudimentary foundation than mine that no doubt relies upon many other more rudimentary beliefs, thus making it not truly foundational.
I think you're just talking out of your hat here. You seem to have no idea as to how faith is foundational to knowledge, as you do not even seem to realize that faith is necessary for the use of symbols. How do you define faith? I would define it as confidence inspired by trust. Do you agree with this? If so, do you see how faith is necessary for communication to succeed? And because communication depends on faith, that's why deception is so easy for those with the will to deceive, because trust is taken for granted when we communicate.
But deception rapidly destroys the capacity for communication because the deception becomes evident, and we loose faith in those who demonstrate deception. That is why it is impossible that transubstantiation is deception, because it has persisted. We might have a start toward understanding each other if we begin with this point. If we can agree that it is not deception, because it has persisted, then we can proceed from here. Is it just an old club, with an odd use of symbols for purposes other than communication, like mathematics is, or is it something else?
You find it mysterious why people notice similarities among things and group them into categories?
I didn't think you'd understand what I was saying there. I'll explain it again. We have a symbol "2". What 2 means is that there is one distinct object and another distinct object, two distinct objects. But in mathematical proceeding, the symbol "2" refers to the number 2, which is taken as one unity. So in it's true meaning, it means two distinct objects, but in the proceedings of the mathematicians, it refers to something contrary to this, one unity. How is it possible that 2 means two distinct things, but it also refers to one unity which is known as the number 2? Either there is two distinct things symbolized by 2, or there is one unity symbolized by 2, but to claim both is contradictory. But this is what is the case, what 2 means is completely different from what 2 refers to. So how this contradiction can be what is the case, is no less of a mystery to me, then what is a mystery to you, that "body and blood of Christ" means some guy who died thousands of years ago, and also refers to the objects of the Eucharist in the proceedings of the Church.
To come to a discussion without understanding the good things the Church had to offer was the sign of a bad philosopher (virtually word for word what you said). It seems then completely prejudicial to say that bringing to the discussion all the bad things that same church has caused is pointless, "so what?" as you put it.
First off - thanks for a thoughtful reply.
I think bringing up the bad things the church has done is fine, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion. Are you saying that there is something intrinsic about a belief in God, or, more specifically, the Catholic God, that leads to atrocities? It seems like you are. I go back to my Spain/Germany example. You don't buy it, but I think it's appropriate.
You suggest that, were we talking about Nazism, this would somehow be different. i.e an accurate assessment of the net harms/benefits of the institution would become relevant. After all, Nazism brought full employment, security, gave a lot of people hope and a sense of identity but you're implying that, were we talking about Nazism, we would not have to bear these benefits in mind alone because they would be outweighed by the atrocities, and yet you seem unwilling to carry out the same calculation with Catholicism.
My point was that Nazism is a doctrine which is inherently vile while Catholicism is not. As I said, you appear to disagree with that. I did not intend to do a cost/benefit analysis. I was looking at Christianity and Catholicism as ways of seeing the world. It's not the way I see the world, but I can see it's value. A lot of people I like and respect, including my wife, are Catholic.
You feel something, directly resulting from being Catholic (or some other theist position), provides an enlightenment about reality (from your last statement above).
I'll say this, but as I wrote in a response to Benkei, I'm not interested in pursuing it in this thread. To me, the world - all of it, everything - is as much human as it is physical. I don't mean that in a mystical way. I am not positing any supernatural forces or entities, although I'm not explicitly rejecting them either. I can make a good, rational case that that position is completely consistent with a scientific view.
Basically, I'm struggling to understand why mention of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church (or any other religion) is constantly being stonewalled on this thread.
In what way am I stonewalling? I just don't believe that it's relevant to the question at hand.
My understanding was that the question centred around why someone would have the faith they do in something as seemingly inexplicable as transubstantiation. Answers given seem to revolve around the fact that faith in Catholicism is not like faith in unicorns or Santa Claus because the catholic church is a meaningful organisation.
I don't find the idea of transubstantiation any more inexplicable than quantum mechanics. I don't have any belief or understanding that it actually happens, but I also don't put any energy in believing that it doesn't. Belief in the tenets of the Catholic faith is a whole world view that I see as having value, even though it isn't my way of looking at things. Believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny are not.
I'm guessing you won't find my response satisfying, but I enjoyed the chance to think this through better for myself.
Deleted UserDecember 21, 2017 at 07:24#1357290 likes
I realise it's not necessarily the discussion you wanted to have here, but I feel like your considerate responses deserve a better explanation than perhaps I have been able to give so far. The reason I think the atrocities of the Church are relevant are to do with trust.
We take virtually all our understanding of the world on trust. even if we're lucky enough to be a cutting edge scientist, that will only be one field and we'll be reliant on the integrity of the rest of our team. For the rest of us, we just trust scientists to explain the world, some of us trust religious leaders also. But this does not make us blind, we can still apply our rational (and emotional) insights to help us obtain pragmatically true theories from these people, that insight is in the form of judging whom we trust. I trust most scientists to provide me with explanations about events in the world to help me make decisions in my life. I trust them because they have not (as a mass) demonstrated anything other than a desire to obtain reliable, useful theories. There are some branches of science I don't trust, like medicine, there have been a number of problems raised with impartiality and the influence of the big pharmaceutical companies whose motives are clearly profit, not knowledge. There are many other examples, but on the whole I trust scientists because they seem reasonably decent people.
So when a priest tells me that the wafer has somehow become the body of Christ, I don't dismiss the information as obviously nonsense just because it sounds a bit unlikely (as some here seem bent on doing). My personal understanding of physics and it's limits is simply not sufficient to make that decision. But what I can do is try to understand the motives of the person or institution telling me, their character, their trustworthiness in this. This is where the Catholic atrocities come in. When I hear that this institution has previously allowed torture and murder, currently allows child abuse to go unpunished, subjugates women, ostracises homosexuals and refuses to help fight AIDS, I question whether this is the institution whose explanation I'm going to take on trust in this matter.
The alternative explanation (that the wafer remains a wafer) comes from secularism. Secularism is not an institution, nothing overall good or bad has been done in the name of secularism, they seem to be just ordinary people. It's not that I can't see any reasons why they might want me to accept their explanation, but as there's no institution behind it, I just take the individual's trustworthiness into consideration. Hundreds of people I've met seem to think the wafer is just a wafer, they're all just ordinary people, none of whom are engaged in covering up child abuse, or torturing people so they seem on the whole a lot more trustworthy. I know there are loads of really good Catholics, and I mean no insult to any of them, but they're not independently providing me with their explanation, they are acting on behalf of their institution, so it is their institution whose trustworthiness I need to judge.
So basically, I think judging the character of the person or institution providing the explanation you are considering is absolutely crucial to the process of deciding whether to adopt it or not and I'm afraid the Catholic Church has overall failed to demonstrate its trustworthiness in this matter, for the reasons I've given.
Reply to T Clark What does it even mean to say that you don't put any energy into disbelieving transubstantiation? You either disbelieve it or you don't. You must surely have spent time considering it. Which is it? If you disbelieve it, then that must have taken at least a minimal amount of energy. And if you don't disbelieve it, then why not?
To equate the idea of transubstantiation with quantum mechanics in terms of inexplicableness, is to suggest that they're equally explicable. I think that the only way that you could find the idea of transubstantiation to come anywhere near quantum mechanics in terms of explicableness is if you disbelieve transubstantiation and could explain it in great detail by delving into why there's no good reason to believe it and why lots of people believe it nevertheless. That would indeed require a lot of energy if we are to grant your equivalence, given that quantum mechanics is a topic which is so complex that there's enough there to fill an average-sized book and yet still have only scratched the surface. But going to such a great length is simply not necessary in the case of transubstantiation. This sort of thing requires little more energy than the energy required in explaining why you don't believe that there's a celestial teapot or that the content of the tale of St. George and the dragon corresponds with historical fact. (The only factor that distinguishes these sort of claims from those that we've been discussing is popularity. The claims that we've been discussing are more popular because they're central tenets of organised religion, which is of course very widespread. But that can be counted in their favour no more than it can count (or could have counted) towards the favour of witchcraft, flat earth theory, the geocentric model, luminiferous aether, and so on). It's not rocket science!
:s so you think a scientifically-minded atheist would not be afraid in that situation? Fear is a normal reaction when strange, out of order events happen. That event was out of order. If the elevator stops, electricity goes out, and then you find that another random person is inside the elevator who wasn't there before wouldn't you be scared? I'd be very scared, and I might even attack that person out of fear. Becuase I just wouldn't know what happened. Maybe someone hijacked the elevator, some psycho, and they're trying to kill me. How am I supposed to know in just a few seconds reaction time?
I wouldn't necessarily assume it was a ghost, but by all extents something abnormal is happening. I would definitely assume that.
Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? — Harry Hindu
No. It's because an event that they didn't expect - actually multiple events that they didn't expect - happened all at once. So they were confused and afraid because they couldn't understand what was happening. Anyone would be afraid, regardless of religious convictions.
You're forgetting that the "other random person" was a little girl, not a big scary dude.
If it were me, I wouldn't react that way. I may be confused at first, but not fearful. I would then begin looking for an explanation as to how the child got into the elevator. Because I know that ghosts and zombies aren't real, I would probably start to think this was a prank.
Things happen all the time that I don't expect, but that doesn't make me fearful. It makes me inquisitive.
Harry HinduDecember 21, 2017 at 12:33#1358020 likes
It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree.
I don't know what New Atheism is and how it is different from just atheism. Is what I've been arguing "New" atheism, or just atheism? I don't know of any "new" way of rejecting claims that can't be falsified.
There is a reason why you use the particular arbitrary symbol which you do, rather than some other arbitrary symbol. The reason is that you have faith that the other person will understand better, what you want to say, by your use of that particular symbol rather than some other.
If there's a reason I use "2" and not "3" for 2, then "2" is not arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is that it is not based upon a system or reason, but it's just random or whim. Not every symbol is arbitrary, but some are based upon prior similar usage (as when we adhere to roots) and some languages attempt to make the word look like the thing it represents (like hieroglyphics). Regardless, though, I would agree that whatever the basis for why we have chosen a particular symbol, the typical user has no idea what it is. All of this is terribly irrelevant though because none of this requires any degree of faith. The reason I believe "2" represents 2 is through empirical evidence. Every time someone uses "2," I know they mean 2. If someone starts using "2" to mean 3, I'd correct the person because it would be contrary to what I empirically knew to be true, and the argument would consist of empirical examples of usage.
This reliance upon empirical evidence is not limited to language usage, and I wonder why you've chosen to use it as example, but it is used to know most things about the world. And, as I've said, I fully acknowledge having faith in the truth of empirical evidence (and in my ability to reason) as those things are foundational to any understanding of the world. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
. How do you define faith? I would define it as confidence inspired by trust. Do you agree with this?
I think you've defined "belief" and not "faith." I would define faith as belief inspired by something other than proof. It is a belief often the result of spiritual apprehension but sometimes the result of necessity. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What 2 means is that there is one distinct object and another distinct object, two distinct objects.
This categorization of two dogs as two objects and then on the other hand categorizing them as a group isn't mysterious and has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
Metaphysician UndercoverDecember 21, 2017 at 15:11#1358730 likes
If there's a reason I use "2" and not "3" for 2, then "2" is not arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is that it is not based upon a system or reason, but it's just random or whim. Not every symbol is arbitrary, but some are based upon prior similar usage (as when we adhere to roots) and some languages attempt to make the word look like the thing it represents (like hieroglyphics). Regardless, though, I would agree that whatever the basis for why we have chosen a particular symbol, the typical user has no idea what it is. All of this is terribly irrelevant though because none of this requires any degree of faith. The reason I believe "2" represents 2 is through empirical evidence. Every time someone uses "2," I know they mean 2. If someone starts using "2" to mean 3, I'd correct the person because it would be contrary to what I empirically knew to be true, and the argument would consist of empirical examples of usage.
Right, so isn't "empirical evidence" reliant on faith? The nature of time is such that whatever is empirical evidence, is now in the past. isn't it necessary to have faith in our systems of memory in order to claim that something empirical (in the past), is evidence to a present matter?
This reliance upon empirical evidence is not limited to language usage, and I wonder why you've chosen to use it as example, but it is used to know most things about the world. And, as I've said, I fully acknowledge having faith in the truth of empirical evidence (and in my ability to reason) as those things are foundational to any understanding of the world.
You have claimed already, that this type of faith, having faith in empirical evidence, is a different type of faith, or a different sense of the word "faith", from faith in religious services. Let me see if I can draw out that difference. In the service it is declared that these items are the body and blood of Christ, but the empirical evidence is such that "the body and blood of Christ" refers to the person who died years ago. If I understand you correctly, you have more faith in the memory systems which provide the empirical evidence that "body and blood of Christ" refers to the person who died, than you have faith in the person performing the service saying this, which was bread and wine, are now body and blood of Christ.
In the one case, you refer to memory systems and have faith in the ability of the memory system. In the other case, one has faith in the ability of the person to describe what is occurring at the present time. It appears to me, that faith of the first kind, also requires faith of the second kind, because what happened at that time, had to be described. So faith of the first kind (faith in empirical evidence) has two levels of faith, faith of the second kind (faith in one's ability to describe what is occurring), as well as faith in the ability of the memory system.
So it appears to me that you have faith in the abilities of the people who described what occurred thousands of years ago, you have faith in the memory system employed, but you do not have faith in the person describing what is occurring now, at the Eucharist. You seem to believe that there is an inconsistency between the description thousands of years ago, and the description now, it is impossible that "body and blood of Christ" refer to these very same things.
Here's a question. If you have faith in that description from thousands of years ago, such that "body and blood of Christ" refers to that person who died back then, then what about the rest of the description, that he rose from the dead? Do you see what I mean? You have enough faith in the description to believe that "body and blood of Christ" refers to that person who died, yet you have no faith in the rest of the description. How is it the case that part of the description qualifies as "empirical evidence", yet another part does not? If the description is untrustworthy, shouldn't we dismiss the entire testimony as unreliable? Then why would you even believe that "body and blood of Christ" refer to some dude who lived thousand of years ago? And if this is the case, then there is no problem with the Church saying that these items are called "body and blood of Christ", because there is no reason to believe that these words refer to anything other than these items. There is no inconsistency in terminology. It is granted by fiat that these items will be known as "body and blood of Christ", and because this phrase cannot be reliably associated with anything else, there is no conflict.
I think you've defined "belief" and not "faith." I would define faith as belief inspired by something other than proof. It is a belief often the result of spiritual apprehension but sometimes the result of necessity.
I think that "proof" is far too ambiguous here. In logic, "proof" refers to valid logical proceedings, but this leaves the matter of the soundness of the premises. What counts as a sound premise is debatable and what qualifies as "proof" is relative.
This categorization of two dogs as two objects and then on the other hand categorizing them as a group isn't mysterious and has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
How two things become one, just by looking at them in a different way is very mysterious to me. But what is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things. However, this is very relevant to transubstantiation, in two different ways. First, we have two different things, the guy who died, and the items of the Eucharist, and they become one under the name "body and blood of Christ". Second, we have the bread and wine, and the body and blood, two different things which become the same thing under the name "transubstantiation". So what is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things, but they are actually one and the same thing, and that is how it is the case that two different things become one and the same thing. I find that very mysterious. What is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things, but depending on how we look at them they are one and the same thing.
I trust most scientists to provide me with explanations about events in the world to help me make decisions in my life. I trust them because they have not (as a mass) demonstrated anything other than a desire to obtain reliable, useful theories.
I don't particularly trust scientists. I don't particularly distrust them either. I do, conditionally, within limits, trust science. I put my conditional faith in scientific consensus. That, I hope, washes out corruption, incompetence, and self-interest.
So when a priest tells me that the wafer has somehow become the body of Christ, I don't dismiss the information as obviously nonsense just because it sounds a bit unlikely (as some here seem bent on doing). My personal understanding of physics and it's limits is simply not sufficient to make that decision. But what I can do is try to understand the motives of the person or institution telling me, their character, their trustworthiness in this.
I have no problem with your opinion on this, it's just not one I share. I can't defend Catholic doctrine because it's not a world view that I find useful for myself. On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that Catholics have a similar attitude toward the church as I do about science - they see the connection between what the church teaches and their own understanding of the world.
The alternative explanation (that the wafer remains a wafer) comes from secularism. Secularism is not an institution, nothing overall good or bad has been done in the name of secularism, they seem to be just ordinary people.
That's kind of a stretch. The objection to religion comes from rationalists, materialists, realists, and yes, scientists. That's one of the reasons there are limits on my trust in science. Science lacks the vision to see alternative understandings of the world as valid.
What does it even mean to say that you don't put any energy into disbelieving transubstantiation? You either disbelieve it or you don't. You must surely have spent time considering it. Which is it? If you disbelieve it, then that must have taken at least a minimal amount of energy. And if you don't disbelieve it, then why not?
To me, transubstantiation is interesting as an idea, a belief, as part of a vision of the world. It's not an understanding I share. I do put energy into understanding how other people view the world. I was going to say that I just don't have an opinion, but that's not quite right. Or that I don't care whether or not it's true, but that's not right either. I can't imagine you find this explanation, if that's what it is, satisfying.
To equate the idea of transubstantiation with quantum mechanics in terms of inexplicableness, is to suggest that they're equally explicable.
I said I don't find them any more explicable. I believe that quantum mechanics is as good a description of how the world works as any we have now. That belief is based on my understanding of the scientific consensus. But when it comes down to explication, QM doesn't explain anything. It just describes what happens in certain situations. Physicists make scrambled eggs of any attempt to actually explain it. If I were a Catholic, transubstantiation might be the same. Neither is more or less inconsistent with common sense.
that the skeptic hasn't spent just as long as the theist in considering these issues
I did suggest this, but the truth of this claim is quite evident for two reasons:
(1) The theist considers God to be, probably the most important topic, while the atheist and skeptic, since they disbelieve the existence of God, according significantly less importance to the study of God.
(2) If you look at the stats, you will see that the vast majority of philosophy of religion philosophers are theists (72.3%). This is the opposite of overall philosophers, where most are atheist (72.8%). What this shows us is that theists tend to study God (and hence philosophy of religion) significantly more than atheists, especially since the pool of all philosophers contains more atheists than theists. (stats here)
It's entirely obvious to me, and almost undeniable, that theists will understand, on average, the notion of God much better than atheists granted the two reasons provided above, one logical and intuitive, and the other empirical and statistical.
Now I understand if you don't want to accept this claim. I just put it forward hoping that you will accept it so that we can move from this point to other more relevant points. But if you reject it, that's not a problem. The claim isn't essential to my argument.
It's also very wrong to think that there is some monolithic thought process among theists, ignoring that the definition of God that one theist might have from another may vary widely even in the same church and same pew on any given Sunday.
And, of course there are very different views from one church to the other, one denomination to another, and certainly one religion than another.
EDIT: ooops I forgot to respond here.
While there are significant differences between Churches in terms of rituals, practices, ways of worship, etc. there aren't many significiant differences between conceptions of God, especially amongst theologians. Take a thomist and a scotist. They may disagree on a lot of metaphysical issues, but they don't by and large, disagree on the notion of God. Muslims may disagree that God is a Trinity, but they will not disagree that God is One - which Christians also believe, hence Triune (trinity + one). Etc. So disagreements are minor, and agreements are more profound.
My assertion isn't that, it's simply that I have a more accurate notion that the atheist, that's all. So my knowledge is probably terrible - but that terrible is still much better than your average atheist.
as I see one's relationship with God as personal, subjective, unprovable, and unverifiable by definition. To present God as this object fully subject to a complete knowable definition candidly feels to me like you have no idea what god is, but are instead just trying to define another object.
I agree with you to some extent, hence why rational knowledge that can be achieved of God is only partial and never close to complete.
By literal change, I mean not symbolic. The bread is the same in substance than it was before and after the prayer.
No, the bread is precisely not the same in substance. The doctrine claims that there is a change in substance, but not in the properties. Here is what substance means:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm
By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.
Hence why the mystical experience of which I have spoken of at first is absolutely necessary to understand transubstantiation. The substantial change is of a mystical nature - the inner nature of the bread and wine changes, in other words, their significance. But to perceive that, you must experience the mystery - there is no other way. It is useless to put it into words when the experience is lacking. Words can only be taken on faith.
I have no particular reason or obligation to take the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc, seriously.
Sure. You're not talking theologians here, you're talking about divinations and other forms of peasant claptrap. If anything, Christianity is largely responsible for the elimination of this type of superstition. Nietzsche understood as much, hence he labelled Christianity as nihilistic.
Here's what Montaigne had to say:
Where oracles are concerned it is certain that they had begun to lose their credit well before the coming of Jesus Christ, since we can see Cicero striving to find the cause of their decline. [C] These are his words: ‘Cur isto modo jam oracula Delphis non eduntur non modo nostra ætate sed jamdiu, ut modo nihil possit esse contempsius?’ [Why are oracles no longer uttered thus at Delphi, so that not only in our own time but long before nothing could be held in greater contempt?]
But there were other prognostications, derived from the dissection of sacrificial animals – [C] Plato held that the internal organs of those animals were partly created for that purpose – [A] or from chickens scratching about, from the flight of birds – [C] ‘aves quasdam rerum augurandarum causa natas esse putamus’ [We think that some birds are born in order to provide auguries] – [A] from lightning and from swirling currents in rivers – [C] ‘multa cernunt aruspices, multa augures provident, nnlta oraculis declarantur, multa vaticinationibus, multa somniis, multa portentis’ [the soothsayers divine many things; the augurs foresee many; many are revealed by oracles, many by predictions, many by dreams and many by portents]; [A] and there were other similar ones on which the Ancient World grounded most of their undertakings, both public and private: it was our religion [Christianity] which abolished them all.
And really there's tens if not hundreads of other philosophers which bother to make this point. If you don't bother to read these sources, I can't help you.
If some deity of theism existed and wanted me to know it did, or had critically important messages for me, then it would have no problems what so ever letting me in on that.
>:O - as if the deity was like a bearded human living in the Sky. So pathetic. Again, we're not discussing the peasant understanding of God. You have to step up your game.
Isn't that what qualifies something as a deity in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, non-deceptive, trustworthy, etc)? And, ex hypothesi, such a deity would be the only authority on its messages. It's not like I'm strangely "resistant" or anything, and such a deity would know that already.
If a deity told you the Truth, then what free will would you have? None. To know the Truth is to act the Truth - and that must be a free choice. So when God "hardens the hearts" of unbelievers, it simply means that He does not reveal Himself to them, in order to allow them to freely choose their unbelief. If he revealed Himself, He could force them to believe. As Pascal said:
Blaise Pascal:In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't.
Meanwhile, I'm certainly not going to take all the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans for it. Why would anyone? (Could anyone, even, given all the incompatibilities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, ...?) Requiring other humans to indoctrinate me isn't something I'd expect of a worthwhile deity. No, that's just gullible, biased, non-thinking tomfoolery. (Perhaps akin to delusion, as mentioned by Harry Hindu.)
Yep - again this is the common-folk superstition that you're talking about, not theology. Nobody told you to accept that.
As the instigator of this discussion, I think that I have greater authority than others when it comes to what we're supposed to be talking about here. And, contrary to the rather misleading impression that you create, and as the preceding discussion demonstrates, not only is my definition of transubstantiation in sync with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholicism
I put the matter to rest twenty pages back and ten days ago by copy-pasting from two different dictionaries and giving an example. I don't recall getting any disagreement.
If meaning is use, dictionary definitions are meaningless. You said you accept that meaning is use. So read how the term is used by the Church.
Spoiler: he's still making the same errors that he has been making from the beginning.
He might be, why are you telling me?! I've never backed MU's argument for that matter, and I haven't even followed it that closely. I do agree with him on some of the shorter points I've seen him make and which I've read.
Reply to T Clark So, you don't believe it, but you want to hold back and sit on the fence? You want to treat it with respect, even though deep down you know that it's not only false, but frankly ridiculous?
QM explains a lot. It solves problems and answers questions. The whole of QM is one big explanation. So I find your claim that QM doesn't explain anything completely absurd at face value and wonder whether you mean something else.
What other distinguishing factors do you think that there are with regards to transubstantiation, the resurrection of Christ, and the examples I gave? How about this one? It is a customary expectation to give the former special treatment, such that they're treated with more respect, and so as to give them credit were it would not be given in comparable examples.
Reply to Agustino No, please explain to me in your own words what you think the difference is and quote any particular passages you think are of relevance.
So, you don't believe it, but you want to hold back and sit on the fence? You want to treat it with respect, even though deep down you know that it's not only false, but frankly ridiculous?
I don't expect you to agree with me. I've been generally staying out of discussions with you because you are impenetrable. Unwilling to even try to imagine that there are other valid ways of seeing the world than yours.
I was talking about Hinduism (which includes some polytheist varieties), Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses), Islam (Sunnis, Shias), Mormonism, Scientology, you name it. All those there that people get assimilated by and start taking seriously.
If a deity told you the Truth, then what free will would you have? None.
Looks like an ordinary non sequitur to me. But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ...
the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans
... for me to take any one of them more serious than any other. But there's no such arbiter.
You start talking about something you call "Yahweh", you don't show Yahweh, Yahweh doesn't show, all that's left is your talk. Others talk about something they call "Vishnu", they don't show Vishnu, Vishnu doesn't show, all that's left is their talk. Yet others talk about ... Exactly as if Yahweh, Vishnu, etc, are fictions. I wonder why... Don't you?
I also observe that there are little-to-no means of differentiating existence of all these entities (and their characteristics, plans, demands). It's all equally dubious. Exactly like grandiose stories told by fallible (obsessed) humans.
I was talking about Hinduism (which includes some polytheist varieties), Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses), Islam (Sunnis, Shias), Mormonism, Scientology, you name it. All those there that people get assimilated by and start taking seriously.
Non sequitur. This literarily has nothing to do with what you've quoted.
But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ...
There is no record to set straight. The mystical kernel is very similar amongst the religions, with differences being, for the most part, just differences of expression. Man has had a relationship with the divine from the very beginning of times.
You start talking about something you call "Yahweh", you don't show Yahweh, Yahweh doesn't show, all that's left is your talk. Others talk about something they call "Vishnu", they don't show Vishnu, Vishnu doesn't show, all that's left is their talk. Yet others talk about ... Exactly as if Yahweh, Vishnu, etc, are fictions. I wonder why... Don't you?
Yeah, I'm not that mystified that some call it "snow" others call it "schnee" or "neige" or even "?". What's the big deal with that?
The fact that the experience of God is subtle and hard to find is something that is known across all the religions. The talk is the finger pointed towards it, not the experience itself.
I also observe that there are little-to-no means of differentiating existence of all these entities (and their characteristics, plans, demands). It's all equally dubious. Exactly like grandiose stories told by fallible (obsessed) humans.
What makes you think there are multiple entities? That would indeed be absurd. I think you really do have a first-grade understanding of religion. It's really becoming pathetic. You're like a child trying to speak a language he cannot understand. It's better to stop doing that, and try to understand only one religion deeply first. That might give you the insights you need to understand the rest too. You're like a little boy who has learned a few words in French and thinks he's now able to have a conversation in it.
Differentiating fake and real fantasies, on the other hand, ... :D
Yeah, apart from you thinking they are fantasies, you haven't provided any other evidence. Your inability to become aware of certain aspects of existence isn't shared by everyone else.
Reply to jorndoe Indeed, the truth is that you will struggle to find any academic in the field of comparative religion, anthropology or theology who would even take the questions you pose seriously. They are a joke, and for the most part treated as such, and they represent a profound misunderstanding of what religion is. The only place where you find this sort of polemic is in Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists - and they're addressing things at a low, mass-consciousness level, not at an academic one - in other words they're talking to stupid people. That's why amongst academics who are interested in these fields, and have published literature on it, these "critiques" are laughed at. Can you imagine a Eliade (refer to The Sacred and The Profane) taking such concerns seriously? Or a René Girard? :s
Now you're just making noise, @Agustino, moreso than other discussions on the topic that I'm aware of anyway.
And it's a bit disingenuous to tell others what they're talking about.
Let me know if you want to stick to the post.
Anyway, incidentally watching the mass in Rome; those folk are big on transubstantiation, unlike, say, the Jews and the Muslims.
Reply to jorndoe I can't address the whole tree, but Baptists didn't come from Anglicans, Mormons and pentecostals didn't come from Methodists, and Presbyterians didn't come from Lutherans.
those folk are big on transubstantiation, unlike, say, the Jews and the Muslims.
Merry Christmas!
Sure the Jews and the Moslems don't have the doctrine in the same manner, but they sure do have equivalent doctrines. The point of transubstantiation is that man can come to share, by grace, in the Divinity of the Trinity - ie, God became man so that men may become gods. Doesn't the same doctrine exist in Kaballah or Sufi mysticism? Of course - the essential point that man can share in a divine essence (though not in the sense of his essence becoming one with the divine essence) is there.
None of the differences you've mentioned are profound differences. A profound difference is a difference in content, not merely in language. For example, such a difference is on reincarnation between the Christians and the Buddhists - though even there things are debatable (ie, what reincarnates - cause Christians would agree that atoms and matter, and maybe even desires and tendencies reincarnate).
That's why I said your post is a joke. It's not even worth the effort for me of addressing each of those petty little points. Nobody - no academic - stoops so low as to discuss at the level you want to carry the discussion at. That level displays a profound misunderstanding of religion. For example, you don't even understand what transubstantiation means - you literarily have no understanding about the content of it, you just repeat a string of words. You find a different string of words in Islam, or in Judaism, etc. and then you go like "Oh see, irreconcilable differences, they can't all be right!". You don't understand what those words mean, so you have no clue at all if you find a similar doctrine expressed through different words in another religion.
If your post was submitted to any academic who deals with comparative religion, you'd easily get an F.
Reply to jorndoe As for differences between Christians... take the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. You count them as two separate groups, but in essence they are the same. The only difference is one of emphasis - the Catholic Church puts greater emphasis on reason, while the Orthodox Church puts greater emphasis on mystical experience. And apart from that, the significant difference is a political one - the Orthodox Church does not accept the authority of the pope. That's all. In most other regards, believers will find deep agreement between themselves. So you're one of those people who cannot distinguish doctrine from politics.
Reply to Agustino So, when do you suppose this very long discussion which I have only noticed getting longer but haven't followed, will move on to the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth (not the same thing), the proper method of baptism, the closure of divine testimony, and other matters?
So, when do you suppose this very long discussion which I have only noticed getting longer but haven't followed, will move on to the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth (not the same thing), the proper method of baptism, the closure of divine testimony, and other matters?
Merry Christmas!
In due time of course. Why, were you thinking to contribute when these matters came about?
I think people, especially those who identify with New Atheism, generally fail to distinguish between the religious, social and political aspects of organized religion. Ignorance of anthropology and forgetfulness of the point that all organised religion has its origins in mystical hierophanies contribute to this "low-quality" debate.
That is why all discourse remains at the level of conflicting organized religions and fails to grasp the process through which these organized religions came to be in the first place. As such, it is very likely that where there was initially unity, through the process of solidification and ossification of dogmatic structures meant to preserve the teachings (a process that translates an experience into language), there arose irreconcileable differences.
Once we are at the level of organized religions, it is absolutely essential to disentangle religious, social, and political aspects from each other. You mention the proper method of baptism. That isn't a religious aspect, so much as it is a socio-political one for each church. The religious teachings of Christianity establish Baptism to be a matter of the heart - it has nothing to do with any ritual hosted by any church.
For example, one version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?
A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation...
Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"
And this is acknowledged by the Orthodox Church equally. So at this religious level - or even mystical level if you will - there are virtually no disagreements. However, when it comes to "the proper method of baptism" - that is no longer a religious issue at all. It is a socio-political one. Different cultures, different churches, etc. have their own ways, and they each think their way is the most appropriate way to illustrate & convey physically the mystical change of baptism. To support their independence, they must stand by their own ways. Furthermore, there is a political element, in that every church wants its own variant of the proper method of baptism to be followed, since it can grow its power and number of adherents that way.
So the schism in the Christian church were really socio-political matters, not religious ones. Even Martin Luther, he mostly disagreed with the way the Church was behaving as a socio-politicial organisation, not otherwise.
Other matters such as burning witches, etc. (which jorndoe makes allusion to, thinking it's a knock-out blow or something) were again not religious matters, so much as they were socio-political ones. So it must be remembered that organized religions don't solely have a religious function, but also a socio-political one. The goal of the socio-political structure isn't just to sustain the religious function, but also power, influence, and survival - and to achieve this, any means can be used. In this regard, an organized religion is no different than a political party - the people in charge control the socio-political decisions taken.
Even if you go back to the Bible, to people like Abraham, they were still sinners. Abraham gave his wife to other men because he was afraid he would be killed multiple times, and asked her to say she is his sister. Indeed, Abraham displayed a very developed talent for politics. So if even Abraham can do that, how much more can a pope commit atrocities when at the head of the Church?
So the schism in the Christian church were really socio-political matters, not religious ones. Even Martin Luther, he mostly disagreed with the way the Church was behaving as a socio-politicial organisation, not otherwise.
The difference between Lutheran theology and liturgy isn't all that different from Roman Catholic. Some Lutherans take pride in their Catholicity, others not. It depends which social group in Europe their tradition originated in, and then what happened when it was transplanted to the United States. And those changes were often more clearly social or political, and only somewhat religious.
Reply to Agustino It isn't just nouveau atheists that fail to understand the "religious, social and political aspects of organized religion." Both ardent and wishy-washy Christians get confused about this too (here speaking of the American religious experience). To compose a figure of speech, the church is located in an inter-tidal swamp between God on the one hand and society on the other. Twice a day the swamp is swept back and forth by tides and drainage off the land. God and society are thoroughly mixed up in the church.
In his sermon this morning Pastor mentioned a Pew Research study that was in the news about the change in percentages of people who believed in several aspects of the Christmas story:
A) angels appearing to the shepherds
B) the virgin birth
C) the star leading the 3 kings, or 3 wisemen
D) the manger scene
Belief was surprisingly high (in the 40-55% range), but falling slightly since the last survey. Pastor H. pointed out that these elements of the story were not central to the meaning of the Incarnation, which is what Jesus' birth is about. (The reading for today was from John, "In the beginning was the Word...) Christians have difficulty sorting out the significance of mangers, mysterious wisemen, angels & shepherds, frankincense, immaculate conceptions, and a woman who is still virginal after delivered a baby. The idea that the author of a gospel had good reasons to embroider the Incarnation story sounds like either an attack on the truth (for those who take it literally) or proof that the whole thing is a crock, for those looking for an exit.
The change from the priest facing the cross and a wall during the eucharistic ritual to facing the congregation didn't go down well with some, and those people are still unhappy about it, decades later. Everything is supposed to stay the way it was 50 years ago, or the foundations begin to shake.
Most Christians don't recognize that for their individual church operation, the tail of real estate (upkeep of the church building) is wagging the dog of their religious mission--especially when a congregation shrinks in size, and isn't using the building very much. Give up the holy white elephant building?
N-O-T -A- C-H-A-N-C-E!
The existence of a building with a congregation's name on it is proof that they are a real church.
Though December 25 marks the beginning of Christmas in the church calendar, the secular calendar marks midnight 12/24 as its end. Christmas Day is just a rest up for the year end post-Christmas sales drive. And reports, of course. Lots of people have reports to turn in by 12/31--or worse in years like this, 12/29.
That is why all discourse remains at the level of conflicting organized religions and fails to grasp the process through which these organized religions came to be in the first place. As such, it is very likely that where there was initially unity, through the process of solidification and ossification of dogmatic structures meant to preserve the teachings (a process that translates an experience into language), there arose irreconcileable differences.
Your thesis that all organized religions are essentially the same, whatever religious essence might be, is anything but obvious, and very doubtful. There are far too many religions to suggest it's possible to distill a few unifying truths and to also not require discarding critical distinguishing elements. That is, Judaism is not in essence Christianity.
Both ardent and wishy-washy Christians get confused about this too (here speaking of the American religious experience).
That is true, although there is a slight difference here. These ardent & wishy-washy Christians usually do have a degree of epistemic humility and openness to the mystical side of religion that atheists don't.
To compose a figure of speech, the church is located in an inter-tidal swamp between God on the one hand and society on the other. Twice a day the swamp is swept back and forth by tides and drainage off the land. God and society are thoroughly mixed up in the church.
Belief was surprisingly high (in the 40-55% range), but falling slightly since the last survey.
The problem with these religious surveys is that when people answer them, most of them don't really understand what they're answering if they answer "yes", "no", "maybe", etc. To truly understand these matters does require a degree of theological education that most people don't have. So then it quite often ends up being one of those cases where the person thinks "I know I must answer this", but aren't quite sure why.
There are far too many religions to suggest it's possible to distill a few unifying truths and to also not require discarding critical distinguishing elements.
It is almost a given that when you're looking for the essence of something you will discard accidentals. The fact that such a universal unifying core exists is proof enough that religions have been grappling with what is essentially the same hierophanic phenomenon. So when atheists bring up the point that religions are all different and therefore they can't all be right, they fail to understand the significant portion in which religions are actually not different.
For example, sure Judaism disagrees with the Trinity. So what? It doesn't disagree at all with the overarching narrative. The Trinity is indeed a religious doctrine (not a socio-political one), but that is almost at the very peak of possible mystical experiences and direct revelations, and it's not a truth that is available to all. So it's quite possible that Judaism either has not perceived that experience in which the truth of the Trinity is grounded, or they have, but they don't express it through the doctrine of the Trinity - instead, expressing its inner meaning through a different doctrine.
Sure, of course not. But they're both attempts at grappling with the relationship between man and his divine ground and do bear significant common ground with each other.
It is almost a given that when you're looking for the essence of something you will discard accidentals. The fact that such a universal unifying core exists is proof enough that religions have been grappling with what is essentially the same hierophanic phenomenon. So when atheists bring up the point that religions are all different and therefore they can't all be right, they fail to understand the significant portion in which religions are actually not different.
I don't subscribe to the idea that essences exist. There are only particular traits that once fully subtracted leave the object at nothing. I understand the need to invoke accidental and essential properties when discussing the doctrine of transubstantiation because the Church relied upon those concepts when forming the doctrine, but I don't find it useful or persuasive as a metaphysical theory.
It is not a fact that a unifying core exists. If Christianity is right, Judaism is wrong. The fact that missionaries knock on my door is evidence someone doubts the ultimate legitimacy of my beliefs.
So it's quite possible that Judaism either has not perceived that experience in which the truth of the Trinity is grounded, or they have, but they don't express it through the doctrine of the Trinity - instead, expressing its inner meaning through a different doctrine.
And it is not only possible, but probable, that they find the triunity an incoherent attempt to save Christianity from polytheism. And the Mormons accept the trinity as three different entities, rejecting the triunity and embracing a form of polytheism.
And what is more essential to Judaism than the first commandment and monotheism, yet I am supposed to believe polytheistic religions that worship idols are essentially all the same?
Sure, of course not. But they're both attempts at grappling with the relationship between man and his divine ground and do bear significant common ground with each other.
Which is only to point out that the word "religion" means something and there must be something similar for us to catagorize them in the same bucket. Are all rocks the same because they're all rocks?
That is much like saying "if Einstein is right, then Newton is wrong". It gives entirely the wrong impression since Newton is absolutely not wrong in-so-far as we're concerned with motion on Earth, or in any given portion of spacetime that can be treated as flat.
The fact that missionaries knock on my door is evidence someone doubts the ultimate legitimacy of my beliefs.
Well, you have to remember that missionaries don't have just a spiritual mission, but also a political and social one. So by converting you to their church they achieve political and social goals much more than spiritual ones in this case.
I don't subscribe to the idea that essences exist. There are only particular traits that once fully subtracted leave the object at nothing.
Well, I think that it's clear that some properties are essential to an object, while others are not. For example, a three-sided figure is still a triangle regardless of the proportions of the sides, or the color of the lines, etc. So three-sidedness is an essential property of a triangle - if an object lacks those, it cannot be called a triangle, unless of course you re-define what a triangle is.
And what is more essential to Judaism than the first commandment and monotheism, yet I am supposed to believe polytheistic religions that worship idols are essentially all the same?
An idol is often taken to be a physical object that stands in for God, so I don't see how Christianity is worship of idols - unless you take it that, for example, icons are the same as idols. But the difference, as Jean-Luc Marion explicates it in God Without Being, is that the idol traps the gaze, not allowing it to move beyond the object. Whereas the icon moves the gaze beyond itself, unto the invisible God.
With regards to Monotheism, there is still one God in Christianity, much like one triangle is one triangle even though it has three sides. So a further explication of the inner nature of God if you will isn't a denial of monotheism - it's merely an addition to it, a continuation, a further explication. Which is exactly why I've said that you can accept the monotheism, without also accepting the Trinity, without being wrong in an absolute sense.
Which is only to point out that the word "religion" means something and there must be something similar for us to catagorize them in the same bucket. Are all rocks the same because they're all rocks?
No, they're clearly not the same in their accidental features, of course not (and religions are also not all the same in the symbols they use, in their socio-cultural practices, and in their politics, etc.). But there must be something they have in common in virtue of which we see a resemblance amongst all rocks, and thus call them all rocks, thus grouping them together.
That is much like saying "if Einstein is right, then Newton is wrong". It gives entirely the wrong impression since Newton is absolutely not wrong in-so-far as we're concerned with motion on Earth, or in any given portion of spacetime that can be treated as flat.
Jews do not believe Jesus was the son of God. I think most would agree that Jesus' position as the son of God is an essential element of Christianity. If one insists upon dividing the world into accidental and essential properties, I don't know many who would consider Jesus's role as savior and son of God as a non-essential part of Christianity. So, yes, if Judaism is right, Christianity is wrong in an essential, non-trivial ort of way. Do you not agree with this? Quoting Agustino
Well, you have to remember that missionaries don't have just a spiritual mission, but also a political and social one. So by converting you to their church they achieve political and social goals much more than spiritual ones in this case.
That might explain someone in a leadership position who actually worries about overall numbers, but the kid in the tie on his bicycle is at my door because he thinks he has the key to truth and heaven that is lacking in whatever religion I subscribe to. Quoting Agustino
Well, I think that it's clear that some properties are essential to an object, while others are not. For example, a three-sided figure is still a triangle regardless of the proportions of the sides, or the color of the lines, etc. So three-sidedness is an essential property of a triangle - if an object lacks those, it cannot be called a triangle, unless of course you re-define what a triangle is.
The reason we can't decipher the accidental from essential property of a chair, for example, is because the distinction isn't real. A chair that cannot be sat on can still be a chair. A four legged chair with a missing leg is still a chair, even though it sits broken on the floor. A chair in a dollhouse is still a chair, even though it serves no function of being a chair. There are a set of properties that make something a chair and it's possible that two chairs be chairs yet not share a single property. In your case of transubstantiation, you even suggested that the essential property not even be empirically knowable, indicating that essence is a transcendent property, like the soul of something, imbuing it with chairness. Like I said, I reject essentialism, which might be why I consider your suggestion that all religions share an essence unsupportable.Quoting Agustino
With regards to Monotheism, there is still one God in Christianity, much like one triangle is one triangle even though it has three sides.
As I indicated, Mormonism is polytheistic. http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/polytheism.html This is directly from a Mormon website. Are you now declaring Mormons non-Christian? There are plenty of other religions that are polytheistic. Are you still claiming that they are essentially the same as Christianity?
If you want to really rest your argument on the accidental/essential distinction, then you are going to be required to itemize the properties you find essential to Christianity and then to the various competing religions. We will then need to see what the common essence is of all religions. That's your thesis, right? And then once we find that essence, you're going to have to be committed to the idea that any belief system with that very basic essence is just as valid as any other. Quoting Agustino
No, they're clearly not the same in their accidental features, of course not (and religions are also not all the same in the symbols they use, in their socio-cultural practices, and in their politics, etc.). But there must be something they have in common in virtue of which we see a resemblance amongst all rocks, and thus call them all rocks, thus grouping them together.
You're now rejecting essentialism and arguing Wittgensteinian family resemblance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance. If that's where you're falling on this, we're in agreement, but I think what's really happened is that you're simply recognizing the unsupportability of essentialism and you're trying to adapt to the objections being raised.
For what it's worth, I did learn that what we consider Aristotilian essentialism (i.e. "the doctrine that some of the attributes of a thing (quite independently of the language in which the thing is referred to, if at all) may be essential to the thing and others accidental. E.g. a man, or talking animal, or featherless biped (for they are all the same things), is essentially rational and accidentally two-legged and talkative not merely qua man, but qua itself.") is based upon a paper by Quine and he never confirms that view was actually attributable to Aristotle. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essentialism
I point this out because I never found the conversation about Aristotilian metaphysics philosophically significant. It's value is historical because apparently the Catholic Church adopted his views long ago when arriving at an explanation for transubstantiation. I suppose if some academic or theologian really wanted to figure out the underlying basis for the Church's position, they could go back and read the original texts. It's sort of like if I wanted to know why the American founding fathers referenced inalienable rights, I might want to go back and re-read Locke's view on natural rights since that's it's origin, but that hardly means I need to accept Locke's views. I'd just be trying to figure out where those views came from. And that is important too, if not just to point out the obvious fact that these views on transubstantiation are historically rooted as opposed to being rooted in the inerrant word of God.
And, since I mentioned Locke, he did mention primary and secondary qualities of objects, which seems another futile attempt at distinguishing properties out of objects (in his case, subjective properties versus objective properties as opposed to Aristotle's essential versus accidental). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary/secondary_quality_distinction
So, yes, if Judaism is right, Christianity is wrong in an essential, non-trivial ort of way. Do you not agree with this?
Of course, I agree with it, but that's besides the point. It's like telling me that if Newton's laws of motion cannot predict the movement of rays of light around the Earth, then they are wrong in an essential way compared to Einstein's theory of relativity. Sure! So what?! For all this time I was trying to point out that they have an essential core in common - on Earth, they both make the same predictions.
Christianity and Judaism still have what is essentially the exact same worldview. There even are some Jews (called Messianic Jews) who have adopted the centrality of Jesus qua Messiah affirmed by Christianity.
So my point is that you are not "wrong" in any absolute sense if you follow the tenets of Judaism or Christianity - you may simply not be completely right, in an explicit manner.
That might explain someone in a leadership position who actually worries about overall numbers, but the kid in the tie on his bicycle is at my door because he thinks he has the key to truth and heaven that is lacking in whatever religion I subscribe to.
Sure, but there are a lot of elements that go into building up that belief for him. Some of those reasons may have to do with insecurity, others may have to do with wanting to share his knowledge, others may have to do with peer pressure and social expectations, etc.
If you're asking me what I personally think, then I don't think Christianity is Mormonism. I identify Christianity with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, which were the very first organisations that arose out of the Movement created by Jesus and the Apostles. That's the original Christianity in my view.
If you're asking me what Mormons think, I think they would see their religion as a continuation of true Christianity.
There are plenty of other religions that are polytheistic. Are you still claiming that they are essentially the same as Christianity?
With regards to their core, in many cases this is so. Organized religions arise out of man's encounter with the divine, ie hierophanic experiences OR out of internal disagreements within one religion. The latter explains the emergence of Protestant groups or the Orthodox-Catholic schism, etc. But it is the former that is of the essence, and that is universally found across different religions.
The Jesus Movement formed because, first and foremost, the Apostles and the people who knew and met Jesus saw something worth dying for in Him - they were utterly impressed by the character and the person of Christ, and saw in Him the fulfillment of the Jewish Tradition. That was an experience of the divine, including the many mystical experiences that the Apostles had such as the one of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.
The Jewish religion arose out of the mystical experiences of the Jewish forefathers - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their encounter with the transcendent, which they termed and conceptualised as God, is what spawned the entire Jewish religion.
The Buddhist religion arose out of Siddhartha Gautama's dissatisfaction with life - or rather observation that life is corrupted by suffering - and search for a meaning beyond this, and it finishes precisely with his encounter with the transcendent which provided for the cure he was searching for.
You also seem to have a peculiarly legalistic understanding of belief. For example, someone says they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and someone else says they disagree, they think, for whatever reason, that it's a false belief. You will conclude they have different beliefs. I disagree. That's not what belief is, especially not with regards to religious matters. I can tell you that I believe in pink flying elephants, it doesn't mean that I really believe it just because I want to assent to that proposition when it crosses my mind. To really believe it, I must believe it in my heart, which means that I must act according to that belief.
So someone who says that Jesus is the Son of God and then proceeds to rape and murder an entire village doesn't believe it - even though he may assent to the words. And someone who says that Jesus isn't the Son of God, and he's absolutely sure of it, but behaves according to the Will of God, showing charity to his friends and enemies alike, following the moral law, etc. etc. that one does really believe in Christ, even though he does not explicitly know it or acknowledge it (hence the notion of Anonymous Christian or baptism of the heart, etc.).
Do not forget that another universal feature of religions is that the consciousness of the believer must be changed by the religion. So that is what true belief is - when you become a new person as a result of the religion.
So to believe isn't the same as verbally assenting to this or that. Without the underlying mystical experiences saying that God is One, or there are three gods, etc. are empty nonsense, words without any meaning whatsoever. It is only the underlying hierophanic experiences which give meaning unto those words. So it's entirely irrelevant if one says they're a polytheist, and the other says that they're a monotheist - that's not how we're going to see if they really disagree. Those meanings must be ultimately rooted in practice and experience and life.
If you want to really rest your argument on the accidental/essential distinction, then you are going to be required to itemize the properties you find essential to Christianity and then to the various competing religions. We will then need to see what the common essence is of all religions.
I already said what is common to all (or most) world religions. That is their foundation in hierophanic experiences, their overarching narrative (a fallen state, followed by something that allows for redemption and communion with the divine), etc. How these things are cashed out in particular symbols, according to particular cultures, languages, peoples, etc. is less relevant. Prayer, meditation, contemplation, devotion, etc. - in other words spiritual practice - are common to all religions.
The reason we can't decipher the accidental from essential property of a chair, for example, is because the distinction isn't real. A chair that cannot be sat on can still be a chair. A four legged chair with a missing leg is still a chair, even though it sits broken on the floor. A chair in a dollhouse is still a chair, even though it serves no function of being a chair. There are a set of properties that make something a chair and it's possible that two chairs be chairs yet not share a single property. In your case of transubstantiation, you even suggested that the essential property not even be empirically knowable, indicating that essence is a transcendent property, like the soul of something, imbuing it with chairness. Like I said, I reject essentialism, which might be why I consider your suggestion that all religions share an essence unsupportable.
Right, so then there are objects like chairs which we cannot define by a single list of necessary properties without a specific context. Then there are words like triangle in Euclidean geometry which we can define by a single list of necessary properties, which is the example I've given and you've ignored. Why is that? My sentiment was always that in the one case we really mean a multitude of things by "chair" in different contexts, and because in our language we tended to use the same word for all of them, the word chair is in effect impossible to define in a consistent way in order to cover all that we mean by chair at once, across all contexts. So something could be a chair because they have properties A and B, and something else could be a chair even though they have properties D and E (which are actually contradictory to A and B) and so on. So I think the above says more about our language, and how we chose to linguistically divide our concepts than it does about reality. It's important not to confuse language with reality.
You're now rejecting essentialism and arguing Wittgensteinian family resemblance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance . If that's where you're falling on this, we're in agreement, but I think what's really happened is that you're simply recognizing the unsupportability of essentialism and you're trying to adapt to the objections being raised.
I do not see why accepting family-resemblances would mean a rejection of essentialism.
"Essentialism in general may be characterized as the doctrine that (at least some) objects have (at least some) essential properties"
Wittgenstein's point with family resemblances is that what properties are seen to be essential to a concept depends on how that concept is used (ie, meaning is use). So that doesn't mean that the concept does not have essential properties, all that means is that those essential properties depend on what place it has in a language game.
So, for example, in the context (or language game) of Euclidean geometry, being three-sided is the essential property of a triangle.
Like I said, I reject essentialism, which might be why I consider your suggestion that all religions share an essence unsupportable.
Religions have their origin in experiences of the divine. Are these experiences all different? Probably. But that doesn't make them "not experiences of the divine" because of differences they have with each other. And I don't think this requires your acceptance of essentialism to agree with. All that you need to see is that these mystical experiences are the root of religions, and it is going back to those lived experiences that is of importance and relevance. Because otherwise, there is one God, or there are three gods aren't in any way or sense different from each other - they'd be vacuous statements. So religious discourse only has meaning with reference to these foundational experiences. The defect with the atheist arguments here is that they remain at the level of discourse, thinking that that discourse has meaning, in the absence of referring to those foundational experiences.
To look at it in a different way, religions all seek to put into words something that is fundamentally affective, a matter of the heart, and cannot be shared very well through words. What words are chosen, largely depends on the context in which the religions themselves arise. The underlying experiences are by all means not the same - but they do share commonalities and resemblances. That is why some religions may be more "right" than others, in a loose sense, in that they convey experiences more or less fully. But most religions do contain truth.
I suppose if some academic or theologian really wanted to figure out the underlying basis for the Church's position, they could go back and read the original texts.
Well if by "underlying basis" you mean how the Church came to have Transubstantiation in the first place, then it would be rooted in Apostolic Tradition and the practice(s) surrounding the initial hierophanic experiences of the earliest believers, clearly not in philosophy. There would really be no further reasons. So philosophy's job is merely the explication of those practices in a way that they can be understood as part of an overarching whole, which makes it easier to help others towards being open to and having the same experiences. When I want to share an experience with you, I tell you a story - about how it happened, what I did, how it felt, what I learned, etc. So philosophy, in this case, constructs a similar narrative that can explain the basis of the tradition. But this is not essential - the essential bit is the mystical experience and the change of heart that underlies whatever ritual is taking place.
Comments (639)
Ooh. How embarrassing. Do you believe in transubstantiation?
Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed.
What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?
What do you mean without scientific basis? What kind of scientific basis would you expect? Finding God in the atoms of the wine or what?
I would expect to see biological evidence of the body and blood of Christ. That has never been found.
Why? That's not what the doctrine claims.
Exactly, so why are you looking for it?
Quoting Sapientia
If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it. As you say, it still has the appearance, physically, of bread and wine.
I'm not. I said that that's what I'd expect to see if it were true. I don't base my expectations on what is absent from an old work of fiction. I base my expectations on what I know about science.
Quoting Agustino
Obviously I don't believe in miracles or faux mysteries. I'm curious why you do. That's how our conversation began, but now you're making it about me.
Why do you expect to see that if it were true? :s
When the doctrine itself says that the wine and the bread retain the appearance of wine and bread, how can you possibly expect that appearance to be changed so that you'd find that it is biologically blood and not wine, and biologically flesh and not bread? :s
Quoting Sapientia
That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't. So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine.
I answered that: because of what I know about science.
Quoting Agustino
But why do you believe that? Because it's what the doctrine says?
What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig, if it is eaten in a special ceremony? Would you believe that?
What if the doctrine told you to punch yourself in the face? Would you do so?
Is there anything that you wouldn't believe or act upon, provided it was in the doctrine?
Quoting Agustino
Yes I can, because the doctrine itself, if taken literally, is full of rubbish.
Quoting Agustino
I can do both.
It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X isn't true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy.
Quoting Sapientia
I wouldn't believe that because firstly I don't understand what it means, so I can't believe it. But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously.
Quoting Sapientia
Empty assertion.
Quoting Sapientia
One is a logical fallacy, but I see you like logical fallacies :P
Wait. I meant that that's what I'd expect to see if the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ. I believe that it would leave evidence. I don't believe otherwise, so if that's what the doctrine entails, then I don't believe that the doctrine is true. The doctrine is like a fairy tale, and I don't believe in fairy tales.
Yes, if they had the appearance of the body and blood of Christ sure. But that's not what the doctrine claims.
You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place.
What? That's not a fallacy. That's right.
If a doctrine claims that it's false that there are fish in the sea, but it's true that there are fish in the sea, then why on earth could I not judge that doctrine as false, given that it would be false.
Quoting Agustino
It means what it says. What's not to get? And how can you get the one but not the other?
Quoting Agustino
If you were reasonable, you'd disbelieve it because there is no evidence, besides hearsay, that it has ever happened, or, really, that it ever could happen.
Quoting Agustino
No it's not. Have you read the doctrine? Or, rather, is it just that you do not want it to be full of rubbish, because you don't want to believe in rubbish? Sorry, but it is what it is.
Quoting Agustino
No, neither are in themselves, and neither are in the right context. I disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine, and because I disbelieve that it would happen without causing such a change.
No, you misread that because you didn't update page. I changed it to isn't instead of is almost immediately.
Quoting Sapientia
In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?
I can tell you what the blood and body of Christ are in a mystical sense, I can tell you the significance of that. But not of the flying octopus. So I disbelieve the latter because I don't understand what it means.
I'm a humble boy, unlike the arrogant owl, who admits to not understanding some things, you see.
Quoting Sapientia
There is evidence. Mystical experience.
Quoting Sapientia
:B >:O
Quoting Sapientia
So if I tell you that there are no flying pigs, do you disbelieve because there are no flying pigs? :B
Quoting Agustino
That's missing the point. You can't rightly answer my question of why you believe what the doctrine claims by saying that that's what the doctrine claims.
So you should clarify your question. Your first question wasn't that. It was telling me how I should disbelieve the doctrine based on what it never claimed. That was indeed missing the point. So now if you rephrase your question on to the right subject, why I personally believe, I may be able to answer it.
So don't be like Mike who still has a first-grade brain (oh sorry, he graduated to second) and thinks he's burned me by saying that Catholics (and Christians) are cannibals and vampires, since being a cannibal and a vampire involves eating physical flesh and blood.
I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.
So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them.
What I want to know is how you think the one can literally change into the other, whilst keeping its original appearance, and leaving no scientific trail of evidence. And if you can't answer that, then I want to know why you believe it, and I want you to confirm whether or not it is as I suspect: irrational faith.
Quoting Agustino
Haha haha haha haha haha. I'm talking about real evidence. You could justify just about anything with that, so it doesn't really count.
Quoting Agustino
I believe that there are no flying pigs based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
My first question was, and I quote, "What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?".
"The doctrine says so", isn't a real answer.
Anyway, I'm going out now to meet a friend for lunch. See you later.
Yeah, mystical experiences are real, people experience them, you know :B
Quoting Sapientia
Right good. So we settled that your first assumption that you can disbelieve transubstantiation because there is no physical evidence is silly.
Quoting Sapientia
To leave a scientific trail or change its original appearance would be to do precisely what the doctrine claims it doesn't do. So you cannot falsify something in this manner. You have to falsify based on the predictions it does make. I outlined before how something can MYSTICALLY - I have no clue what you mean by literarily - change while maintaining its appearance.
Let me give you an example that second grade Mike will be able to understand. You're not feeling sexually excited and you look at an attractive girl, but you're not interested in her. After some time you get sexually excited, start feeling horny (sorry but I do have to speak at this level it seems to be understood) and you look at the same girl, who appears the same, and is physically the same, and suddenly you are attracted to her. She means something different to you than she did before. That's a transubstantiation - something maintains the same appearance, but changes its inner significance and meaning. It's not that hard to understand, but I really feel I have to speak at those mundane and philistine levels to make myself understood here. Many of the threads in the forums are also starting to become annoying because everyone speaks so vaguely and incoherently about things, which is part of the reason why I've been participating less in some threads.
Quoting Sapientia
That wasn't my answer. My answer was why should I expect a scientific basis for believing in the doctrine? You're asking a stupid question, like me asking why are you still beating your wife? You have to think about what kind of questions you're asking and what presuppositions they make. So please, do some work here if you want to get somewhere to understand those issues on a deeper level.
Make some effort to follow attentively the thread of the discussion, and don't strawman. I'm not avoiding answering you, I'm questioning the presuppositions that you make when trying to question me. If you don't put the work in, then you're wasting my time, and I'm currently busy, so it gets tiring to respond and repeat the same things over and over again.
Experiences are experiences. Whether they are of mystical quality, whatever that means and however you define that, is what's debatable. Merely because one claims their experience is mystical doesn't mean that experience is in fact mystical.
Hope you enjoy your lunch.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
No, of course it doesn't. But you cannot outright reject the testimony of many millions of people without reason. So until some reasons are provided (ex. mystical experiences only appear to be mystical, but are in reality x y z physical process caused by m n b playing itself out), I'm free to reject that claim outright.
Yes, I know. But they're not real evidence. A mystical experience is evidence of a mystical experience. You had a funny feeling. That's all.
Quoting Agustino
I already clarified what I meant, and what I meant is not silly. I stand by it. To address what I said before the clarification is to do what I did when I addressed your misworded comment, but I had a better excuse, as you've definitely read my clarification at this point.
I'll carry on with this later. Out to get drunk with mates. See ya.
The experiences described are more than just "funny feelings".
I thought that we'd moved on from this. Forget the damn doctrine for a moment. For the purpose of my question, set aside what that part of it says. I'm talking about the [i]real world[/I]. In the [I]real world[/I], that doesn't happen. There's no evidence, besides hearsay, that that has ever happened, so it is perfectly reasonable to question why you think that it happens. (And that the doctrine says so, again, is obviously not a good enough answer, as that just shifts the focus of the question on to why you think that the doctrine is right. You can't just assume that it is right, as that's not a shared assumption, and would beg the question).
I suppose I didn't really need to use the term "literally". I only used it to emphasise that I'm talking about a real change taking place, and not a figurative, symbolic change. Your use of the term "mystically" is tantamount to an admission that you don't really have a clue how it supposedly works, but you have faith that it does. That's not a reasonable stance.
Quoting Agustino
Yeah, that's not an example of transubstantiation. That's just feeling horny over some girl. That's an ordinary, common place occurrence, which can be explained. That's not an extraordinary and inexplicable event which would defy all current scientific knowledge. The two aren't comparable.
Quoting Agustino
Because science has proven itself to be considerably more reliable. Why shouldn't you have confidence in science over your doctrine?
Quoting Agustino
It's not a stupid question. We both have our presuppositions. I have no qualms about being open about mine. But you've been hesitant to be open about your reliance on faith over reason. I have confidence in science because it has a great track record. Its predictions have turned out correct, or have at least been of use and set us on the right track, ever adding to our knowledge about the world. The Bible, on the other hand, is just an old book, and if its passages are to be taken literally, then it has proven itself wrong with regards to important claims that it made about the world, perhaps most notably with regards to the Genesis creation myth. That's why Biblical literalism is stupid, and is only taken up by people who are themselves stupid, or who disregard how stupid it is as a matter of faith.
Quoting Agustino
No, I think that it's you who is failing to get it. For example, a prominent failure on your part is your reoccurring error of mistaking my focus on external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) to be about internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message). I have tried to clarify this for you, but based on your replies, it seems that you still aren't getting it. You just keep repeating that the doctrine says [i]this[/I] and does not say [i]that[/I], as if that matters.
Yeah me too, I wasn't talking about dreamland.
Quoting Sapientia
What would you expect to happen if the doctrine was true? You must know what predictions the doctrine makes to judge if they do or do not happen.
And please don't tell me some idiotic thing like I expect a literal change. No - I want you to tell me exactly what you would expect. If it's a literal change, you have to tell me, for example, I expect that in the wine there will be found blood, or something of that sort.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, by analogy they certainly are comparable. You said you were mystified how something can remain physically the same and yet literarily change. I just gave you an example - a common one as you say - where that happens. So then you're not really so mystified about how something can remain the same physically and yet literarily change.
Quoting Sapientia
:s - the doctrine doesn't contradict any scientific predictions, so why is it the doctrine vs science? :s
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah me too. I have confidence in science when dealing with physical & quantifiable matters.
Quoting Sapientia
Its predictions have turned out correctly indeed. But only in a limited domain. And that's the domain which studies the behaviour of physical matter, where things can be studied quantitatively. So if we're dealing with a domain where we need a qualitative study, and not a quantitative one (such as spirituality), then science is of little use. The same way that a hammer is great for hittin' the nails, but crap for cutting the tree. You are being entirely irrational and laughable if you're telling me I should use science in a spiritual matter because science has great results in an entirely different domain.
Quoting Sapientia
Were we discussing the Bible? That's news to me.
If I may interject, this is the reason why you fail to understand transubstantiation. The doctrine assumes that what is real, indeed what is most real, is not the physical world. Trying to make sense of it while assuming some version of materialism, as you apparently hold to, is definitionally impossible. Trying to understand any idea on your own terms is a recipe for failure. You need to either defeat its presuppositions or demonstrate your own in order to advance the charge of incoherence.
I realize that that's a big task, but it is a necessary one.
I don't have good enough reason to accept that, and it is a fallacy to appeal to the masses. The masses you appeal to are simply wrong. They aren't intelligent enough to make sense of these experiences, or they're in denial, so they jump to conclusions and believe what they want to believe.
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Sapientia
Yep, some of them no doubt are.
Quoting Sapientia
Some of them aren't intelligent, others are extremely intelligent. There are both kinds of people. Or do you mean to suggest that only stupid people have mystical experiences or claim to have had them?
So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd.
Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation.
[i]“Having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, Jesus made it His own body, by saying, ‘This is My body,’ that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol. He likewise, when mentioning the cup and making the new covenant to be sealed ‘in His blood,’ affirms the reality of His body. For no blood can belong to a body that is not a body of flesh” (Against Marcion, 4.40).
-Tertullian
“the bread which our Christ gave us to offer in remembrance of the Body which He assumed for the sake of those who believe in Him, for whom He also suffered, and also to the cup which He taught us to offer in the Eucharist, in commemoration of His blood“(Dialogue with Trypho, 70).
-Justin Martyr (110-165 CE)[/i]
Could've fooled me! You were talking about the mystical transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago. That is the stuff of dreams and myths, not reality. You'd have to be blind not to see that.
Quoting Agustino
No, that's a deflection. I don't expect miracles. Why should I humour you and entertain the idea? I expect results based on facts, not on wild imagination.
Quoting Agustino
No, they're not comparable for the reasons given. And you're wrong that there would be no physical change. We're constantly changing physically from one moment to the next. This is covered by science, e.g. physiology and particle physics. Is this supposed transubstantiation that is thought to occur after receiving the Eucharist likewise covered by science? No, because it's just a myth, taken up on faith. It's not falsifiable and is therefore unscientific.
Quoting Agustino
The doctrine is unscientific. That's why it's the doctrine vs. science.
Quoting Agustino
But you also have confidence in myths with nowhere near as robust a basis in evidence as in other matters. That's the problem. Just because science cannot apply, you don't need to recklessly abandon critical thinking. And, to make matters worse, you're probably not even consistent. If you don't believe in ghosts or celestial teapots, then why transubstantiation? Why the double standard? Why the special pleading?
Quoting Agustino
No, on the contrary, [i]you[/I] are being entirely irrational. You are embracing such nonsense with open arms, whilst I am not letting my guard down. If I found that a hammer wasn't a suitable tool for cutting down the tree, then I'd find a more suitable tool, like a saw. I wouldn't throw my tool kit away and put my faith in some sort of invisible magic. The domain you're talking about is fantasy. It's not either science or fantasy.
Quoting Agustino
Okay, then simply swap "The Bible" for whatever doctrine you were referring to. That's a nonresponse.
No, not in any way, but certainly not in a scientific way. Of course, the positivist could reply that only that which is verified by science counts as knowledge, but that too requires justification, a difficult task given the self-refuting nature of the claim.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
By "the text" I suppose you mean the Bible. It may be disputable, but I think the New Testament affirms the doctrine. And early Christians did believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. All Christians believe it is symbolic, by the way, but those who believe in the real presence don't think it's merely symbolic or symbolic in such a way that Christ is not really present. So the two quotes you provided don't refute the doctrine at all. In fact, the Tertullian quote affirms it quite strongly.
Ok. The burden of proof still rests on the believer, and fuzzy feelings don't count as proof.
Quoting Thorongil
Are you suggesting that Jesus ate and drank himself with his disciples? I provided quotes of very early Christian leaders denying the physical presence of Jesus in the bread and wine. You care you cite some of the early Christians you speak of? I could cite many more to make my case.
Quoting Thorongil
"...that is, the symbol of My body. There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol."
You do not understand the theological implications here. This is Tertullian affirming that God was flesh, not that the bread became God's literal flesh and blood.
You're strawmanning here. And the burden of proof lies on whoever makes a claim. If the non-believer claims that transubstantiation is false, it's up to him either to disprove the presuppositions of the doctrine or prove his own that rule it out.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
Here are some: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/father/fathers.htm
Quoting ProbablyTrue
Sure, why not. Aquinas, for example, thought so: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4081.htm
Quoting ProbablyTrue
Well, here's the Catholic response: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/did-tertullian-and-st-augustine-deny-the-real-presence. Makes sense to me. You're just quote mining without respect of context.
I'm just getting to work so I won't be able to reply in depth, but the first part of the Catholic response is A) mumbo-jumbo, and B) confirms what I said.
"Indeed, both Tertullian and St. Augustine are emphasizing the fact that the Lord’s body and blood are communicated under the “appearances,” “signs,” or “symbols” of bread and wine. “Figure” is another synonym for “sign.” Even today the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses the terms “sign” and “symbol” to describe the Eucharist in paragraphs 1148 and 1412.
In the case of Tertullian, all we have to do is go on reading in the very document quoted above to get a sense of how he is using the term “figure,” and it is entirely Catholic. Notice what he goes on to say:
Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body. An empty thing, or phantom, is incapable of a figure. If, however, (as Marcion might say,) He pretended the bread was His body, because He lacked the truth of bodily substance, it follows that He must have given bread for us. It would contribute very well to the support of Marcion’s theory of a phantom body...
Tertullian’s point here is that Marcion’s “theory of a phantom body” fits with Christ “pretend[ing] the bread was His body,” because Marcion denied Jesus had a body in the first place. But the Christian believes Christ “made it His own body, by saying, This is my body.” The transformation does not take away the symbolic value of bread and wine, it confirms it."
For one thing, Agustino is calling it a "mystical" experience. It might be 1% - 3% clearer, maybe not, if he called it a "mystery" instead of a mystical event. People are thought to have "mystical experiences". Contemplatives work at achieving mystical experiences. A few people are struck by mystical experiences, usually to their dismay. Transubstantiation isn't something that one can achieve, work at, improve, or make happen. Through great effort, one can not improve one's understanding of a MYSTERY either. Mysteries are unfathomable and that's that.
The priest utters the incantation (the words of institution) and that's it from our end. HOW transubstantiation occurs is a mystery of the action of God [IF one believes that such a thing happens. Of course, if one doesn't believe that anything happens, then the whole thing is just so much hocus pocus].
No one has ever had a sensory experience that would tell them that the bread and wine had become, by a mysterious act of God, to be "the body and blood of Christ". I don't think there is any reason to think that the alleged author of the incantation, JC himself, was turning the bread and wine of the passover meal into his blood and flesh either.
If Jesus did say such a thing, my guess is that he was referencing a more ancient solemnity when the priest poured out the blood of an animal sacrifice before the people, to ritualistically 'seal' a covenant.
Jesus might not have spoken the incantation (Gasp! Heresy! Burn him slowly at the stake!) The incantation may have been devised by the early church, as might the last meal of Jesus with the disciples. I'll assume here that Jesus did say it, though. We'll never know for sure, either way.
There is nothing to argue for in a Mystery. It's there, we do not, can not, have not, and never will understand it.
Myself, I don't like the whole business of mysteries, incantations, mystical bodies, and so on and I don't believe in them. What one REALLY has to strive to believe in is that the Church DID NOT cook up theories which were, shall we say, implausible? and then called them a Mystery or a Mystic crystal revelation, or something, and then told the laity to just believe it or go to hell.
No Catholic has ever experienced transubstantiation. The substance of the bread and wine leaves and is replaced by that of the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ, the only thing that remains is the 'species' ("espèces" in french), which is specifically everything that can be experienced by experiencing bread and wine.
For a Catholic it isn't symbolic either (according to the Cathechism anyway). The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is truly there, and there is truly nothing left of the bread and wine except for everything that makes us feel about it that it is bread and wine.
Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly.
The above quotation of Tertullian is his response to Marcion of Sinope. Marcion was a proponent of docetism, which purported that Jesus had no physical body. Tertullian is emphasizing the body of Christ not in the bread and wine, but that he had one at all.
Read this again:
"Then, having taken the bread and given it to His disciples, He made it His own body, by saying, This is my body, that is, the figure of my body. A figure, however, there could not have been, unless there were first a veritable body."
Notice he makes a special note saying, "that is, the figure of my body."
The word figure, which is the translation used by the Catholic Church, also means "sign" or "symbol".
Tertullian would have no need of clarifying this if he indeed meant that Jesus was speaking literally of the bread and wine.
In the grand scheme, Tertullian's opinion is just one of many so even this doesn't amount to much. I doubt we'll solve a major theological schism here in the ShoutBox.
*Edit*
Another quotation of Jesus we could look at is John 10 verse 7:
"Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."
So Jesus is not only bread and wine, but a door!
I didn't ask you to entertain the idea. I simply asked you to tell what you expect to happen if the doctrine is true? That's much like asking you what would you expect to happen if Newton's theory of gravitation is true? Can you answer one question? Then you should be able to answer the other too. So stop trembling, shaking, and deflecting, and answer the darn question in clear and no uncertain terms.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.
But that's irrelevant. In both cases. The fact that there are neural correlates for a qualitative experience does not eliminate the qualitative aspect of it, nor does it show that science can investigate the qualitative experience itself. That's for phenomenology to do.
If you go from non-horny to horny then this same girl that you're looking at becomes qualitatively different. She means something different for you, even though nothing, in her, physically changed. Something did physically change in you - the neural correlates - but they don't "contain" the qualitative meaning and inner understanding of the event.
Quoting Sapientia
That's only your own faith.
Quoting Sapientia
No, it's not. The doctrine makes no physical predictions, so it simply has nothing to do with science.
Quoting Sapientia
Sure, that's exactly why I gave you 4 or so different reasons for believing it.
Quoting Sapientia
Ghosts and celestial teapots are supposed to physically appear, to be observed around in the physical world. They are not qualitative phenomena, but quantitative ones. So how is there an analogy between transubstantiation and ghosts / celestial pots?
Quoting Sapientia
>:O >:O >:O - it's funny how you think you're not letting your guard down.
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah, a nonresponse to a nonquestion. If you can't be sufficiently accurate and specific in the questions that you ask, you'll keep asking a lot of bad questions. Then you'll be like yeah yeah yeah, replace this with that, or whatever, doesn't matter >:O
Mystical experiences can be verified scientifically. As can "funny feelings".
Quoting ProbablyTrue
Apart from the Protestant bit, the other bits are false. Transubstantiation is NOT a physical change, so it's much closer to a symbolic change, absolutely. That's what Orthodox and Catholics have meant from the very beginning. It is aimed at reproducing the effect of Christ's sacrifice, which was the divinization of the flesh (hence of bread and wine).
Unhistorical.
Quoting Akanthinos
Yep it is. Just not physically.
Quoting Noble Dust
Believe it or not, young laddies, this has nothing to do with materialism. You can be a hardcore materialist and still believe in transubstantiation.
As far as I know, materialism does not deny the qualitative and non-quantitative aspects of existence. It may think they are illusions (ie less real, whatever that is supposed to mean), but it doesn't say they don't exist.
You're confusing understanding and agreement. The failure is all yours. It is because I see it for what it is that I reject it, as I reject magical thinking in general.
That's no argument against the charges Thorongil has brought to you.
Says you. I didn't see much of an argument from him. He uncharitably asserts that I do not understand something that I do. How would he know that I do not understand? Can he read my mind? I can explain what transubstantiation is. In fact, I have already done so. Just because I have a different position, that does not prevent me from understanding. That's a [i]non sequitur[/I]. An atheist, a materialist, a whateverist, can [i]understand[/I] transubstantiation, without [i]agreeing[/I] with it.
He brought up the problem of transubstantiation within the context of materialism. Can you explain in detail your position, as a materialist?
First, show me where I said that I was a materialist.
Are you not?
Because some of the early church leaders decided it was somehow literal, it is not clear from the text itself that Jesus(if he said these things at all) meant it literally.
The Gospel of Luke says, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
1 Corinthians 11:23 does too. So clearly it is meant as a symbolic gesture.
Quoting Agustino
Can you expound?
Expound? Maybe expand.
https://www.nature.com/news/2006/060828/full/news060828-3.html
I made the claim because I was confident that you were from other discussions and claims that you've made. I'd rather hear you describe your views than assume them. If you're interested. But this is the shoutbox, after all. Common curtesy isn't really the norm...
But, alternatively, do you really need me to clarify for you what materialism means? Come on, I'm the philosophical dilettante here, not you. As to the relevance of the criticism of materialism, revert back to Thorongil's OP for the context of materialism.
There. I fixed it. It's late.
Any thoughts on the actual quotations from the Bible or do you want to stick with early church leaders?
Quoting Agustino
I'm sure they'd find the same things in the minds of Muslims or Mormons.
You can see what my views are in relation to transubstantiation by reading the preceding discussion. What more do want to know, specifically, about my views? And what do you think the relevance will be? I believe that almost everything is made out of a material called matter, including bread and wine. My views are in line with current physics, to the extent of what I know of current physics, so I also accept that it's not just matter, but also fundamental forces, for example.
Yep, I was never arguing that only Christians have mystical experiences.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
What thoughts would you expect? I think the Eucharist is amply prefigured in the Bible.
In terms of Christianity there are three sources of revelation:
(1) The Bible
(2) Apostolic Tradition
(3) Personal Mystical Experiences
So even if something isn't in the Bible directly and explicitly - like the Trinity - that doesn't mean that it hasn't be revealed.
Are they materialist?
Quoting Sapientia
What is not included in "almost"?
Yes, that would be helpful. I don't self-identify as a materialist and I don't spend much time reading about or discussing it.
Whether I'm a materialist or not, I'm an atheist, and I'm not religious, so I don't believe in the magical transformation which Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are expected to believe in as a central tenet of their religion.
Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
(John 6:35)
“...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe”
(John 6:63-64).
That verse is not about the Eucharist, and within the context of these two verses is clearly symbolic/spiritual.
Anything I'm not sure about. What's a thought made of? I can't answer that kind of question as easily as others.
Interesting. So, as someone who is not a materialist, what is your criticism of transubstantiation?
And did I ever imply they were physical :s ?
If you're saying that transubstantiation is not physical in some sense, where the bread and wine actually become Jesus' flesh and blood, then what is the claim? And wouldn't that put you at odds with the above verse you just quoted where you implied that Jesus made the claim that they had to literally eat his flesh and blood?
Here's a quote from Catholic.com in an article called Transubstantiation for Beginners:
"The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so."
Do you disagree with this?
They do, but they don't physically become the flesh and blood of Jesus.
So they do REALLY become the flesh and blood of Jesus. But that's not a physical becoming.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
Quoting ProbablyTrue
Now I agree with it.
So they become the flesh and blood, but not in any perceptible or substantial meaning of the word "become". A better name would be Transunsubtatiation.
Yes, in an absolutely substantial manner, just not a physical one (in terms of their appearance).
Geez, give me a link would you. Do you expect me to remember what I wrote hours ago? I assume you mean this:
Quoting T Clark
Now what's the question? Is it "What does this say about materialism?" I don't think is says anything about materialism. "Is this statement consistent with materialism?" Every metaphysical statement is consistent with materialism. Except when it's not. Ha! I was trying to sound mysterious. Ignore "Except when it's not."
Your views show a lack of empathy and an understanding of human psychology and the procedures of reason. Oh, yes, and also of the nature of reality.
Edit - Quoting error. Here's what I was trying to respond to
Quoting Agustino
This is probably the only time you have taken one of my posts seriously. Seems a bit self-serving to me.
Seriously? Read the discussion, please. I don't feel like starting over from scratch with someone else.
I guess I'll take the word of a East Orthodox over that of the Petit Catéchisme à l'usage du Diocèse de Genève. :-}
1. Christianity isn't [I]that[/I] unique. It has features in common with Judaism and Islam, in particular.
2. Yes, people have funny feelings. I have acknowledged this and provided my own explanation.
3. No, it isn't. It's the complete opposite. It's controversial, and there have been wars over how it ought to be interpreted.
4. Such as...?
Quoting Agustino
It's not just that some of them are no doubt wrong, but that there's not enough of an evidential basis to believe that [I]any[/I] of them are right.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, there are both kinds of people, as I acknowledged. The intelligent ones are too emotional, so they end up in denial and believe what they want to believe. It's not so much a lack of intellect for these type of people, but an excess of emotion.
True. Quoting a heretical non-saint like Tertullian doesn't help your case, especially as he doesn't reject the doctrine of the real presence in that quote.
Quoting Agustino
This makes no sense. A materialist is someone who believes that only matter and physical forces exist, which rules out the existence of God, angels, demons, souls, substantial forms, Platonic Ideas, etc. Transubstantiation requires the existence of God at the very least. Therefore, one cannot be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation.
Quoting Sapientia
You've simply made my point for me here. Yes, you reject what you put into the category of "magical thinking." You have reasons for doing so. Those reasons require defending in order to reject transubstantiation.
Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, or expecting people to buy that it's reasonable and not a matter of blind faith. I also agree that there's special pleading involved, on account of it being religious, and being of [i]this particular[/I] religion. If I were a Christian, I would definitely [i]not[/I] be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant.
But Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions. No other religion has such a figure, which has absolute central importance to the religion. You can imagine Islam without Muhammad, or Moses without Muhammad, or Buddhism without Buddha, or Hinduism without Krishna, etc. but you cannot imagine Christianity without...Christ.
Quoting Sapientia
Which wars? :B
Quoting Sapientia
Some historical events, such as the Resurrection, my current understanding of metaphysics, etc.
Quoting Sapientia
>:O - yeah if we could all be knights of pure reason like you Sappy :P
Yeah, so what if they believe only matter and physical forces exist? Do colors exist for the materialist? Yep. So the materialist also acknowledges the existence of qualities, however he does not think that these are ultimately real. You can absolutely be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation because the latter is qualitative.
The Catholic Chuch never argues for a literal interpretation of the Bible. The whole idea of hermeneutics was developped by Catholicism as a field to discuss the relative values of biblical interpretations.
There are many mysteries to a Catholic that will never find a rational explanation. These are not taken to express a subjective truth about our connection to God. This is because they aren't presented as such in the holy texts. The Holy Trinity is not presented either in the Bible as a mystical objective fact, it's just that there are precise passages that discuss the unicity of God in the Ancient Testament, and that this would conflict with the New Testament claims that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine too.
A bit like how God only became King of the Universe after he decided to incarnate himself in Jesus Christ (Doctrine of the Royalty of Jesus Christ).
Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things.
If you proportion belief to the available evidence, then no, they're not comparable. There's a lot of evidence for particle-wave duality. There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay, funny feelings, and "The doctrine says so!", which I'm not willing to do.
Just hearsay, no funny feelings.
Anyway, any decent Catholic imho should admit that he believes certain things on very strenuous premisses. That's going to be a part of the existential malaise that is essential to Catholicism.
There's lots of evidence of transubstantiation, it's just not evidence you believe. Your begging the question a bit. You've assumed that scientific rules apply to a situation where they don't. Agustino says "Scientific evidence is not relevant." You say "Science proves you're wrong."
You can take that up with Agustino, then, as he cited mystical experiences as evidence, which I interpret as funny feelings.
It's like believing in dragon fire without believing in the existence of dragons. The dragons must exist in order for there to be such a thing as the fire they breathe.
I have taken it up with him. The Catechism is clear on the issue. ;) C'est la vie!
Why? It's not relevant. It's just a trap so that you can jump on an earlier misunderstanding. If the doctrine rules out scientific evidence, and we're assuming that the doctrine is true, then obviously I wouldn't expect scientific evidence. Ah ha! You caught me! Except you didn't, because I already explained that that would be begging the question. I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong internally[/I], based on its [i]own presuppositions. I wouldn't expect it to happen at all, because it is without precedent to the best of my knowledge. It would be miraculous. Hearsay is not enough to change my opinion. So you had a funny feeling. Okay. So what? So the doctrine says so. Okay. So what? Therefore transubstantiation!?
You don't get to choose what is evidence or not. You only get to argue that the evidence provided is wrong or unreliable. Again, you're begging the question. "I don't accept your evidence that realism is wrong because it isn't consistent with realism."
Ah yes, the old heretic. Not heretical enough that the Catholic church doesn't want to claim his opinion for their purposes, though. I tried to explain that quotation, but if you don't see it there's nothing else I can say.
Quoting jamalrob
I'd rather be saddled with the history of Protestantism than Catholicism. Those beautiful buildings were paid for by indulgences.
Whatevs. I'm not even going to discuss this red herring.
Quoting Agustino
Which part? Are you suggesting that it is something other than a myth? That it is not taken up on faith? That it is falsifiable and scientific?
Can you demonstrate any of that to be the case?
Quoting Agustino
It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, they're terrible, and I have addressed each one.
Quoting Agustino
There's an analogy in terms of evidence and unfalsifiability. I could say that I've seen a ghost. That it was a mystical experience. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost. And, being of the spiritual realm, it would leave no physical trace behind.
As for the celestial teapot:
[quote=Wikipedia]Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong.[/quote]
Quoting Agustino
Handwave. It was indeed a nonquestion, but that doesn't justify your nonresponse. It was an analysis of where you're going wrong in response to my criticism. You'd do well to heed it, rather than dismiss it on such a trivial basis.
Something irrelevant that I've never denied. Good one. What exactly do you think that you can conclude from that?
Can you do any better?
I don't understand why you even participate in this or other similar discussions. I can't remember you ever responding in a way that shows you have given the other's comment serious consideration. All you really ever say is "nu unh." You never step out of your so-called realist box and it doesn't seem like you can understand that arguing for realism using realism is philosophically invalid. As they say about string theory, you're not even wrong.
Yeah, good to know. Thanks for your input. Your opinion means a lot to me.
That's what I've been doing.
If you say so.
Not true. He's considered a prophet in religions other than Christianity.
Quoting Agustino
Muhammad.
Quoting Agustino
No, that's completely whack. Islam without Muhammad? Buddhism without Buddha? Are you for real? Look up the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case and then tell me that.
Quoting Agustino
Really? Look up the European wars of religion. How to interpret the Eucharist was part of that.
Quoting Agustino
The Resurrection is [i]not[/I] a historical event! >:O
It's a myth, like Medusa, the Minotaur, St. George and the dragon, and so on.
Or you.
I can imagine Buddhism without the historical Siddhartha Gautama. Many later Mahayana schools don't seem to depend on the historicity of him. Islam without Muhammad might be a more difficult case to imagine, but it's certainly possible, since the Quran is the core of Islam and is a book that has existed from eternity. Muhammad is just a messenger.
I don't either, actually. I'm neither a Catholic nor a Christian. Within Christianity, however, Catholicism makes the most sense to me and attracts me the most.
Then Google is wrong?
Quoting jamalrob
Really? How so? I thought that it was the other way around.
Quoting jamalrob
I'd be a Puritan, because I think I'd enjoy smashing the windows of those beautiful buildings.
"You're", not "Your".
You've not assessed the situation rightly. Firstly, if you had have read my comment properly, then you would have seen that I qualified my claim that there isn't a lot of evidence. But your reply ignores that qualification, as if I didn't make it. You're actually almost echoing my own point back to me as if it is a criticism. And secondly, I actually agree that science isn't relevant, in a sense. After all, I've acknowledged that the claim in question is unscientific. That doesn't do it any credit. If not science, then what? Reason? Hardly. Faith, more like.
This is silliness. Transubstantiation is not an empirical state. It's symbolic, metaphorical, a necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world, within the context of religious ritual. In this respect, it's an a priori truth which isn't subject to any sort of argument about having evidence.
Asking for evidence here is like claiming that an assertion "The world is a stage"has some evidence which make it so.
Yes I do, in the sense that some evidence is much weaker than others, which is the sense in which I meant what I said. That's why I said that it's not real evidence, as in, it's so weak as to be effectively discounted. Think of a court of law as a point of comparison. Some evidence is inadmissible. Some evidence falls far short, such that winning a case becomes highly unlikely. Some evidence is like a smoking gun or being caught red handed.
Quoting T Clark
I've done just that. You've not been interpreting me charitably. Perhaps you should look back over the discussion. For example, there have been points where Agustino seems to have been fallaciously appealing to authority ("But the doctrine says so!") and fallaciously appealing to the masses ("Lots of people have mystical experiences!") and appealing to anecdotal evidence (weak, unreliable, unfalsifiable).
Quoting T Clark
Straw man and uncharitable.
If I reject substantiation because it's bullshit, but I ignore the bullshitery of quantum mechanics and believe it anyway, that means two things (1) I'm logically inconsistent in my beliefs, and (2) transubstantiation is bullshit.
I mean I get the argument of "sure my beliefs are stupid, but so are yours," but is that really where you want to land on this?
I do.
A necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world? An a priori truth? What [i]are[/I] you talking about? Can you explain yourself?
And, from what I've read about Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church, they do not consider it to be symbolic or metaphorical, but literal. (That is one of the distinctions between the two aforementioned and Protestantism). Accordingly, it is therefore not analogous to, "The world is a stage".
I mean it's taken to be a meaning of the bread and wine in question, rather than to be literally what the states in question are-- just as we might say how the world "really is a stage" because people appear to others, even though it's not a stage at all.
Catholics don't think they are eating Jesus' fingers and putting a substance of blood in their mouth, no matter how much any of them say it's "literal." Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim.
— Akanthinos
Quoting Sapientia
Where did Google buy it's vocational school certificate in Theology?
Quoting Jamalrob
True. Prior to the earliest geological explanation of the earth's history over time, Biblical literalism about creation made reasonably good sense. After these theories were published, not so much.
Actually, extremely doctrinaire Biblical literalist inerrancy is quite modern--a reaction to both Darwin and the Biblical criticism carried out in the 19th century which revealed a more complex history to the various books of the Bible than previously known. It was hatched out by crackers in the southern Bible Belt. It seems to be more common now than say... 50 years ago, and has spread north, east, and west.
It should have been nipped in the bud.
My wife is Catholic with a thoughtful understanding of doctrine. I've talked to her about it. Transubstantiation is definitely not a metaphorical or symbolic phenomena. It is meant literally.
Since we're talking about something I said, I guess I should speak up. I don't think quantum mechanics is bullshit. I believe it is true in the sense that other scientific descriptions of the world are true. I believe that subatomic particles behave the way QM describes with the understanding that physicists still have a lot to work out.
I don't think transubstantiation is bullshit either, although it is not part of the way I understand the world. I guess I would say I don't have an opinion. That's not quite right. I guess I don't think about it except as something interesting that someone believes. Or something to argue about here. Notice I haven't once argued for transubstantiation as a fact. For me, the most important thing about it is that it shows the philosophical lack of vision and intellectual dishonesty of those who support realism, science, naturalism, absolutism, materialism, etc. Dishonesty isn't the right word. Maybe blindness.
Yep, it's among mostly American Protestants that you find the creationists and fundamentalists. On the various brands of Christianity, their doctrines and histories, you could do worse than read [I]A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years[/I] by Diarmaid MacCulloch.
Specifically on the relationship between literalism and Roman Catholicism, you could read this article from a leading Jesuit magazine:
A Fundamental Challenge: Three ways to combat biblical literalism
Mystical experiences emerge likely as a therapeutic attempt for those susceptible to pathological issues by enhancing a sense of self-worth, such as when experiencing depression or anxiety and where the brain also changes in order to reduce that disconnection or alienation; the acceptance of supernatural things like statues moving or weeping is a type of collective pathology that serves to normalise these individual experiences (think of things like Jerusalem syndrome). However:
"Religious experience is brain-based. This should be taken as an unexceptional claim. All human experience is brain-based, including scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, and artistic creation, as well as religious states of mind. Determining the neural substrates of any of these states does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance"
QM emerged as a tool for scientific reasoning and mathematical deduction to describe and illustrate concepts as a step towards interpreting the universe and the amount of nonsense and pseudoscience that has emerged is verification that when all things are possible, nothing is impossible. But, the study of chemistry emerged from alchemy, ancient cosmology from Aristotle or Seleucus with their fantastic themes that the universe is cylindrical among others helped emerge the study of astronomy and eventually the development of astronomical tools that led to what we now know as science.
For me, religion was a tool to understand our moral and ethical dimensions, but the static nature of dogma has made it difficult for it to evolve and appreciate the original purpose, which was basically to understand how to be a good person. "Jihad" was supposed to be about fighting evil subjectively or within, but taking this literally as part of some collective pathology has led to rather devastating consequences.
I think we really disagree. Are you saying that the mystical experiences of billions of people are the result of psychopathology? If so, that surprises me. If not, please clarify.
Quoting TimeLine
I would probably say "mind-based," but in this case I think that would be a quibble. In general, I have no problem with that statement.
Quoting TimeLine
I remember trying to read "The Tao of Physics." I finally threw it down in anger and frustration. Ever since, some people's inability to see that any connection between QM and mysticism is metaphorical has driven me crazy. That doesn't mean I think QM is right and mysticism is wrong, they're just completely different things. So, I agree, QM is often misused in a lazy and slapdash way. Do you think I was saying that QM's supposedly odd implications justify belief in supernatural phenomena? I wasn't. I was trying to say that just because something seems inconsistent with common sense, hard to believe, that doesn't mean it's wrong.
Quoting TimeLine
Since no specific religion is part of my understanding of the world, it doesn't make sense for me to have an opinion on dogma or religious practice. Unless, of course, it calls for killing or enslaving children and other innocent people. That being said, it is my understanding that religion didn't start out primarily to deal with moral and ethical issues. It was intended to describe the entire world and all its aspects.
It comes down to this - for me, the universe, all that is; water, air, supernovas, bagels, love, triangles, cows, Republicans, some 23 legged numcztns on the third planet around some planet in some galaxy 11 billion light years away, God too; represents an inseparable combination of what is inside me and what is outside me. It's not really a combination - they were never separate. I believe that even though I am as hardheaded a proponent of science as you are. I am an engineer in a whole long line of clunky, methodical engineers.
There's a lot more to it, and I've discussed it on other threads. No need to go more into it here.
Billions of people? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of religious people who don't have mystical experiences and would likely think there is something wrong with the person experiencing it just as much as there are a lot of Catholics that do not actually believe they are drinking the blood of Christ. Stigmata never actually happened to people and if it did, it is no different to pseudocyesis or other physiological manifestations symptomatic of a pathological disorder.
Quoting T Clark
The point I was attempting to convey is that there is a lot of wrong in QM and those even with a hint of common sense would be able to see the difference that something like Schrödinger's cat was a clear example of how QM cannot be applied to our everyday reality and yet we have the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is the double-slit experiment followed by the claim that atoms move because they know they are being observed. >:o
I am saying that there is a lot of garbage from QM that is inconsistent with common sense and that there is no mutual exclusivity between classical and quantum interpretations of the universe, but at the same time there is a reason why these absurd suggestions are formulated because we have through QM developed some precise calculations, formed a better understanding of the behaviour of particles, and advanced our understanding of a number of others things. It is a process that is leading to something better, a kind of by-product of our epistemic evolution.
Really, it means only two things?
Quoting Hanover
That's not my argument.
I guess I don't see mystical experiences as so out of the ordinary. I don't think they are mysterious at all. I wasn't really thinking about Catholics when I talked about billions of people, I was thinking of Eastern religions and philosophies, although you are probably right to include Western religions too. I have my own idea what "mystical" means. I haven't studied comparative religion much, so maybe what I am talking about is not what others usually think of as mystical.
Quoting TimeLine
Is that not-smiley face angry at the QM guys or at me? I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I agree there is a lot of what looks like silliness in all those interpretations. It is my understanding that they can't be told apart, even theoretically. If that's true, it doesn't make any difference what interpretation you use. It is my understanding (I use that phrase a lot when I am talking about subjects like this) that the Schrodinger's Cat thought-experiment was a joke. It never seemed to make any sense to me.
In my lack of sophistication, it's always seemed that the correct interpretation is "that's just the way it is." QM describes how the world works. If it doesn't make sense to you, tough luck. Why would you expect the world would behave the same at the smallest scales as it does at human scale. I guess I thought that's what the Copenhagen Interpretation meant.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't see why QM has to be consistent with common sense. Much of physics and lots of other things aren't. Relativity isn't.
I guess to me, mysticism means understanding the world through awareness of the experience of it rather than measurements or observations of so-called objective reality. That comes mostly from my understanding and experience of the Tao Te Ching. I have not studied it, I have only read a number of versions and read just a little modern commentary. I have experienced some of what is described and it seems like the most mundane experience possible. This is usually where I hope @Wayfarer will show up and set me straight.
Come on. Do you really not understand. You're experiencing things right now. You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. I just had dinner. I didn't watch myself eating - I just tasted the food, swallowed, felt it going down my throat, had a sense of wellbeing when I was done. I am verbalizing it now, but I didn't while it was happening.
I'm not so sure. How're you not also observing your experiencing of eating dinner? You're experiencing it, so I think you're automatically measuring it somehow as being different from the experience of petting your dog.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
In my experience, I don't observe my experiences, I just experience them.
I think that a good definition is that it is externally indistinguishable from psychosis, only instead of making you sicker, it makes you healthier. This is something that is documented, and difficult to dispute, and measurable from the outside.
As for mysticism - in some ways it is impossible to convey but the great mystics, the genuine mystics, do speak a universal language.
I guess I thought your experience with Zen was similar. From where I stand the seem to be addressing the same experiences. Obviously, you know more about that than I do. That's why I rang you up. It's fdrake for statistics, apokrisis and StreetlightX for cognitive science, and Wayfarer for eastern religions.
Your meaning is rarely clear, and that's a problem. If you're saying that, according to Catholicism, it's metaphorical, rather than literal, then I think you're mistaken, since the sources where I've got my information about Catholicism from state otherwise. Moreover, T. Clark's wife is Catholic, and she thinks likewise.
And what I was [i]actually[/I] requesting was an explanation regarding your comments about logical necessity and [i]a priori[/I] truth, which you haven't given. I might just resign myself to my suspicion that you were talking rubbish, whilst, in the same breath, accusing [I]us[/I] of being silly.
Take this, for example:
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I've read that several times now, and I'm still confused about what you're trying to say. For a start, bread and wine don't express meanings. That makes no sense. I feel like I need a translator when conversing with you.
You don't understand what literal means. You think literal means physical >:O
Right, but he's not considered to be the One True God come amongst mortals to save us from sin.
Quoting Sapientia
Muhammad is not of absolute importance. Allah is. Muhammad is merely the messanger and the prophet.
Quoting Sapientia
Yep, the centre of Islam is the One God Allah.
Quoting Sapientia
Sure, Buddhism is a set of techniques. Has nothing to do with a particular historical figure - maybe Buddha never even was a historical figure.
Quoting Sapientia
That's not what the available testimony indicates.
>:) - when you see you're wrong, you run away.
Quoting Sapientia
You can't know if it's unfalsifiable if you cannot even bring yourself to specify what predictions it makes. That's your own failing though. I've asked you multiple times already.
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah so what? Emotions are also unfalsifiable, therefore they're unscientific. So that means they're mythical? Give me a break from first-grade reasoning.
Quoting Sapientia
That's not true that a mystical experience wouldn't leave physical traces behind. Such could be detected in the brains of those undergoing them.
>:O
Quoting Sapientia
Well, for one, I can conclude that mystical experiences do leave physical traces behind, and are scientific to that extent (we can judge whether or not someone really had a mystical experience). We cannot, however, scientifically study the inner meaning or significance of mystical experiences. That's not a failure either of science or of mystical experiences. It doesn't tell us mystical experiences are "mythical", or "unscientific" in a prejudiced sense. It just tells us that you're trying to cut a tree with a hammer ;)
>:O
In that case, there must really have been witches, given all that testimony. (Look up witch trials in the early modern period).
Not comparable. First of all, in those cases there exists testimony in both directions. And most importantly, the testimony in that case was very often forced out of people by violence, etc. And the testimony was of the nature "I think she was a witch". It wasn't of the form "I've seen the Risen Christ".
In the case of Christians, if you affirmed that you saw the Risen Christ you would be persecuted. In the case of witches, you would be rewarded if you turned a witch in. In the case of Christians there exists virtually no testimony against the Risen Christ. In the case of witches the testimony was always ambiguous. In the case of Christians the testimony was of the nature of personal experience - seeing the risen Christ. In the case of witches, the testimony was of the nature "I think she's a witch".
So really, your laughable attempts aside, you have to try harder ;)
What's interesting is that none of this is necessary. You don't have to bite the bullet and opt for the weaker position entailed by organised religion. You can be a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ's teachings, without adopting this untenable literal interpretation of scripture.
A good historian would not count any supernatural claims as historical without exceptional reason. Agustino cited the Resurrection as a historical event. Agustino has not provided enough of an evidential basis to make an exception. Therefore, it should not be counted as historical. End of.
No credible historian would count the tale of St. George and the dragon as a historical event. There is no archeological evidence of dragons ever having existed. Similarly, there is no credible evidence that Jesus was ever resurrected from death. Testimony is not enough for obvious reasons. Otherwise you open the floodgates to all sorts of fantastical imaginings, be it ghosts, angels, demons, faeries, dragons, witches, walking on water, and so on and so forth.
History doesn't change.
God's teeth, not this again. It's not that I'm not understanding, it's that I'm disagreeing. Whether or not we have enough evidence to discern whether or not it happened, which is to say whether or not it is historical, [i]does[/I] come under the remit of a historian. We don't have enough to say that it happened in the case that is under discussion. It has more in common with mythology than history.
What we know as history does.
Quoting Sapientia
No, it does not. The historian analyzes what he has, not what he does not have. If he has no evidence suggesting the contrary, he ought not suppose that it did not happen, merely that it is not conclusive that it did. I'm sorry, Sappy, but you're wrong here. There's no way around it, and you can get offended all you like, but if I must qualify myself here, it is with me having a degree in history and have spent much of my life studying both history itself and how we study history. You can argue my acumen on philosophical matters, but here is where I'm not going to feign ignorance.
Also, I might remind you that I qualified my first reply here with good historians. I don't deny that there are historians who overstep their bounds, but they are bad historians. And I'm not alone in this.
Maybe for something like "Hitler had pancakes on his birthday". Not for "Jesus died, was resurrected, and then ascended to heaven."
On the other hand, something like the Resurrection can be ruled out axiomatically if some form of positivistic materialism is true. Were it true, miracles are impossible and those events labeled as such are simply misunderstood physical processes like everything else.
I will say that for traditional Christians, the articles of faith (i.e. the items in the creeds) are divinely revealed and only received by grace. You cannot definitively establish them through the use of reason. Indeed, if that were true, then faith would be superfluous. However, merely because the Resurrection, for example, requires faith to believe in does not mean that it is unreasonable to do so, provided one believes in certain preambles to the faith, such as the existence of God (which the creeds assume). So I don't think faith in the Resurrection is "bullshit" if those preambles are true. Debating the merits of the Resurrection's occurrence before establishing the existence and nature of God is to put the cart before the horse.
A form of altered state of consciousness that is ineffable and involves gaining insight into the deeper nature of reality.
I honestly don't see anything patently absurd.
Quoting Sapientia
What would be sufficient then?
Quoting Sapientia
Right, it's based on historical documents. I grant that Alexander went to India and fought there, etc. based on very few historical references - much fewer than when it comes to the death and resurrection of Christ. So why don't you go up in arms about granting factual or historical status to Alexander's conquests, but you're so upset when it comes to Jesus? The Bible does say that the Cross will be a scandal for unbelievers.
Quoting Sapientia
Sure, and I think we do have extraordinary evidence.
Quoting Sapientia
St. Paul said that if Christ has not Risen, then the faith is in vain. He was right about that.
This isn't true. A historian is in the business of verifying his facts. He doesn't simply just recite what he's told, unless he simply wishes to document what he's told regardless of veracity. If I were reading the history of the Vietnam war, for example, I would expect the historian to have sorted out the facts from the fiction and tried to establish some degree of credibility. Academic histories are replete with footnotes and references supportive of their claims.
No historian would report that there were purple elephants walking around Peoria without support, meaning precisely that the lack of evidence is evidence of absence.
Quoting Thorongil
This makes it appear that there are simply materialistic axioms and religious axioms that are incompatible, with neither being more valid than the other, and so it should be expected that materialists will reject the Resurrection as a matter of faith, just as Christians accept it as a matter of faith. It paints a picture of two competing faiths, with the materialists unjustifiably smug in the truthfulness of their faith, but, if better enlightened, would realize they are no better or worse than the religious. I think this accurately sets forth the repercussions of your position. If not, correct me.
The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book. That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system. I reject the Resurrection for the same reason I reject accounts of ghosts, not because ghosts are materialistically impossible, but because no one seems to be able to show me one.
And in truth, I'm not actually a materialist, but I fully allow for a spiritual realm, but I don't believe that offers me any additional room for a belief in the Resurrection. Why would it?
The truth is that most believe in the Resurrection because their parents did or it was a pervasive cultural belief. The belief is simply an adoption of the local legend, regardless of how firmly the believers wish to argue that it's not. On the other hand, my belief that it snowed last night would be my belief regardless of who my parents were, and that belief seems to be cross-cultural, with people of all beliefs and stripes navigating the snow in the same way.
....ahem
Quoting Sapientia
Says the man who has set himself up as the sole judge of what is patently absurd.
Sapientia says "What you say is patently absurd. QED."
Quoting Sapientia
Ah, I see the confusion. Generally, when someone says that they are doing a literal interpretation of the Bible, it goes further than saying that some of the mysteries aren't metaphorical and symbolic. Everything is literally to be taken to the word. If the Apocalypse state that during the breaking of the 3rd Seal all angels will be dancing laciviously La Macarena, then you can expect that to happen.
Catholicism doesn't teach a literal interpretation of the texts in this way. I was told in Catechism that the Apocalypse and the Rapture was much more symbolic than anything factual. At the same time, the priest would be unmovable on certain other issues. Mary was a virgin. He felt almost insulted at the question. Sacraments are holy and mystical. Transubstantiation is a thing. Resurrection did happen.
Obviously, its very akward having to naviguate this system of belief. Once you start admitting some of it is symbolic, why not just say it all is? Why is it so important that Mary really was a virgin if it doesn't really matter if only 400 000 people will or won't be selected for admittance into Heaven? That is why, I think, so many other Christian sects decide to go the literalist way. That way, you don't have to deal with figuring which part of the text are the important ones, because it's all important, all the time.
Quoting Hanover
I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see sense.
Yes, I reject it for the same reasons, and I also made the point that materialism isn't as relevant as Thorongil, Noble Dust, and perhaps others, think it is. My views certainly have much in common with materialism, but whether that's enough to make me a materialist is arguable. Whether I'm a materialist, a dualist, or undecided, my views about transubstantiation would be no different.
You're right. There's nothing patently absurd about bread and wine magically transforming into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago, after some special ceremony, leaving no trace that this magical transformation has taken place. Almost as if it had not taken place at all, and is in fact just something that's made up. And there's nothing patently absurd about a man who, after being put to death, rose up and ascended to heaven. There's testimony, so it must be true. How silly of me.
If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly.
It is supposed to be inconsistent, it is a miracle. If it wasn't inconsistent, how could it possibly be a miracle?
Quoting Hanover
Well right, if you were used to it, then the Resurrection would be nothing special, as it claims to be. Precisely because you don't see people rise from the dead from time to time, it shows that the Resurrection of Christ was a unique event in history. Indeed, it is the very axis of history. All of history separates in before and after Christ.
I think the same about you. If we were discussing Alexander the Great and his conquests (including details about the tactics he used in specific battles, etc.), of which we know based on the testimony of people and virtually nothing else, I'm sure you'd not be questioning the historical validity of those documents nor the historicity of the events. But when it comes to religion, you do question it, because you're set against religion on an a priori basis.
They're not analogous. Did you read what I said about supernatural claims?
Yes, I've asked you a question about that. Did you answer it?
No, I haven't gotten around to that yet. As of this moment, I have 11 notifications pending. Bit of a backlog going on here. You'll just have to wait.
Is anyone attracted to the aesthetic truths of the song “Into the Mystic” by Van Morison then a person whose underlying aesthetic and related beliefs are mentally disordered, aka insane? Or is one’s likening of this song’s theme only a brain fart? Wait, maybe even something more substantial, such as a brain defecation. Conversely, would liking of this song be due to the biologically determined, evolutionary functionality of understanding and relating to propositional attitudes expressed by statements such as, “we were born before the wind”?
Besides, what are the psychotic rants of bona fide mystics such as William Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence” supposed to mean anyway? And I quote, “To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour …”. A more irrational convulsion of category errors can hardly be imagined! It’s like, what?
With all due sobriety and sincerity though, myself, I prefer to admire the Mystery Men. They are mysterious too, yes, but I, personally, find it much easier to relate to most of them—including that guy played by Tom Waits who as a weird scientist only manufactures weapons of mass disruption. (to be used strictly for good, of course)
To those who quite understandably don’t know, Mystery Men is the single greatest superhero movie of all time, imo. This being a self-evident fact, QED.
The amount deference given to "mystical experiences" in this argument is baffling. If the inability to disprove something claimed to be ineffable is grounds for respecting it, I guess we'd have no right to try talking a suicide bomber out of his belief in a glorious martyrs afterlife.
I don't deny this. I never intended to describe the historian's craft in its totality.
Quoting Hanover
No. I have no idea why you would read this into my words. If materialism is true, the Resurrection is false. There is no faith required to reject the Resurrection in that case.
Quoting Hanover
Here your disbelief rests on a probability, which means your disbelief does not rest on a demonstrated fact. Your position is thus similar to what I said: "a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. One may believe that the former is indicative of the latter, but that cannot be asserted as fact, unless new evidence is brought to light...."
Quoting Hanover
So what? It isn't refuted due to this fact. If it happened and only one person in the world believed it, he would be right.
Quoting Hanover
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
But they are. No scholar denies this. They may contain more than mere historical record, but that doesn't mean they don't record history.
I'm not Christian or religious in any conventional way. I have no vested interest in any specific issues being discussed here. What I am interested in is the metaphysical issue. My position has been stated and restated numerous times. I'd rather not do it again.
Patently means without doubt. Absurd means ridiculous. You think the idea of transubstantiation is ridiculous without any doubt. I disagree.
You know what I mean Thoron. Yes, technically they are records found in history that claim to record things that happened in a period of history.
They are not a dispassionate account of things that took place. And they are full of discrepancies.
This is an equivocation fallacy. It is tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the normal scientific order of things. It is not tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the common consensus experience.
That is, of course miracles are miraculous (definition #1: inconsistent with science), but they need not be rare (definition #2: inconsistent with common experience). In fact, I am open to miracles occuring, but that hardly means anything can occur.
Hypothetically, if miracles of a certain type occurred daily, I would find it dubious if miracles of another sort were alleged, especially if they were significantly at variance from the other ones.
Quoting Agustino
It's comments like these that broadcast your limited and myopic perspective. To the extent you simply wish to proclaim your fidelity to your faith as a loyal Christian soldier, I guess have it, but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man, it's hard to to consider your views having any validity outside those sharing your limited field of vision.
With a few words changed, this is exactly the argument I've been making about your and Sapientia's beliefs.
Hmm, I see where you're coming from. However, I don't think we could even have, in principle, the scenario you're suggesting above. I mean that sort of presupposes that we could have a situation where something occurs commonly in experience, but yet is not incorporated in our scientific theories. So what would that look like? We have a law, like the law of gravity, and people sometimes levitate? Wouldn't that be incorporated in the scientific law then? Surely the law would have a statistical element then, much like quantum mechanics. For the most part, things fall down to earth - but sometimes there is a fluctuation in the gravitational field, and they float.
So the problem with your whole scenario, more succinctly, is that we had the notion of miracles before we ever developed the notion of a scientific order of things - before we knew of laws of nature. So how did that notion of miracles develop? Clearly, it couldn't have developed to refer to things which were contrary to the laws of nature - what it referred to were things that were deemed to be impossible according to common experience.
Quoting Hanover
I fully acknowledge that there were billions of people who didn't/don't consider Jesus to be the Son of God.
What I meant by history being divided into before Christ and after Christ, was simply a remark that pretty much everywhere we talk of 100 BC and 2000 AD, and where is the separation point? It's very close to the birth of Jesus. So we have divided our history into before Christ and after Christ. Clearly Christ's influence, regardless of what you believe about Him, has been tremendous.
Which makes "miracles" nothing more than unexpected events, whether by that's by present scientific theory or common experience. None of them were ever "impossible (shown clearly false, if one has happened)," only insisted to be "impossible" by humans interested in ensuring people thought the event in question couldn't happen.
Agreed.
I know it is, and it's an invalid attempt to declare all viewpoints relativistic and equally valid. My belief in evolution is founded upon firmer epistimological foundations than are creationists' beliefs or what a South American tribe might think. When I say transubstantiation doesn't occur, I mean it just like I mean there are no unicorns, bigfoot, and that the earth's not flat.
I suppose it'd be Moses' world, where miracles were commonplace and not alarming. Moses didn't attempt to provide a mundane, non-miraculous explanation for those events because God spoke directly to him and he knew they were acts of divine intervention.
You assume miracles must be deciphered only because God stopped explicitely talking to us a few thousand years ago for some reason. Quoting Agustino
BCE (as opposed to BC) is typically used to refer to "before the common era," or, as we used to say back in Hebrew school, before the common error.
Anyway, the Jewish year is 5728, Hindu 3102, Islam 1438, and Chinese year is Rooster if my placemat was correct.
There is a difference between a mystical experience and mysticism; in some Dervish Sufi orders, for instance, the practice of whirling is intended to achieve this unison with God yet possible only for a select few and only followed by this "annihilation of the self" after years of practice. They are aware that not everyone is capable of achieving this experience that is individual or distinct in its transcendental reality. In my opinion, this exemplifies that there really is no possibility of such an experience, but rather it is pathologically distinct framed within a religious exegesis in order to broadly make sense of whatever that person is experiencing. The mysticism itself, the suggestion of attaining a unison with God, the annihilation of the self, the asceticism etc is entirely sensible but I am of the opinion - except for the existence of God - that it is not meant to be taken literally; like QM and CM, it is meant to help us better understand physical reality. For people to purport simultaneity between the spiritual realm and the material world - i.e. something like 'psychics' who can reach beyond this world or that Scho. cat both exists and doesn't exist - is, in my opinion a type of pathology. It is taking lies and our imagination to a new level.
You cannot know God. This is why - for centuries - people rely on idols or turning men like Jesus into a god. Taking concepts like that literally is a cognitive issue but framed into a dogmatic system. To me, there are really only two types of people, those that believe in God and those that don't. Everything else is just trying to make sense of this.
I have been trying to make myself clear on this thread for a couple of days and have made no headway. I think that's for several reasons - 1) It's a hard thing to get across. The same words mean different things to different people. 2) I've been trying for a long time to figure out a way that I find satisfactory to describe the experiences and ideas I am talking about. I haven't been able to so far. It's probably silly of me to think that if I can just figure out to say it right everyone will see what I'm talking about. 3) The ideas are probably alien to the way people think about the world 4) I think the fact that you talk about the ideas I'm trying to get across as a type of psychopathology and Sapientia calls them "patently absurd" indicates intellectual rigidity on your parts.
You have created the idea of 3) when you are having difficulties articulating your beliefs probably because you yourself have not yet understood it well enough. Whatever the case is, my argument is not about your beliefs and what you say makes sense and parallel to some degree with me as I myself subscribe to the belief in the interconnectedness of all things in similar vein to Spinoza. I do agree, however, with 1) as how things are interpreted is dependent on a number of factors. Take an Epicurean approach and focus on addressing them. If I say I believe in God to a Christian, it may be interpreted to be the trinity; I have to clarify further and so I say that my belief is more aligned with the monotheistic God of Judaism or Islam, but then it may be assumed that I am Jewish or Muslim, so again further still I say that I do not follow a religion nor believe in an anthropomorphic God etc etc. I noticed that some serious advocates of atheism are really just anti-Catholics because they had some bad experiences personally.
As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real.
You have mad people like Madam Blavatsky plagiarising from Hinduism and Gnosticism and then wrap it all up by pretending it is philosophical, creating Theosophy where she believes that the devil is god and that Aryans and Atlantis actually exist, influencing people who end up influencing Hitler who end up killing millions of Jews, Romas, persons with a disability etc. There needs to be a line drawn between fantasy and reality.
It is more dangerous then simply some astrologist telling a gullible minded moron that they are a Capricorn and next week they will meet the man of their dreams or scientologists talking about having you purified and I don't know whatever heck they do. I really need you to think about 4) again, please.
Let me stop you there. I agree that it's a matter of faith. However, nothing is true by faith, whether you capitalise the first letter of the word or not.
[quote=Nietzsche]"Faith" means the will to avoid knowing what is true.
Faith, indeed, has up to the present not been able to move real mountains, although I do not know who assumed that it could. But it can put mountains where there are none.
But the “deep“ thought can nevertheless be very far from the truth, as, for instance, every metaphysical one; if one takes away from the deep feeling the commingled elements of thought, then the strong feeling remains- and this guarantees nothing for knowledge but itself- just as strong faith proves only its strength and not the truth of what is believed in.
The fact that faith, under certain circumstances, may work for blessedness, but that this blessedness produced by an [i]idee fixe[/I] by no means makes the idea itself true, and the fact that faith actually moves no mountains, but instead raises them up where there were none before: all this is made sufficiently clear by a walk through a lunatic asylum.[/quote]
Hey you! In all seriousness, though, I agree but each of those mystical experiences are individual and they do not share the same experience.
Right, but that doesn't mean that Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions, which is what you said. That only means that his [i]full status[/I] is, which is something I never denied. So, you didn't word your claim properly, and you should therefore be more careful in future.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, Muhammad, in accordance with Islam, as I understand it, is only secondary in importance to Allah. Islam doesn't have that Trinity nonsense peculiar to Christianity. Although Muhammad is, nevertheless, and undeniably, a central figure in that religion, with a similar, albeit not identical, status as that of Jesus in accordance with Christianity.
Quoting Agustino
No, that's taking it way too far, and is very misleading. The tales of Buddha, whether he was a historical figure or not, and the underlying messages, are of great significance to Buddhism. Buddhism is named after the Buddha. Statues of the Buddha are so plentiful and recognisable that they're akin to the cross of Christianity or that image of Ché Guevara.
Quoting Agustino
No, I've addressed that. At first, I refused to humour you, and I explained why. Then, eventually, because you were so persistent, I answered you in a more engaging way here. So, the real question is: why aren't you addressing my response? And why should I persist in tolerating what seems to amount to nothing other than game playing from you?
Quoting Agustino
It's funny that you should mention emotions, because emotions are what I suspect leads you to jump to conclusions regarding what you interpret as mystical experiences.
I acknowledge emotions because I've experienced emotions. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, experienced the magical transformation that we're discussing. It's misleading of you to create the impression that science is all that matters to me. I mentioned elsewhere that without science, you'd still need good enough reason. You haven't provided good enough reason. I've explained why in response to the reasons you've given thus far.
Quoting Agustino
:-}
Really, Agustino? That's not what I meant. Do you think that I'd deny that? I wasn't talking about the experience, I was talking about the ghost. There wouldn't be any physical trace of the ghost that I experienced. So you'd only have my word to go by that the experience I had was indeed an experience of a ghost and nothing else. But my word is not enough. I could have misinterpreted what it was that I experienced as a ghost, meaning that, in fact, it might've been something else. That it was something other than a ghost is much more plausible.
This is analogous with testimony about transubstantiation or the resurrection of Christ.
Quoting Agustino
That's an irrelevant conclusion: an informal fallacy.
Quoting Agustino
No, I'm not. You're just not paying close enough attention. If I was trying to cut a tree with a hammer, I would be trying to misapply science. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm making the point that if science cannot apply, which it cannot, given that it is unfalsifiable, then what else do we have to go by? You've attempted to provide good enough reason, but you have failed to do so, and some of your replies have been laughable.
Okay, I see.
Quoting Sapientia
Glad you agree.
Quoting Sapientia
No, Buddha isn't important. What is important is salvation. That's why Bodhidharma says "if you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha". You really do have very little understanding of these matters, and that doesn't surprise me, since I don't suppose you've invested years of your life, as I have, studying the religions. So it's something to be expected, you cannot be good at something if you never engage with it. And I don't hold that against you, but you should be aware of it.
Quoting Sapientia
Because it was a red herring. I illustrate how below.
Quoting Sapientia
What is the "it" that you wouldn't expect to happen? And please don't say transubstantiation, I want you to explain to me clearly what transubstantiation is, so that you can decide if it happens or not. So we're back to my original question. What would you expect to happen if transubstantiation were true? Even if you reject is because you don't agree with its presuppositions, you're supposed to be able to tell me what you would expect to happen if it were true.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes you have - you've experienced horniness. That is a magical transformation. One time a girl means nothing to you, the next second she means everything. Something magical happened there. You don't call it magical only because you're so used to it, you've come to expect it.
Quoting Sapientia
It's not analogous to the Christian revelation. The Christian revelation wasn't experienced by one or two people, but by literarily hundreads. One person's testimony, depending on circumstances, context, etc. may be worth nothing.
Quoting Sapientia
Science doesn't apply in many things that we do. It doesn't apply in economics for example, in sociology, in psychology, in history etc. etc.
Quoting Sapientia
It's not, I already showed that we can detect the effects of mystical experiences on the brain.
I admit that I don't know a lot about Buddhism. But I could only take what you say with no more than a pinch of salt. I'd have to look into it further myself. For a start, this is what Wikipedia opens with on Buddhism:
Quoting Agustino
It wasn't.
Quoting Agustino
The answer to your first question is contained in the very comment from which you quoted! So you're still not paying close enough attention, and you still expect me to repeat myself:
Quoting Sapientia
And the answer to the question of what I [I]would[/I] expect ought to be obvious by implication. I shouldn't have to spell it out, especially not at this late stage of the discussion, and this is just one giant red herring in any case. But here goes: under the baseless assumption that what the doctrine says about transubstantiation is literally true, and under the assumption that the doctrine states or implies that there would be no observable difference, then, upon examination of the contents, after the ceremony, and after ingestion, I would expect to see digested - or partially digested - bread and wine.
Congratulations. What do you think that this has achieved? I bloody well expect you to answer that question. I think that you've achieved nothing other than wasting both of our time. And, if you dare to even suggest that this somehow proves me wrong [I]and[/I] if it is because you've misunderstood my position, after all of the time that I've spent clarifying my position to you, then that will be the end of this discussion. So I urge you to carefully review what I've said in this discussion so far before prematurely reaching any conclusions.
Quoting Agustino
>:O
Quoting Agustino
That's not what I mean by magical, and I think that you know that, which would make this reply from you nothing more than sophistry. What you describe above is not supernatural, extraordinary, or miraculous. Again, the two are not comparable, and this is a red herring which I do not want to discuss any further. You should put your effort into defending transubstantiation rather than digressing about feeling horny over a girl. You have your work cut out for you as it is!
Quoting Agustino
It [i]is[/I] analogous, and I think that you're being disingenuous, because I think that you're well aware that [I]a lot[/I] more than one or two people claim to have experienced a ghost. If you're not aware, then look it up. According to one source, one in five American adults say they’ve seen or been in the presence of a ghost.
And, moreover, this sends us back in a circle to my response that that's a fallacious appeal to the masses.
Quoting Agustino
That doesn't answer my question. I meant: what else have we got to go by [I]in this case[/I]? You've cited testimony. In response, I've explained why anecdotal evidence is weak and insufficient. You've appealed to the masses. In response, I've identified that as an informal fallacy. Do you have anything else that I haven't already addressed?
Quoting Agustino
I wasn't talking about that! How many times am I going to have to clarify this point before it sinks in?
I do not, and have not once in this discussion, denied that mystical experience exists. Many nonbelievers accept that it exists. It's just that we might not think of it in the same way that believers do, and we certainly do not jump to the conclusions that believers do.
I mean there are different meanings of "literal." Catholics don't literally expect to see their bread turn into Jesus' flesh or wine run into blood.
They don't think Jesus is locked in a room, sitting ready to have a finger lobbed off and blood run at a whim, to be teleported to the appropriate location every time some takes a piece of bread and sip of wine.
Quoting Agustino
This is false and misleading, and this is not the first time that your historical ignorance has shown itself. Again, look it up. I just looked it up myself, and I found testimony of seeing witches flying through the winter mist. The [i]allegation[/I] is, "She's a witch!". The [i]testimony[/I] consists in "observations", like the "observations" regarding the supposed resurrection of Christ.
Sorry to have to shatter your illusion, but without faith, nothing is true. Without faith words have no meaning. And without meaning there can be no truth to the words. Truth and faith are fundamentally tied, such that all truth is dependent on faith. Have you not noticed that "trust" and "true" are of the same root?
Perhaps what you meant to say is "nothing is true by faith alone", and that would be debatable. However, "nothing is true by faith" is clearly false, because every truth requires faith, so in reality (which is far from where you live your life of illusion) everything is true by faith.
I don't think that you're adding anything worthwhile to the discussion.
[I]In accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical. Taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.[/I]
That's what "literal" means, in the relevant sense. That's what I mean.
An example would be calling someone a weasel. To take that literally would be to interpret it as saying that someone is a small, slender carnivorous mammal related to, but smaller than, the stoat, rather than a a deceitful or treacherous person.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
They don't expect to see it, but they do expect it to happen. If you think otherwise, then don't just assert it. Back it up. I find what T. Clark says about his wife, who he says is a thoughtful Catholic, more convincing than what you're saying about Catholics. Are you Catholic? Do you have a Catholic wife? Where are you getting your views about what Catholics think from?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I think it's just you. I don't think that you've got a good grasp of the discussion and the respective positions of those involved. No one here thinks that. Take away the exaggeration, and take away the explanation. It is taken literally, meaning that the bread and wine [i]really do[/I] become the body and blood of Christ, and, from what I gather, it is considered to be mystical, which suggests that it is inexplicable, except as an act of God.
The only illusion that you'd be shattering is the illusion that you would see sense, but I was never under that illusion to begin with.
I agree that a sentence requires words, and that its composition must be such as to render it meaningful, and that this is a prerequisite for it to be true. Meaning is rule based, and has nothing to do with faith. If X means Y, then X means Y, whether I have faith that it does or not.
But anyway, that is an aside. It is beside the point. Yes, truth depends on meaning, but my point was that truth also depends on fact, and faith and fact are two quite different things which are not always in sync, as the quotes of Nietzsche effectively illustrate.
If a child somehow depends upon "faith" to understand "clean your room" means clean your room, and a Catholic relies upon "faith" to believe in transubstantiation, surely "faith" has two different meanings.
If not, are you suggesting I have as legitimate a right to believe in unicorns as I do transubstantiation as I do rocks?
I'm not exaggerating. My example was what would have to be true if people believed bread and wine were "literally" flesh and blood, under the definition you were using. That would be our test for confirmation/falsification: have the bread and wine been replaced by flesh and blood from the person of Jesus.
If this replacement it not held to occur, then no empirical claim of "bread and wine turn into the flesh and blood of Jesus" has been make. Without holding this exaggerated position, the Catholic is not making an empirical claim, so we would have nothing to dismiss on those grounds.
The Catholic position is that the replacement is actual and literal. That it is empirically unverifiable is part of the supposed mystery of it. Your ridiculing of the idea that somehow Jesus' actual blood finds it way to every mass is the actual Catholic position.
No, that's not what the Catholic understands by actual and literal. If you go from looking at a girl and not being horny to looking at a girl and being horny, the girl for you literally and actually changes - what she means for you has changed - of course we don't mean by that that the girl physically has changed in any way.
Why do you think faith can establish existence by itself?
Faith may help you discover the existence of something, but it cannot establish it. For example, you have faith that this woman won't cheat on you if you marry her. You need the faith to commit to marrying her, otherwise you wouldn't marry her and would never find out that she won't cheat on you. But faith doesn't by itself make it true that she won't cheat on you either. It's just a condition for the possibility of it.
If you weren't exaggerating, then I have no reason to take you seriously, and I see little reason in reading any further. I'm not going to take talk of Jesus being locked in a room, waiting to have his finger lobbed off, teleportation, and the like, seriously.
If, on the other hand, you concede that that was merely exaggeration, seemingly for comic effect, and does not accurately portray the position of anyone in this discussion, then we might be able to move on and have a serious discussion.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, because, as I explained, and as others have explained, they believe that the transformation is mystical and cannot be verified or falsified by science.
All I'm doing is pointing out what would be required to have a testable claim of Jesus's flesh and blood appearing. Since the Catholic doesn't make this claim, your objection doesn't make sense. They aren't even supposing the bread and wine are empirically Jesus's flesh and blood in the first place. You don't have an empirical claim of "flesh and blood" to falsify when only bread and wine are empirically present.
My point is you are getting the science wrong. You are treating a claim without empirical claim like it is one-- much like how the very silly Russell treats the "unfalsifiable God" in his teapot madness.
No, you just don't understand my position, which is more your problem than it is mine. How much of what I've said have you actually read? I've explained it enough times now. Enough is enough! I'm too tired to deal with straw men. You need to put more effort in.
I understood you position perfectly. You keep saying the Catholic has made a dubious/falsified claim claim about the blood and wine:
My point is an account like this doesn't make sense because transubstantiation doesn't make any claim for which there is evidence. It rejects there is empirical the presence of flesh and blood, and the possibility of any evidence goes with it. In literal terms, the Catholic is holding: "This is not (empirically) the flesh and blood of Jesus, it's not the empirical state of his body which would appear to us."
For that reason, and because you are so adamant, I am not going to discuss this with you any further. I stand by my earlier statement that you have not added anything worthwhile to this discussion.
...but you haven't been arguing the opposite to me. When I responded about the issue with treating it as a matter of evidence, you insisted a claim to which evidence was supposedly relevant.
Catholics cannot expect it to happen empirically. There is no separation between the empirical and how an empirical state appears to us.
The underlying question here is: what does it even mean for it to happen? Since it is not empirical, what is even at stake in transubstantiation? What would it mean for it to be true? What would an expectation it was true entail? What does it even mean to say its true or false?
These seem to be the questions you aren't asking and answering. Even as you accept Agustino's account that its unfalsifiable (which I missed, being in one of many quote trees), you keep talking in terms of some contingent event which would be true or false by some sort of evidence-- such that we would have to have "faith" it was or was not so, due to evidence not arbiting either way.
You sure have an odd set of rules. It allows you to equate two distinct things, "X means Y". Isn't that no different from saying "bread means body"? I see no reason to believe your rules are any better than the rules of transubstantiation.
Quoting Hanover
The point I made, is that the items referred to as the body and blood of Christ are actually the body and blood of Christ, because this is what they are called. These are their names. Likewise, I am actually Metaphysician Undercover, because I am the object referred to by this name. And, the thing referred to as the child's "room" is actually the child's room because this is what it is called.
Faith is required, because if someone says no, that is not the body of Christ, which you are calling "the body of Christ", that is what I want to call a cracker, then for that person the thing referred to is not the body of Christ, it is the cracker. For the others, who have faith, then the thing called 'the body of Christ" is really the body of Christ, because that is what it is named, "the body of Christ".
I am only Metaphysician Undercover by means of the faith that those have who believe that this is the proper name to call me. If everyone started to think that they should call me something else, so they programed the computer to put my name in another way, then despite my insistence that you ought to call me by Metaphysician Undercover, I would be known by that other name.
Likewise, if the child has faith that the thing called "your room" is really its room, then the child will believe this, and know what is referred to by "your room". But if the child has no faith in this, and thinks that the thing referred to as "your room", really has a different name, and the child only knows that thing by the different name, for some reason not learning "your room", then it will not understand "clean your room" when told to clean its room.
That sounds like knowledge to me, someone knows the meaning of something, not "faith."
In this respect, people might well ought to call you Metaphysician Undercover in the situation you describe. People can fail to understanding meanings/ascribe the wrong one.
That's the problem.
Quoting Agustino
I don't know if you have any recourse left to you that would be sufficient. Testimony, as I said, is not enough. Appealing to the masses is invalid. It isn't an [I]a priori[/I] truth. The claim, by its nature, rules out empirical evidence. It is unfalsifiable. The best that you can do in that regard is point to evidence that you've had a mystical experience, which is still not enough, since that is just to say that you've had an experience, or a funny feeling, or a brain fart, that you feel like you can't properly explain, meaning that you feel like you can't do so without begging the question by appealing to dubious supernatural elements which in turn carry with them a burden of proof which I doubt you can satisfy.
Quoting Agustino
For the reasons I've given. You're comparing apples and oranges. Both are fruit, yes. But that's beside the point.
Quoting Agustino
>:O
Again, that's the problem.
Quoting Agustino
No, he wasn't. The ethics is what matters. Living by example is what matters. The metaphysics can, and should, be scrapped. That aspect of it should be treated as an interesting historical work, and nothing more.
When the issue is the naming of objects with words, as is the case with "Metaphysician Undercover", "the body of Christ", "the blood of Christ", and "the child's room", then understanding and knowledge consists of being able to establish the appropriate relationships between the words and the objects. No understanding of "meaning" is required. What is required is faith, or trust, that these words ought to be related to these objects.
I said that they don't expect to see it. I have said that, under the assumption that the doctrine is true, I wouldn't expect to see it either. Yet they insist that it happens. They must, as that is a central tenet of their religion. What other evidence could there be? That's exactly what I'm asking, and I have not been satisfied by the answers that I've been given. I've assessed what has been presented as evidence, and I've rejected it as insufficient.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
But that's more or less what I just said! They can't expect it to happen empirically without internal contradiction. They expect it to happen nevertheless, and the intelligent ones avoid contradiction by committing to the stance that it happens unempirically. But that too has consequences.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
That's not an assertion which goes against anything I've said. All you're doing is preaching to the choir, but you don't understand that that's what you're doing.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I most definitely have been doing both. The ontological and epistemological status of magic and miracles are at stake. Standards of evidence are at stake. As I said earlier, granting this kind of thing would open the floodgates to all kinds of wild imaginings. It would be almost "anything goes". Ghosts? Why not? Witches? Why not? Celestial tea pots? Why not?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Firstly, it was not a case of me accepting Agustino's account that it's unfalsifiable. I'm the one who said that it's unfalsifiable in the first place!
Secondly, you have to be careful to read what I say in the right context. Let's call my two criticisms "Criticism A" and "Criticism B'.
[U]Criticism A[/u]
As an external criticism, taking into account my own presuppositions, I would reject it outright, as I do not believe that the bread and wine would become the body and blood of Christ without leaving empirical evidence.
[U]Criticism B[/u]
As an internal criticism, with the assumption being that transubstantiation literally happens, and does not leave any empirical evidence, what reason is there to believe in transubstantiation? Agustino has provided reasons, but I do not think that they're good enough. If I were in his shoes, I would give up and simply take it as a matter of faith.
I clarified this earlier when Agustino kept making the same mistake. He dismissed my clarification because it wasn't a question, and because I said "the Bible" rather than "the doctrine".
Have you considered that the reason why it is so unique is because it's made up? Like if I told you that 3000 years ago, a giant fire breathing sea lion sprung up from a volcano, said hello, then disappeared into thin air. That's even more unique! How much testimony would it take for you to count that as a historical event? No? What if it was a central part of your religion? You'd claim it as historical, then, wouldn't you? You'd say that you've had a mystical experience which confirms it. Instead of a follower of Christ, you'd be a follower of the Great Fire Breathing Sea Lion.
Well, I have acknowledged that I have not put my ideas together well enough. That's sort of what the forum is all about, isn't it. Throwing your ideas out to be beaten into shape in the heat of battle. But that's not what I was talking about in 3. The ideas I am putting forward are unfamiliar to a lot of people, even when expressed clearly.
Quoting TimeLine
You didn't demean my beliefs, although that other guy did. My problem is your use of the term "pathological" and similar ones, implying that people who see things differently than you do, or at least their ideas, are crazy. It is a sign that I have not expressed myself well enough that you think my views are in any way supernatural. In my religion, when Moses came down off the mountain and read the commandments, the first one was F = ma. And, although I recognize my role in making this difficult, I still think you, the other guy, and people who think like you lack the imagination to see that the way you see the world is just that, the way you see the world, not the way the world is.
Careful saying things like that. Everyone knows the mods here are always right and that we mere peasants can't articulate our opinions!
And yet, Hebrews 11:1 defines faith as:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."
It seems to me that the kind of faith required in a religious context with regards to salvation (and deification) is similar to the kind of faith one has when one chooses to get married, or chooses to start a business, etc. Without this kind of faith, whatever action (or desired result) seems to be impossible a priori.
Quoting Hanover
What I'm saying is that the subjective change in the wafer (and in the girl) is more real than the unchanged appearance (which is their physical composition, how they look empirically, etc.). It seems to me that our difference is over the fact that you take a "real and literal" change to necessitate a change in physical composition and appearance, as this is what "real and literal" means to you. That's fine, I just disagree that that's what "real and literal" means. I take the significance of the act to be the "real and literal" thing, which does change in the case of transubstantiation - while the physical appearance, look, feel, etc. are just appearances and not "real and literal".
But I'm fine if we agree to disagree on this matter. We've managed to have a decent conversation in this thread without any insults and the like (as it was common between us), so that's a good thing I think (Y) .
Well, Buddhism, after Christianity, is the religion I've studied the most, by far. The fact that you're giving me a citation from wikipedia means nothing. You have to understand the context and the precepts of Buddhism. Yes, there are versions of Buddhism where the Buddha is worshipped (more as a representation of perfection, than as the actual person), but salvation is still not achieved through worship, but through liberation from the cycle of birth and rebirth by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Worshiping the Buddha may, however, improve one's karma.
Also, I don't see what your quote is even telling me... that Buddhism is based on the teachings of Gautama Siddhartha, one of the many Buddhas?
Quoting Sapientia
Wrong. I was looking for the difference that makes this bread and wine different from normal bread and wine, as the doctrine claims. Without this difference, the doctrine would be internally inconsistent, claiming that bread and wine is different in this case, when it really isn't. But you've already told me you don't have any internal criticism, so I hope you don't start running back with the goal posts now. We established that this difference must not physical. So what kind of difference must it be then?
Quoting Sapientia
Yes I am aware of that. I just explained why you don't find this magical - you're used to it.
Quoting Sapientia
Supernatural doesn't entail being against the laws of physics. Someone coming back from the dead is not against the laws of physics either. Time moving backwards is not against the laws of physics either (just extremely unlikely). So the laws of physics don't actually preclude any of these miracles to begin with.
You have an erroneous notion of what a miracle is. Walking on water is not against the laws of nature. It may just be that all of a sudden, all the particles of the water find that their velocity is directed to the surface, and so I am maintained floating above it. Now that probability is very very very very super tiny. But it's still there.
Coming to the example with the girl, why isn't it supernatural? You know of a certain law of nature that dictates that the girl will suddenly start meaning something different to you? Not really. So the only reason why it's not supernatural, is because it's become a habit as old Hume says - you're used to it.
Quoting Sapientia
Nope. Independent accounts of a phenomenon are not sufficient by themselves to establish it happens. In the case of Christ we have collective examples, with many people having seen the risen Christ all at once, and then being willing to die, all of them, for this belief. Are those peeps who claim to have seen a ghost willing to die for that?
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, you can add mystical experience and metaphysics to that list. Anecdotal evidence BY ITSELF may be weak and insufficient. As may an appeal to the masses. But combined, all those form a solid case.
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
You don't seem to be understanding Christianity. The ethics are absolutely NOT the centre of it. Christianity claims precisely that man cannot save himself, so the ethics, by themselves, are useless. Commit them to the flames. What matters is Christ - it is only through faith in Christ and the grace of the Holy Spirit that one may uphold the Law. Now seeking to maintain the Law, but taking out the central role of Christ is against the teachings of Christ.
Quoting Sapientia
Yeah, if you told me the story about the giant fire-breathing sea lion, I'd want to see some evidence for it, including testimony, and I'd also be interested in the significance of the event. If he just came to say hello, it's probably not very significant, even if it was a giant fire-breathing sea lion. I still cannot see any similarity between the solid testimony of the Bible across many different generations, the fulfillment of the prophecies in the person of Jesus Christ, and ample historical evidence for the Resurrection, the unique significance of the event, etc. etc. and your little monster story.
1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."206
1377 The Eucharistic presence of Christ begins at the moment of the consecration and endures as long as the Eucharistic species subsist. Christ is present whole and entire in each of the species and whole and entire in each of their parts, in such a way that the breaking of the bread does not divide Christ.
1380 It is highly fitting that Christ should have wanted to remain present to his Church in this unique way. Since Christ was about to take his departure from his own in his visible form, he wanted to give us his sacramental presence; since he was about to offer himself on the cross to save us, he wanted us to have the memorial of the love with which he loved us "to the end,"209 even to the giving of his life. In his Eucharistic presence he remains mysteriously in our midst as the one who loved us and gave himself up for us, 210 and he remains under signs that express and communicate this love
1381 "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on Luke 22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'"212
Godhead here in hiding, whom I do adore
Masked by these bare shadows, shape and nothing more,
See, Lord, at thy service low lies here a heart
Lost, all lost in wonder at the God thou art.
Seeing, touching, tasting are in thee deceived;
How says trusty hearing? that shall be believed;
What God's Son has told me, take for truth I do;
Truth himself speaks truly or there's nothing true.213
Yes, let's not. And let's not try to pretend that a good historian would keep shtum about this, sweep it under the rug, or underplay the serious lack of credibility here.
Don't be so literal. It was a slight exaggeration, but I think it absurd nevertheless - about as much so as any other example I've given. It's not impossible, just extremely implausible.
Except in Agustino's case, it actually applies.
For the record, I have no qualms about demeaning his beliefs, or the beliefs of anyone else here. If his beliefs are ridiculous, then ridicule is fine by me. Ridicule away!
Quoting Agustino
Hearsay.
Hearsay that there were prophecies about him to begin with.
Anecdotes aren't evidence.
Attributed to it [I]avant la lettre[/I].
:-}
It's not an odd set of rules. It's how language works. X would be the [i]definiendum[/I] and Y would be the [i]definiens[/I]. Meaning is use. If bread means body, then bread means body, although that isn't usually what it means. To abide by that rule of your own accord would be peculiar. To accordingly interpret that someone asking for a slice of bread means to ask for a slice of body would be quite bizarre, and would probably evoke the reaction that people think you're a weirdo.
The problem with the rules of transubstantiation that we've been discussing is that they require a literal interpretation. Scrap that rule and you scrap the problem. But good luck with scrapping that rule. From what I gather, the Eastern Orthodox Church is quite conservative, and I can't see that rule changing anytime soon. The Reformation has been and gone, and the Eastern Orthodox Church has proven itself quite resistant to reform. It maintains that it practices the original Christian faith, passed down by sacred tradition.
They are, they're just relatively weak evidence, especially if the anecdote purports something miraculous, supernatural, or otherwise implausible.
As you said in your last post, meaning depends on rules, so if we scrap the rules, we scrap meaning, and this is a problem.
If the Church wants to say, that this item is called the body of Christ, and this is the rule, then where's the problem? And because they call this item by that name, that is the name that the item has, and then that is the Church's rule. There is no problem here. The Church says this item is called "body of Christ", and so this item is the item called "body of Christ".
The only problem is that for some people, such as yourself it seems, "body of Christ" means something different. So these people desire to disallow this rule, claiming that the thing referred to by the rules of the Church as the body of Christ is not actually the body of Christ, the body of Christ is something different. So the people who are creating a problem are the shit disturbers such as yourself, who are disputing this rule to say that this item is not the body of Christ.
But I see no reason to dispute this rule, if "body of Christ" is what the Church wants to call this item, then let them call it that. Why would you insist that "body of Christ" ought to refer to something other than this? What would give you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" ought to refer to?
You never seem to get the point. I didn't suggest that we scrap the[/I] rules, I suggested that we scrap [I]that rule. What I said in that part was particular[/I] and [i]singular, not [i]general[/I] and [i]plural[/I]. I don't agree with a literal interpretation, but that is a particular rule that you must abide by if you're a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, and that rule seems unlikely to change. The rule and I are not compatible. If I was a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, then something or someone would have to change.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The problem is that it's not simply wordplay, as you make out, like calling a cat "a fish". It's supposed to be taken literally, like thinking that a cat has gills. If it was merely wordplay, then I wouldn't have the same objection.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What the heck are you talking about? Your thinking is muddled, as usual. I agree that, in accordance with a literal interpretation, the body of Christ is literally the body of Christ. I'm not disputing that that's what they believe, nor that the body of Christ is the body of Christ, which would obviously be a contradiction in terms, unless you're equivocating, which is a fallacy. What I am disputing is that a literal interpretation is true, and that bread literally transforms into the body of Christ once the Eucharist has taken place. My views do not accord with such an interpretation. If I was a member of a church that required that, and that rule could not be changed, then I would leave that church.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What do you mean "let them call it that"? Firstly, it's not simply a matter of calling an item "body of Christ", as though it were just a name. Secondly, I couldn't stop them if I tried. I simply disagree with that interpretation for reasons that I've spoken about at length.
As I said what do you think gives you the authority to tell the Church what "body of Christ" refers to? I would think that there are many in the church who know far better than you, what this phase means. So your suggestion that this rule be scrapped is nothing but the actions of a rebellious shit disturber.
Quoting Sapientia
That's what I said, it's not a matter of word play, it's very literal. As I said, it's an example of the power of the Word. I am Metaphysician Undercover by the very fact that this is what I am called. Those items are the body and blood of Christ by the very fact that this is what they are called. This is not word play, it's simple reality.
Quoting Sapientia
When they take that object, which you call bread, and say that it will be called "body of Christ", then by the very fact that that's what it's called, "body of Christ", then that's what it is body of Christ, just like I'm MU by the very fact that that's what I'm called.
You only wish to cause trouble, saying that your name, "bread" is a better name for it then "body of Christ".
Quoting Sapientia
You seem to misunderstand the power of the word. When there is an item which we call the table, then it is the table by the very fact that we call it the table. If we called it by some other name like the desk, then it would be that name, the desk. So when the Church calls a certain item "body of Christ", then it is body of Christ, because that's what they call it. Why do you dispute this, saying that according to your interpretation they ought not call it body of Christ? Do you believe that you have a superior interpretation of what "body of Christ" refers to then the leaders of the Church?
Quoting Agustino
Introspection illusions are inconsistent, bad evidence, for a reason.
Purely phenomenological experiences are not of something extra-self; qualia are parts of the world belonging to individual experiencers. Such self-externalization is like someone hallucinating pink flying elephants implying they're really out there, or me expecting you to get real life bruises from me slapping you in a dream.
God helmet experiments, magic mushrooms, not eating/drinking plus bodily stress, etc, are fairly well-documented.
Promoting such personal experiences as specific religious evidence with other people, is like promoting a kind of mind-regulating bias.
You've misunderstood. It's not a question of authority. It was a suggestion, not a demand. And, moreover, it wasn't a suggestion that I expected to be taken seriously or acted upon, as I made clear. Futhermore, I'm merely stating my disagreement, and arguing the case, on a philosophy forum. I'm not trying to instigate a rebellion or disturb the peace. Do me a favour and cut the hyperbole.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Contradictory nonsense. You deny that it's wordplay, but then you go on to imply that it's just that. Just as a cat would not become a fish upon being called a fish, which is to say that it would not instantly transform from a land dwelling warm-blooded mammal with limbs and no gills to a limbless cold-blooded vertebrate with gills and fins living wholly in water, the elements of the Eucharist would not become the body and blood of Christ on the basis that that's what they're called. I am sure that you're committing a fallacy of some kind. You're treating all nouns as if they are proper nouns. The difference between nouns and proper nouns is taught in schools to children at a young age.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Oh my god. That is daft.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is almost too silly to engage. Look, the word doesn't matter as much as the definition. And the definition doesn't matter as much as what something actually is. There is a sense in which the word is arbitrary. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But words aren't meaningless, so it would be a mistake to treat them as if they were. Words imply their corresponding definition. So, if I were to call a cat "a fish", and especially if I were to deny that this is just wordplay, then that would suggest, among other things, that I think that a cat has gills, which is wrong, since a cat does not have gills.
Now, going back to transubstantiation. Although you deny wordplay, that is what you're doing, and that clashes with how a Catholic or a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks about transubstantiation, since they think that it is not just wordplay, but that it literally becomes the body and blood of Christ. They think that it's more than a renaming, they think that it actually changes from one thing to another - and that demonstrably does not happen by simply calling it something different. If that were the case, then I'd easily be a millionaire by now. Yet I'm not, since, despite calling myself a millionaire, I am not one! What do you think would happen if I tried to spend all of that money that I don't have? Surely [i]even you[/I] can see the folly in such thinking. I certainly hope, for your own sake, that you're able to see your error.
Let's make sure I understand correctly - in order to show that realism is wrong, I have to use methods developed based on the principles of realism. Is that right?
OK so you think that the Church ought not insist that the elements of the Eucharist are actually the body and blood of Christ, because you do not believe that they actually are the body and blood of Christ.
I argue that they, being the leaders of the Church, and having knowledge about Christ, ought to be the ones to determine what is the body and blood of Christ, and therefore what ought to be called the body and blood of Christ.
Your argument is that you're sure I'm committing a fallacy of some sort?
And, as I explained, and as is obvious, a cat does not become a fish in virtue of a name change. That's simply wrong.
Being a leader of a church doesn't mean that you can't be wrong. If you're a leader of a church, and you think that a cat is a fish, meaning that a cat has gills and so on, because that's what you've decided to call it, then not only are you wrong, you're an idiot.
We are talking about Christ here. That is a proper noun. You're just making shit up trying to support your unjustified claims.
No, we're talking about the body and blood of Christ, as you well know. The words "body" and "blood" are not proper nouns. Don't be so disingenuous just because it's beginning to dawn on you that you're in the wrong. Just admit your mistake instead of grasping at straws.
I think that there's a reason why you haven't properly engaged with my argument, and are instead choosing to reply in this way. It's because you don't have a leg to stand on.
You're a weak opponent for me, because your arguments tend to consist in sophistry, and I have a good eye for catching you out.
Christ is the named subject, and we are trying to identify the body and blood of this one called "Christ". You don't agree with the Church's identification. You haven't made a clear case as to why you think that the Church is wrong. Sounds like you have a personal problem to me.
You mean realism as opposed to idealism ("mental monism")? May be a bit peripheral here, unless I misunderstand. Well, I'm definitely not going by solipsism. :D
I was just pointing out a distinction:
Say, when I enjoy a cup of coffee in the morning, the joy (quale) is just mine, part of me when occurring. (And coffee is enjoyable, if not necessary, oh yes.) On the other hand, when I hang out with my buddy, there's more to my buddy than my experiences, not part of me. (My buddy doesn't like coffee, the darn sacrilegiously heretic blasphemer.)
Mentioned introspection illusions, hallucinations, dreams are in category with the joy (self), not the buddy (other). Externalization of Agustino's personal experiences is fraught.
Incidentally, what Agustino calls "scientifically observable" indicates activity localized to Agustino and not much else (cf Libet or whomever they all are). Bio-electrical-chemical?
There is also much dispute as to what the euchrist is, with non-Catholic, but very Christian denominations asserting that the wafer and wine are but symbolic representations of the body and blood. Why are the Catholics the ones who ought be given the authority to render the decree as to what it is. Are they more learned and knowledgable?
Well, apart from the primitive Church, theirs was the 1st interpretation of the question. Not that this means theirs is the best. It was also the most prevalent until Protestantism.
Fine fine, inadmissible evidence then.
You see, here is the thing. I have more of a feminine type discipline thing about me where I kind of sting people and they go 'eeouch' and afterward put a bit of pawpaw cream on the sore, stick a bandaid over it, maybe get mumsie to kiss it better. But, they recover, you know. Whereas with the masculine approach, one kind of mauls them like a rottweiler, savagely dig their jaws and shred off a large chunk of their thigh, lacerate and mutilate until they end up hospitalised for months and remain scarred for the rest of their life.
I am not sure why no one noticed, but you had a gun man. You had a gun. You pointed that gun at your ugly, stupid cat and yes it is an ugly stupid cat but that doesn't somehow make it alright that you had a gun.
You scary.
Evelyn Underhill, arguably the most learned scholar on Christian mysticism, disagrees. She argues to some length that mystical experiences are unitive; She says that William James' "four marks" of mysticism aren't sufficient, and she lays out her own four instead:
"1. True mysticism is active and practical, not passive and theoretical. It is an organic life-process, a something which the whole self does; not something as to which its intellect holds an opinion.
2. Its aims are wholly transcendental and spiritual. It is in no way concerned with adding to, exploring, re-arranging, or improving anything in the visible universe. The mystic brushes aside that universe, even in its supernormal manifestations. Though he does not, as his enemies declare, neglect his duty to the many, his heart is always set upon the changeless One.
3. This One is for the mystic, not merely the Reality of all that is, but also a living and personal Object of Love; never an object of exploration. It draws his whole being homeward, but always under the guidance of the heart.
4. Living union with the One - which is the term of his adventure - is a definite state of form of enhanced life. It is obtained neither from an intellectual realization of its delights, nor from the most acute emotional longings. Though these must be present, they are not enough, It is arrived at by an arduous psychological and spiritual process - the so-called Mystic Way - entailing the compete remaking of character and the liberation of a new, or rather latent, form of consciousness; which imposes on the self the condition which is sometimes inaccurately called "ecstasy", but is better named the Unitive State." - Mysticism, Evelyn Underhill
The interpretation of a mystical experience may be unitary as the representations are not independent to the religious or cultural practice the mystic belongs to and therefore social constructed and one can even say the experience itself emerges from this; but, it is only in the mind of the individual who falsely attributes it to be formed by a duality between the two in an attempt to legitimise it.
Dreams are episodic. We all have dreams, because we all have brains and thus the cognitive tools that form remarkable and fantastic 'experiences' when we are asleep, fantasies that are shaped by the symbols of our environment that create pictures that we can interpret in an attempt to attribute meaning to it and to our unconscious mind. But, to believe in those dreams as an actual reality that exists?
Mystical experiences merely expose the depth of the individual' desperation for meaning and things like false pregnancies or hysteria are examples of how this desperation can manifest physiologically as though the mind is resisting an existential reality that is too much to bear. Loneliness really is our inability to articulate who we are and we try to find it in others, in religion, in society, new ageism etc, when all of it is in our own minds.
“There is no coming to consciousness without pain. People will do anything, no matter how absurd, in order to avoid facing their own Soul. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious.”
? C.G. Jung
So-called 'mystical experiences' are a by-product stemming from a misunderstood unconscious self and mysticism is merely one such way of interpreting yourself and your place in the external world. But, when a person actually begins to believe in astrology, who actually thinks that there is accuracy in star signs, they are not well.
But the focus of mystic practice is exactly that; practice over theory, as Underhill sets out. Social constructs, as I understand them, are passive, and not active; not practical. A social construct is passed down within the social unconscious; mystic practice is the opposite of that.
Quoting TimeLine
As an aside, I've had dreams that to this day feel more real to me than reality, in some ways.
Quoting TimeLine
For clarity, how much of the mystics have you read?
No, that's your problem. What do expect me to do about that? It would help if you read the case that I've been making and then made a specific criticism or request for clarification.
Hey, the case you've been making is irrelevant to what I'm saying. You first engaged me, not vise versa. So if you don't want to listen to me then...
Quoting Hanover
You don't think so? You don't think that they must decide what the facts are before they can report them? They have decided what the facts are, concerning Christ. Are you familiar with the word "creed"?
Quoting Hanover
Well, isn't there always a bunch of shit disturbers who refuse to accept the word of authority?
No, it's definitely not irrelevant to what you said. You said that I haven't made a clear case as to why the church is wrong. Those were your exact words. You brought it up, and I just responded. I don't agree. I think that it's just not clear [i]to you[/I] because you haven't put enough effort into understanding it. And, since you didn't bother to go into specifics, I can't really help you with that. You stopped engaging properly with the points that I was making.
I was talking about assigning a name "the body of Christ" to an object. You were talking about what "bread" means, and what "body" means.
However, all your stated principles supported my claim. You said "Meaning is use". So if "body of Christ" is used to refer to this item, then that is what this item is. You are clearly wrong to be calling it "bread".
If there's good reason to reject what the shitty authority on shit is claiming, then why shouldn't the shit disturbers disturb the shit out of the shitty authority on shit by refusing to accept his shit?
I can't disagree there
The distinction I'm making is between reporting the facts and decreeing the facts. The former is what the Church would admit doing, the latter is what a ruling authority who created their empire would do. If a king states that all first born children are to rule their households because they are holy, then it is so, simply by virtue of the king's authority. He could the next day modify his decree and decree that it was in fact all second born children who were holy. Metaphysically, though, the king can change nothing, and to the extent holiness is a metaphysical fact, he can't change that by whim. That is, the first born doesn't become holy because the king said so. He just defined some terms and created a law. The Nicene Creed, according to Catholics, wasn't set forth as an internal decree that happened to be subject to the whim of the ruling authority at the time, but it sets forth metaphysical truths that have been discovered and reported by the Church.
It is the distinction between a performative utterance and declarative statement.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Either transubstantiation occurs or it doesn't. I think that's a fairly uncontroversial statement. The Catholics say it does occur. The Mormons say it doesn't. One of those groups is correct. According to you, though, you're stuck with them both being correct within the context of their respective faiths because each has the power to decree whatever the hell they want. That relativistic view of reality is surely not one accepted by the Catholic Church, and they would not accept that transubstantiation is the product of the mind of the participant, with the Mormon not being in the presence of transubstantiation during a Catholic Mass while his Catholic friend seated next to him in the pew is.
You may believe that religion is whatever the authority says it is, and that may be true as a political and historical fact, but no religion admits to that, but they insist their belief system is metaphysically true.
There is no difference between these two. To report the facts is to decree what the facts are. You are trying to make a boundary, a distinction, where no boundary or distinction could possibly be. Your example expresses a distinction between a rule, what ought to be done, and what is fact, what is the case. So your example of a decree is the decree of a rule, what ought to be done, not the decree of a fact, (what is the case), which is really nothing other than reporting the fact.
Quoting Hanover
That's not even an issue. Transubstantiation occurs, that is a fact. There is something which is referred to as transubstantiation, and to deny this is to deny a fact. So the question is what is transubstantiation. To ask whether transubstantiation occurs, is to deny the fact in skepticism, then ask whether the fact is a fact. It's a pointless exercise because one will inevitably come to the conclusion, yes there is something which is going on which is called transubstantiation. Now let's proceed to see what this thing, transubstantiation, is. So it doesn't matter what religion you are, you can refuse to take part in the ceremony if you have no faith in it, but that doesn't matter. Unless everyone refuses, then it will still be going on, and there will still be something called transubstantiation, and therefore transubstantiation will still be a fact.
No it's not. That I say bigfoot exists doesn't make bigfoot exist. When a court rules "you are in contempt," you are in fact in contempt because the court says it. When the Church says transubstantiation occurs, it doesn't just occur. The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event.
Your suggestion is that the Church has the power like a court to perform a performative utterance. I'm saying that the Church itself would not make that claim as it pertains to transubstantiation. If it did make that claim, it would be declaring itself the creator of religion and not the upholder of it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is nonsense. It is entirely possible for a phrase or a word not to have a referent (e.g. "the current King of France," Bigfoot, jkldjdc). What people are referring to when they say "bigfoot" is a non-existent animal, and it could well be the case that "transubstantiation" refers to an event that does not occur. Surely there can be a word for that which doesn't occur, so your insistence that the event must occur because there's a word for it does not follow.
You are not decreeing this as a fact, so the example is not relevant. If you were decreeing it as a fact, then it would be no different from reporting it as a fact. That someone might dispute the facts which you report is another issue.
Quoting Hanover
How is assessing facts other than deciding what is and is not fact?
Quoting Hanover
Sure it's possible, but in the case of "transubstantiation" it is very clear that there is a referent. We can approach the issue two ways. The philosophical way is to proceed with an open mind to analyze the thing referred to as transubstantiation, in an attempt to understand it. The biased way is to proceed as Sapientia does, with a preconceived notion as to what "transubstantiation" means ( a piece of bread is transformed into the body of Christ), and determine whether the thing being referred to as transubstantiation is according to this preconception. In this way she comes to the conclusion that transubstantiation is a fiction. But it is only a fiction according to this preconceived notion, and in reality there is still a very real activity going on which is called "transubstantiation". The only thing exposed is that Sapientia misunderstands transubstantiation.
There's a difference between a priest declaring John and Mary man and wife and me claiming they are.
(And there's a difference between a priest declaring John and Mary man and wife and declaring them supernatural beings.)
The problem is that you are talking about a renaming, when, in fact, what's going on is more than that. This is about truth, as well as language. The bread would remain bread, despite what it is called. So, it would not be the case that the bread is the body of Christ. That would result in contradiction. It would be the case that the bread is the body of Christ if, by "body of Christ", what is meant is [i]bread[/I]. But that is obviously not what is meant, given that we're talking about a literal interpretation. A literal interpretation does not render a truth, at least from what can be reasonably determined from the available evidence or lack thereof.
That is consistent with meaning as use, properly understood. Whatever term is used in reference to the bread, it is the case that if the meaning entails that it is something other than what it is, namely bread, then that will produce a false statement. It is what it is.
Quoting Hanover
I agree. That's what you tend to get with an argument from Metaphysician Undercover.
No, that's taking it out of context. The discussion is in the context of what the Eastern Orthodox Church considers "transubstantiation" to mean. That's the preconception, and it is a necessary preconception. You're not free to deviate from that meaning, or preconception, without changing the subject. This is not about what Metaphysician Undercover thinks "transubstantiation" means, if that is anything other than what the Eastern Orthodox Church thinks it means. What you misleadingly refer to as the "biased way" is actually just what is required to remain on topic.
That's not what I said. What I said was: "The Church's authority is to speak with authority on assessing and gathering facts, but it doesn't have the inherent power to decree an event."
Your position is that the Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation, so once it has so decreed it, it is that without question. That is, its declaration is a performative act, so disputing it would be nonsensical. If the priest says "I now pronounce you man and wife," you are man and wife because the act of pronouncing was the very event. For me to then say the priest was wrong, you are not now man and wife, I would be misunderstanding the priest's comments. The comment wasn't declarative; it was performative.
And that's where I'm saying you're mistaken in your comments. The Church's declaration that transubstantiation results in the bread and wine transforming into the blood and body of Jesus is a declarative statement, not a performative act. They are assessing what has occurred and telling us what happened, but the simple act of declaration does not make it so. That is to say, the Church could be wrong in its assessment.
Put it this way: Assume that on Monday the church said transubstantiation occurred but on Tuesday it said it didn't.
If their statement was performative, then on Monday it occurred and on Tuesday it didn't. If their statement was declarative, then on one of the days they were wrong.
If the judge says you are in contempt of court and then he changes his mind 2 minutes later, then you were in contempt for 2 minutes. If the judge says you stole the candy and 2 minutes later he decides you didn't, whether you stole or didn't steal the candy was unaffected. The judge has no ability to create the facts, and his findings of what the facts are can be wrong.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
If the church defines transubstantiation as an actual event where wine turns to Jesus' blood, then there is no referent in my opinion. The word points to nothing other than confusion. If "bigfoot" refers to an actual humanoid creature, then it has no referent.
Why would the object be bread if it were called something else? You go on about "meaning is use", but you seem to have no clue of what that means. Use is the act of calling something by a name. What that name means is determined by this act of calling something by that name. If we stop calling something by that name, and start calling it by another name, then the thing is known by the new name. So if we stop calling the thing "bread", and start calling it "body of Christ", then the thing is known as body of Christ, by that very change in usage.
Quoting Sapientia
No, it would be contradiction if it were bread and body of Christ at the same time. But there is no reason to believe that it is still bread, transubstantiation has occurred, so it is not bread. That's your faulty assumption, that it's still called "bread" after being designated "body of Christ". And by this faulty assumption you claim contradiction. It is you who says it's bread in order that you can accuse contradiction, but that's a straw man, it's not bread its body of Christ. Transubstantiation has ensured that it will no longer be called "bread", it will be called "body of Christ". And as you affirm, meaning is use.
Quoting Hanover
I'll repeat my question. How is "assessing facts" something other than deciding what is and isn't fact?
Quoting Hanover
Do you realize, that in the act of transubstantiation, the word is both performative and declarative (as you describe these two)? Therefore I do not think that your distinction between these two is relevant.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, "transubstantiation" is a concept proper to the Church. The Church has the authority to state what occurs during transubstantiation. Likewise, "photoelectric effect" is a concept proper to physics, and physics has the authority to state what happens during the photoelectric effect.
Quoting Hanover
That is not what the Church declares. There is no transformation, it's called transubstantiation. The two are completely different. One is a change in form, the other a change in substance. When the substance changes, in transubstantiation, all the accidentals, which are what we sense, remain the same. Only the substance changes.
Quoting Hanover
Let me see if I can interpret what you are insinuating here. The Church has been carrying out this procedure in hundreds or thousands of locations, numerous times every year, for hundreds and hundreds of years. They call this procedure "transubstantiation".
You are saying that maybe the Church is wrong, maybe transubstantiation has never occurred. What about all these millions of instances of the very same thing occurring, with millions of participants, which the Church has called "transubstantiation"? Are you saying that these events never happened? Are you saying that the events happened, but the Church is wrong to title the event transubstantiation? What are you insinuating?
On what would you base such an accusation? Have you taken part, such that you have first hand experience? If so, from what you have said above, it appears like you were expecting a transformation instead of a transubstantiation. Perhaps your experience was such that you observed no transformation and so you fallaciously concluded that there was no transubstantiation.
Quoting Hanover
I assume that if there is an event where water turns to gas, and this is called "evaporation", then in your opinion there is no referent to this word, the word points to nothing but confusion.
I have no intention to change their minds. I think the idea that there's reality which is beyond our capacity to sense, but can still be known by the mind, is way beyond both of them. For them, if it looks and tastes like bread, then it must be bread, regardless of what its true substance is. I just like to see if I can bullshit my way through anything. If the leaders of the church can do it, then why can't I?
Well what's the point in talking about something you know nothing about if you don't want to learn something about it, unless you're going to at least pretend to know something about it?
Your comments misstated the Catholic position by stating that transubstantiation exists because the Catholic church said it did. That has nothing to do with the new issue you've raised, which is that you believe my rejection of transubstantiation arises due to my wholesale rejection of the spiritual realm. That statement is incorrect and non-responsive to anything previously discussed.
Why are you asking a question about a distinction I never raised? My comment was that there was a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. I clarified that by quoting what I said, but you instead just re-asked the same question, ignoring my prior clarification. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Sure, and physicists can get it entirely wrong. They might describe a photoelectric effect completely wrong and a simple auto mechanic might get it right. A physicist has expertise in his field, but if his statements don't correspond to reality, then he's wrong. And so it is with the transubstantiation. A Catholic scholar can speak to the issue of what it entails, but he can be wrong. And this is my point: the Catholic position on transubstantiation is declarative and indicative, but in no way performative. If it were, it would mistake the Church for God, as if it could create reality as opposed to simply report on it.
Nothing I'm saying here denies transubstantiation. It simply rejects your proof of its existence, which relies upon an argument not advanced by the Church.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Of course that's what I'm saying. I'm saying that maybe nothing at all (on any level) happened to the wafer and wine. It was no different before or after the ceremony.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Let us suppose that I tell everyone that I can literally turn rocks into gold. As a result, millions come every Tuesday to my house where I pray over rocks and then I produce a nugget of gold as proof. I call this change "transcombobulation," Let us then suppose that I am discovered later a fraud or that I was just confused. It would be correct to say that transcombobulation never occurred. What actually occurred was that I held a big meeting that turned out to be a big pile of nonsense. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Well, this is the Church's problem: they have no way to verify their claims. The Church is claiming a change to the wafer and the wine at some level and if that doesn't occur, then transubstantiation hasn't occurred. Whatever the mysterious change is, it must occur for transubstantiation to occur.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Then you'd assume wrong. Whether the process of evaporation creates a tangible referent that you can point to or not hardly affects the coherence of the concept. Freedom is a concept without a referent, but it's not confusing. My comment only was that "transubstantiation" had no tangible referent and the only thing it could refer to is a particular state of confusion, but I did not make a general comment that words without direct referents were always confusing.
You are right, the stated position of the Church is that, during the Last Supper, Christ stated that he was truly sharing his flesh and blood. The Eucharist is founded on the belief that the Last Supper was in fact an act of endowement from Christ to the nascent Church. Amongst this endowement was the power to perform the Eucharist and transubstantiation.
Every position stems from a history of interpretations of interpretations of the holy texts. God forbid the Church has the power to make decisions on the spot about dogma. That would make the backwardness of certain beliefs of Catholicism (and I was Catholic for a long time, I'm allowed to say this :P ) absolutely, totally inexcusable. While now they are simply regrettable and faulty.
Because calling it something else means only that it would be called something else. It wouldn't change what it is, by which I mean the definition which truly describes the object, which would be the definition of bread. What you're doing is erroneously conflating two distinct things, and the logical consequences of doing that lead to an erroneous stance on the issue.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, I do understand what that means. You are either mistaken about what it means or what it entails or both.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, but it would be the body of Christ by name only, and the Catholic or the member of the Eastern Orthodox Church would dispute that. So where are you going with this? It's an irrelevant conclusion.
Alternatively, if you mean that it would literally be the body of Christ, then you're simply mistaken, as it's not, it's bread.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, you've given no good reason to reasonably accept that transubstantiation has occurred.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, that transubstantiation has occurred is your faulty assumption. I have no problem whatsoever with assuming a name change, but your assessment of the consequences of such a name change is erroneous. I attribute this to the fact that you're just not as good at grasping this sort of thing as someone like Hanover or myself.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, it's bread, as per the definition of bread, even if it is called something else. You have misunderstood the implications of meaning as use.
I think that this is the weakest argument for transubstantiation that I've seen so far. It is begging the question and attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Either that, or it is an example of sophistry, whereby Metaphysician Undercover is attempting to manipulate language to his advantage, but this is deceptive. At best, he can manufacture only a trivial truth. Calling a cat "a fish" won't give it gills.
No, I am open to the possibility that its substance has changed as purported, but for me to believe that it has in fact changed, I must have good enough reason. I don't have good enough reason. You have not provided good enough reason. Therefore, I don't believe it.
What you said is that there is a difference between reporting facts and declaring facts. I said there is no such difference. You attempted to clarify by saying that there's a difference between assessing facts and declaring facts, or something like that. I was unable to grasp how you were trying to categorize these things so I asked twice for you to provide me with a comprehensive clarification. Care to try again, because I still don't see the distinction you're trying to make?
Quoting Hanover
This is all meaningless to me I do not see the basis for your claim that transubstantiation is in no way performative, and that this is the Church's position on it. I think your wrong on this point and the rejection of my argument is wrong on this point. Clearly the Eucharist is a sacrament and transubstantiation is therefore performative.
Quoting Hanover
This example states that you were discovered as a fraud. It is not comparable with the Eucharist unless transubstantiation has been discovered as a fraud. All your argument amounts to is that it's possible that its a fraud. But as I said, the Church has been carrying this out for hundreds and hundreds of years, with millions of people, and continues to do so today. No evidence of fraud that I can find. What evidence do you have of any type of fraud? Don't you think that it would have been stopped by now if it was fraud?
Quoting Hanover
It's not a mysterious change. It is a change of substance. And all that is required to understand this change is to understand the nature of substance. Don't you agree that each and every thing, to be a thing, necessarily has substance? To say that a thing has substance is to say "that it is". But to say "that a thing is", and to say "what a thing is", is to say two different things. So "substance" doesn't tell us anything about what the thing is, only that it is. This allows that "what" the substance of a thing is, can be anything which we say it is.
Quoting Hanover
Of course "transubstantiation" has no tangible referent, because "substance' has no tangible referent. If transubstantiation had a tangible referent it would be contradiction, or equivocation in the use of "substance". That is exactly why there is no tangible change to the object in transubstantiation, substance is not tangible, it is only intelligible as an assumption, it is what we assume that an object has, in order that we can say that it exists.
Process philosophers may deny the existence of substance. But without the assumption of substance, the temporal continuity of an object is very difficult to account for. Once we have identified the temporal continuity of an object, as substance, then we can play special language games with that substance, as the Church does, because we are not referring to what the thing is, only that it is.
You might call this fraud, but that's only because you are refusing to play that language game, and so you cite some other rules which are contrary to the rules of that game, to rationalize your refusal. The loser is you though, as the quitter is the loser. By quitting the game, rejecting these rules, and adhering to those contrary rules, you deny yourself the capacity to understand the nature of substance. And if you persist, adhering to process philosophy in your denial of substance, you will find as the process philosophers before you have found, the need to turn to God in the end. Then you'll just have to start the game all over again.
Quoting Sapientia
It's all words, definitions, the whole shebang. How can you say "what a thing is" is something other than the words which refer to it. That is what you're saying isn't it? If not, then the words which refer to it are what it is. So if it's called "body of Christ" then it is body of Christ. That is, unless you are saying that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than the words which refer to it. How would you justify that claim? Does God decide what it is, using something other than words?
Quoting Sapientia
What do you mean by "literally" here? If this name, "body of Christ" is assigned to this object, how can you get more literal than that? "Body of Christ" literally means that object which the name is assigned to. You are claiming that the named object is bread, through some association or metaphor, disregarding the literal name "body of Christ". So it is you is not adhering to what is literal, and who is simply mistaken.
Quoting Sapientia
It is not a name change, it is transubstantiation. This means that the underlying substance, which we assume to be there, in order to ground our experience that the object has a temporal continuity of existence, changes at some point in time. The object's appearance to us, through our senses does not change, only the substance changes. The object's real existence is known through its temporal continuity which is grasped by the mind. The mind allows that temporal continuity (the substance of existence) to end at some point in time, and begin again as a different substance, at that point in time.
The object has been assumed to have continuous existence under the name "bread" until that point in time. From that point onward its temporal continuity is known under the name "body of Christ". This is the object itself which is being referred to with these terms, not the object's appearance through our senses. The nature of temporal existence, and the principles of logic allow that we can say that the object was called X up until this point in time, at which point we start to call it Y. At each successive moment of time, the object is naturally a different object, we only assume that it maintains identity as the same object with continued existence. All that is required is that we release this unnatural assumption for a moment, allowing that the object has a different identity before and after that moment. You seem to think that there is something inherently wrong with this, but there is not.
Quoting Sapientia
No it's not begging the question, its appeal to authority, but when the authority is demonstrated to be authoritative there is nothing wrong with an appeal to authority. If the child asks the parent, why do you insist that I call the colour that the sky is "blue", and the parent says it's because millions of people have been calling it that for hundreds of years, then the parent's authority is justified. Likewise, if the Church has been carrying out this activity for hundreds of years with millions of people, then their authority to call this process "transubstantiation" is justified. And your claim that there is no such thing as transubstantiation, that it is a fiction, is untenable.
Quoting Sapientia
Exactly as I said when I joined this discussion, it's a matter of faith. The only reason to believe is faith. You have no faith, you have no reason to believe. Why should you believe that the colour of the sky ought to be called "blue", and not some other name? Faith. Why should you believe that the items of the Eucharist ought to be called body and blood of Christ, and not some other name? Faith. There is no substantial difference between these two examples.
This has nothing to do with names. When the Christian claims that the bread is the body of Christ, he isn't just choosing to use the label "body of Christ" to refer to the bread; he's claiming that the bread has certain properties.
When I claim that something is a triangle, I'm not just using the label "triangle" to refer to that object; I'm claiming that it has a three-sided shape. If it doesn't have a three-sided shape then my claim is false. And if the bread doesn't have the necessary properties required for it to be the body of Christ, then the Christian's claim is false.
That's not what I said. I said there's a difference between assessing facts and decreeing facts. In the first, you take a look at the world, you assess what you see, and you say "there's a dog." In the latter, you assert as an authority what the facts are. You look at the world and say "you are in contempt of court." The former is indicative, the latter performative. The former fallible, the latter infallible.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The priest must perform an act to make the transubstantiation occur, but that's not what is meant by performative. I must put water in the freezer to make it ice, but my act is not performative from a linguistic perspective. That is to say, the priest's acts do not constitute a performative act to the extent that what he does necessitates the metaphysical event of transubstantiation. It is entirely possible that what he does accomplishes nothing at all. On the other hand, when a judge says, "you are in contempt," that utterance necessitates your being in contempt. The metaphysical status of your being in contempt results from the utterance.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The tangible referent of the transubstantiation would be the transformation of the bread and wine to flesh and blood, which would occur, according to Catholicism in a non-empirically verifiable way. Regardless, something (whatever it might be) changed, and that changed thing would be the referent. I don't refer to transubstantiation in the abstract (as in a substance generally), but I refer to the specific wafer and wine used in the ceremony. That wafer and wine would be the referent should someone ask "where is this transubstantiation?
I don't know nothing about Catholicism. Some of what I have said about Catholicism has been corroborated by others, such as T. Clark, whose wife is Catholic, and by online encyclopaedias.
If I wanted to learn about Catholicism, I would not seek you out to teach me. I would seek a more credible source.
Transcombobulation? I've never heard something so ridiculous in all my life! Transubstantiation, on the other hand, that's the real deal. And, I can assure you, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the latter is a central tenet of my religion, whereas the former is not. There's no conflict of interest here.
Ouch. That's another corroboration, and from someone who used to be a Catholic for a long time. Are you ready to retract what you insinuated about Hanover and myself, @Metaphysician Undercover? How about you, @Buxtebuddha?
Then you are wrong, as usual, assuming you stand by that claim. There is a world of difference between what the BBC does and what a conspiracy theorist does.
Yes, I'm saying that what a thing [i]is[/I] is something other than the words which refer to it. I'm further saying that, not only would it be [i]mistaken[/I] to say that what a thing [i]is[/I] is the words which refer to it, it would be utterly bonkers, and a prime example of the reification fallacy.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's wrong.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's what I'm saying. Words decribe things, they are not the things themselves. That's a basic error.
I don't believe that God decides anything at all, except in the sense that, say, Frodo decided to travel to Mount Doom.
I justify that claim by appealing to the law of identity, which states that a thing is what it is. It does not state that a thing is what it is called. Nor is that entailed by meaning as use.
Sect. 43 of Wittgenstein's [i]Philosophical Investigations[/I] says that: "For a large class of cases - though not for all - in which we employ the word "meaning", it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language."
So, for example, if there was a language whereby the word "fish" was used to refer to any member of the feline species, then that would be the meaning of the word "fish" in that language.
But it would not follow from that that a feline has gills. Yet, if we apply your logic to this example, then that is the consequence. You're saying that if we were to call a cat "a fish" then that is what it would become. A cat would become a fish, a fish has gills, therefore a cat would have gills.
That is clearly absurd, clearly mistaken, and should clearly be rejected. It is clear to me at least, but then, I have better critical thinking skills than you. You often get yourself into a muddle.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I have clarified my meaning once already. Why should I have to repeat myself?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What object? The wafer? What's literal about assigning the name, "body of Christ", to a wafer? I'll answer that question for you: there's nothing literal about that whatsoever. What would be[/I] literal would be to interpret that act of naming to entail that the wafer has [i]actually become the body of Christ. And please don't pretend that you don't understand what I mean by that. I would like you to put an end to your sophistry. It does you no credit.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
In English, "the body of Christ", in accordance with a literal interpretation, means the body of Christ, and nothing else. The word "body" would refer to his body, meaning his flesh, bones, organs, appendages, and so on. The name "Christ" refers to Jesus Christ of the Bible, who Christians believe to be the son of God, and who, so it is said, was crucified around two thousand years ago.
Are you speaking English or some other language? I'm speaking English.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The named object is bread because it fits the definition of "bread" that you can find in a dictionary. I'm assuming that we're both speaking English: am I wrong to make that assumption? Is the dictionary wrong? It would be mistaken to say that the object is bread if this nonsense about transubstantiation is true, or if we're speaking some other language, but it isn't, and we're not (to my knowledge), so it's not mistaken to say that it's bread.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You implied that it was both, but now you're denying that it's a name change. Have you changed your mind or are you contradicting yourself? Which is it?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I already understand what transubstantiation is, so that entire explanation was unnecessary and a complete waste of time. It would help if you were charitable, but you have not been charitable. On the contrary, you have insinuated that I know nothing about transubstantiation, even though I can explain what it is, and in fact have already done so.
Like I said, I do not have a problem with that in principle, nor do I think that it's impossible. I just don't believe that it happens. And I don't believe that it happens, because I do not have good enough reason to believe that it happens.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This demonstrates that you've missed the point by a country mile. I haven't once denied that there's a process referred to as "transubstantiation". But that doesn't prove what you think it does, and Hanover has set the record straight on this. If I questioned an authority on geometry why it is that a right angle is an angle of 90 degrees, and not an angle of 20 degrees, as I am going to assert for arguments sake, then he could explain it to me. He could show me why I was wrong. But if I questioned your authority on religion, he would just give me a load of bollocks, and he'd still be wrong.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Jesus Christ! If it's a matter of faith, then we agree. That's why I don't believe in transubstantiation. But if it's a matter of faith, then why the heck are you trying to argue the case? Arguing is what you do when you think that there's a reasonable case to be made. Faith is what you resort to when you don't have a clue, but are overcome with emotion.
When you make a fool of yourself, don't you think that it's a good thing to attempt to undo the damage? I mean, if you don't mind people thinking that you're a fool, then by all means carry on regardless.
I also don't agree with much of what MU is saying here.
It might not be the word the word you'd use, but is it the word the word the word you'd use?
Yes, thank you. Michael gets it.
Well maybe some Christians told you that, but these Christians obviously are not familiar with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is clearly stated that what is referred to is the substance, that's why it's called transubstantiation. It is also stated that the accidents, which are the sensible properties of the substance remain as those associated with bread and wine. Otherwise the Church would have no way of accounting for the fact that the body and blood of Crist look and taste like bread and wine.
Come on Michael, the Church has been an institution for close to two thousand years. Do you really think that it could have maintained that status by saying something so irrational as what you represent here?
Quoting Michael
As I say, you are very clearly, and totally wrong here. All you need to do is read some quick information about transubstantiation. Properties are irrelevant here, what we are talking about is substance.
Quoting Hanover
I still don't see any difference. Assessing the facts amounts to taking a look and saying "there's a dog". Decreeing the fact amounts to saying "there's a dog". Before you can decree, as a fact, "there's a dog", you must necessarily assess the facts. And if you assess the facts, and say "there's a dog", all you are doing is decreeing the facts. If you are decreeing "there's a dog", with completely disregard for whether or not it is a fact, this is something completely different from decreeing facts, and is irrelevant to our case here.
I really do no not see any difference still, perhaps you could try again.
Quoting Hanover
Clearly the priest's act is performative, because it is by this act that transubstantiation occurs. And, it is also very clear that it is impossible that this act accomplishes nothing, because following this act the participants respect the items as the substance of Christ's body and blood, and proceed to take part in the sacrament. The act definitely accomplishes something. So you are very wrong on both counts here.
Quoting Hanover
It is very clear that something tangible changes in transubstantiation, and this is the attitude of the people toward the items. As I said, "substance" is an assumption we make. So if the substance of the object changes, then this means that the people's assumptions concerning the object change. And that is what we see in the change of the people's attitude toward the objects. Therefore there is real tangible evidence that transubstantiation has occurred.
Quoting Sapientia
I fully understand this, and I agree with you. But we are talking about "what the thing is". What I am asking is if you believe that there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words, or some other type of symbol? I do not believe there could be. But if you do, I know you probably can't tell me in words what this "what the thing is" would be like, but could you give me some other indication of "what a thing is" which wouldn't be words or symbols?
Quoting Sapientia
This isn't quite right though. The law of identity states that a thing is the same as itself, identical with itself. It does not say that a thing is what a thing is, it says that a thing is itself. So we cannot derive "what it is", from the law of identity. That's why we must proceed toward description to derive what the thing is. But I don't think you can have a "what the thing is" without words or some sort of symbols.
Quoting Sapientia
Right, now according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. Why do you have difficulty with that? Do you not understand what transubstantiation means?
Quoting Sapientia
I have a problem with this claim, so I'll be brutally honest. I think you are lying. I don't think you understand what transubstantiation is at all. I think that if you really understood what it means, and thought that it was possible, as you claim, then you couldn't avoid seeing that it is going on all the time. Instead, you do not believe that it happens, therefore I conclude that you lie when you claim to understand it.
Quoting Sapientia
See, my claim that you are lying is justified. You really know nothing about transubstantiation. It is all about change of substance, as the name implies, and nothing about change of properties, and this is stated in church doctrine. You and Michael both know nothing about transubstantiation.
Quoting Sapientia
I've been saying this from the beginning, transubstantiation relies on faith. When the faith is there, it occurs. If there is no faith it cannot occur. However, the fact that you do not have faith doesn't prevent transubstantiation from occurring, because it occurs by means of all those who do have faith. So no matter how much you argue against it, you will not prevent it from occurring unless you kill the faith in all of those involved, so that they quit doing it. Good luck with that, but you need a better approach. Claiming that transubstantiation does not occur, just because you don't believe in it, is not the right approach. This is like arguing that because you do not believe in God, therefore God doesn't exist.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You're being pedantic. The point is that they're not just choosing to use the term "Christ's body" to refer to whatever substance the bread actually has. They're claiming that it has a particular substance.
Your talk about whether or not "it ought to be called the body and blood of Christ, and not some other name" is misplaced. It has nothing to do with what name to use and everything to do with what the facts are.
I don't understand how you could fully understand and agree with what I said, yet respond with the above. Yes, like I said, there is a "what the thing is" which is other than words or some other type of symbol. The thing is what it is. The thing is the thing. If the thing is a cat, then that's what it is. A cat is not a word or a symbol. A cat is a cat. Please don't make the use-mention error. I beg of you.
And so what if I can't tell you that without telling you that? What on earth is that supposed to prove?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This is[/I] quite right though. A thing is identical to itself. What is it? I just told you: a thing. That is explicit within the premise. What, therefore, is it identical to? A thing. What thing? [I]The thing. The thing I just referred to. It is identical to itself. The thing is the thing. It is what it is. The cat is the cat, the fish is the fish, the bread is the bread, the wine is the wine, and the body and blood of Christ is the body and blood of Christ.
If you don't get that, then I fear that there is little hope for you.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I know that [i]according to the doctrine of transubstantiation[/I] the items of the Eucharist are the body and blood of Christ. The only "difficulty" I have with that is that it's false if taken literally, as it is supposed to be taken, as a Catholic would maintain, as has been corroborated. And yes, I do understand what transubstantiation means, so we can move on from that, unless you want to dwell on that a little longer. Perhaps you get a kick out of patronising me. I could understand that. But I don't know what your motive is, and I don't really care, to be honest. What matters is the fact that I'm right, you're wrong, and I know that to be the case.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Okay, my turn. I think that you think what you do because you're uncharitable and you're either not the brightest bulb in the pack or you let your emotions cloud your good judgement. What you don't see, or refuse to see, is that what is going on all the time is not what the Catholic claims. The Catholic has a conflict of interest. As a Catholic, he or she has committed to that claim, and to commit to that claim in the first place is telling. The Catholic would have to be willing to abandon that which is of central importance to them. That's not just an intellectual matter, but an emotional one.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This shows that it's not just me who you're uncharitable with. I agree with you that it's about substance, and I agree with Michael that you're being pedantic.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That's exactly the sort of thing that a brain washer would say, and that is no coincidence. That should send a red flag.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, it really doesn't. But, of course, you don't see that, because you're blinded by your faith. You've actually blinded yourself, it seems, and, furthermore, it seems to me that that's just how you like it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I am aware that no amount of arguing will achieve anything if you're arguing with someone who cannot be brought to their senses or reasoned with. If you are such a person, then I should probably give up trying.
I've been reading this back and forth for several days. I want to make sure I understand your positions. To summarize - Metaphysician Undercover - yer fer transubstantiation. Sapieatia - yer agin it. Is that correct? I'm glad we've finally gotten that clear.
Yes, that's it, give or take a few minor details. :D
Again, I completely agree.
Right, the topic is substance. You come in and start to talk about properties as if properties were substance. I point out to you that we're talking about substance, not properties. You say I'm being pedantic, as if someone might think that the difference between substance and property is a trivial difference. Confusion with respect to this subject, "transubstantiation", is the result of failing to be pedantic. I thank you for expressing that you think I've demonstrated this virtue.
Quoting Michael
Did you not read what I said about substance? Substance is what a thing, any thing, every thing, is assumed to have. There's no such thing as a particular substance, except as a particular thing, like there is no such thing as a particular existence other than as a particular thing. Substance, and existence are what all things are assumed to have, as things. The substance which a thing actually has can be no different from the substance which a thing is assumed to have, because substance is nothing more than an assumption in the first place, an assumption which is made to account for the claim that the thing has real material existence.
Quoting Sapientia
I went through this already. You misrepresented the law of identity. It does not state that a thing is what it is, it states that the thing is the same as itself. What the thing is, is something other than this. If a thing, and "what it is", are one and the same, then a thing would be a form without matter. We must account for the fact that a real thing has material existence. If a thing, and "what it is" were one and the same, then all kinds of imaginary things, like unicorns and such, which have a "what it is" would necessarily be actual things.
Quoting Sapientia
As I've explained to you, it is true if taken literally. There are items which are named body and blood of Christ, and these items are body and blood of Christ because that is what they are called. Take that literally! These particular items are referred to by these words, body and blood of Christ. Therefore these items are literally the items which are called body and blood of Christ. That is the literal meaning. There is no falsity here.
You create the falsity by insisting that "body and blood of Christ" must refer to something other than these items. You are not taking it literally, you are insisting on another meaning of "body and blood of Christ". Based on this other meaning, which you refer to, which is not the literal meaning given by the Church, that these items are the items which are called body and blood of Christ, you claim falsity. Therefore it is only by refusing the literal meaning, given by the Church, that these items are literally the items called the body and blood of Christ, and referring to some other meaning, which you conjure up in your mind, that you claim falsity.
Quoting Sapientia
Michael's argument relied completely on reference to "properties". You agreed with Michael. Now you agree with me, that we are talking about substance, and not properties. My argument is that if taken literally, transubstantiation is a valid explanation of the sacrament of the Eucharist. You may describe me as a pedant all you want, that's fine because my whole point is that adhering to the literal meaning is necessary for maintaining the validity of the Eucharist. But you seem to be lost, claiming that adhering to the literal meaning renders transubstantiation as false, but then you agree that I am the one being pedantic.
You're still missing my point. You think that the ritual is transubstantiation by fiat. But that's not the case, just as the world wasn't flat by fiat simply because people claimed that the world was flat.
The ritual is transubstantiation if and only if the substance changes, and whether or not the change occurs has nothing to do with what people believe or what people claim or what word people use to describe the ritual. Every Christian might be wrong. The bread is only ever bread and never Christ's body. The wine is only ever wine and never Christ's blood.
This isn't just an argument over nomenclature, which is where you keep going wrong.
If you assess the facts and believe there to be a dog, you will have that belief even if you don't utter it.
If you are a judge and believe the witness to be in contempt of court, he will not be if you don't utter it.
I've said it every way I can. You're going to have to go online and look up the distiction between performative utterances and declarative statements because the distinction is real and not one I've concocted.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The question isn't what the priest's words do to the minds of the congregants, but what it does to the wine and bread. Either the congregants stand in the presence of a miracle or they've been tricked. Are you saying transubstantiation might just be that event where a priest bullshits believers into thinking wine becomes blood?Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This doesn't follow. I get that folks can be tricked into thinking that iron is gold, but the iron doesn't change because they were tricked. Their behavioral changes about the iron doesn't say anything about the iron. It just says something about them and maybe the guy who tricked them.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It seems MU is saying the act of transubstantiation is completely subjective. By MU's definition, "substance" is an assumption. Therefore, the only things that change are people's assumptions.
To be clear, I don't agree with his assessment. I'm just trying to make sense of how this conversation has persisted in these [s]fourteen[/s] pages since I left the debate.
Perhaps a more succinct version of MU's position would be something like this:
Transubstantiation occurs iff communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
There is objective evidence that communicants believe transubstantiation occurs.
Therefore, transubstantiation occurs.
Maybe this is missing something? You can correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position . I'm not taking up the debate again. Just trying to clarify.
That is exactly what the doctrine claims. That the bread and wine is literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ by the magic of the sacrement.
Why do you think that Luther was so angry?
Why do you think the Anglicans wish to preserve the empty ritual decided to call it "consubstantiation"? And thereby implying that the bread and wine somehow coexisted in with Jesus?
I'm not deep into the theology of this, but that doesn't seem right, though it may be MU's position. On the other hand, I don't think that transubstantiation quite amounts to ritual magic, such that physical changes occur in the material of the bread and wine.
What is left, for an atheist, is nothing. But for a theist there is another possibility, which is that God sees it differently. 'In the eyes of God' there is a difference, that we can see as a moral difference. It is a real difference, because God cannot be deceived, and hence substantial, but not a physical difference. Thus it is rather in line with holy water, consecrated ground, testimony sworn on the Bible, or the union of marriage. Ritual does nothing physical, and yet transforms the moral significance of things, not merely in the eyes of the faithful, but in the Eyes of God, such that though it might be a virtue to wash one's socks, it would be a sin to use holy water for such mundane purposes.
I recommend you go back to things you know, such as smoking weed. Clearly, you don't understand what "literarily" means.
means...
But I do understand what 'literally' means.
Can you explain what all the fuss was about when Luther rejected the sacraments or should he also go back to smoking weed?
I recommend you stop being so rude. Since you know more about this, educate us, don't just sneer at our ignorance.
No, I didn't. I even repeated back to you what the law of identity states. I then went on to explain how we can determine from that what a thing is.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Wow. If it states that the thing is the same as itself, then that's what it is. How can you not see that? Let me go through it step by step with you.
Do you see the part where it says, "the thing"? That tells us what it is.
Do you see the part where it says what the thing is? That's the part which begins, "the thing is...".
Do you see the next part where it tells us that it is the same as itself? That part, given the law of noncontradiction, tells us that not only is the thing the same as itself, but it cannot be so yet be a different thing at the same time and in the same respect.
What's more, the thing can be anything, like a cat or a wafer, and the same rules apply.
Why is this relevant? Because from that, we can determine that the wafer is the wafer, and not the body of Christ, and that the wine is the wine, and not the blood of Christ. They are what they are, and they're not what they're not, and there's no good reason to believe that they've somehow magically changed from the one to the other.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You need to be clearer. If you're saying that what a thing is, is something other than itself, then you're contradicting the law of identity, and are therefore mistaken.
If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that to identify a thing of which we do not already know the particulars as a particular thing, then the law of identity won't help, then I agree. That's not what I was saying, and that's not relevant. We already know what the particular things are before the ceremony. We are in agreement that they are wafer and wine. That's what matters. Where we disagree, is that you assert, [i]without good reason[/I], that, at some point during the ceremony, they literally change substance and literally become the body and blood of Christ.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I don't understand how you've arrived at any of those conclusions. It would require explanation, but I'm not sure whether that would help or hinder the discussion, as it might amount to a tangent. I suspect that you've got the wrong end of the stick.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
But your explanation fails, and I've explained why your explanation fails. I shared my conclusion that, at best, you can only manufacture a trivial truth as a result of sophistry.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I've addressed this already. That argument contains a [I]non sequitur[/I], and it uses language deceptively.
We've already been over this. Your argument has been refuted. You're just repeating yourself and sending us around in circles. Remember the following?
Quoting Sapientia
Remember this?
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
What items? You need to be clearer. We start with a wafer and wine. These items are consumed, and a ceremony is performed. I do not believe that the ceremony changes the items in any way. So we are left with consumed wafer and wine. End of.
If they've been given a different name, then they've been given a different name. That changes nothing other than the name.
Do you understand? Do you understand what Shakespeare meant when he wrote that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet? Do you accept that calling a cat "a fish" would cause it to grow gills all of a sudden? [B]You need to address this point, instead of evading it. It is very important, because it is a [i]reductio ad absurdum[/I] which refutes your argument[/b].
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
No, I am taking it literally, and that's why it is false. Micheal and I are right on this point. It's not about the meaning of "body and blood of Christ". That's not being disputed. I told you what that means, it was in line with a literal interpretation, and you agreed! That should have settled the matter! One way of putting it is as Michael put it to you: it's not about meaning, it's about facts.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It [i]is[/I] the literal meaning given by the Church. You agreed to this. Have you since changed your mind? The alternative is contradiction.
I'm not disputing what is meant, I'm disputing that their meaning reflects reality. I think that your confusion arises out of mistaking the latter for the former.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
That conclusion, assuming it follows, follows from false premises, based on a misunderstanding of my position. That conclusion can therefore be rightly disregarded.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I know! Shocking isn't it? I was wrong in that respect, so I made a concession. If only you could do likewise! I agree that that was the wrong word to have used. So does Michael. Now it is time to move on.
Okay.
My apologies.
Quoting charleton
Luther didn't reject all the sacraments, he just disagreed with the Aristotelian interpretation of transubstantiation which was common in his day. Not to mention that there were times in Luther's life when he agreed with the doctrine of transubstantiation as well.
It doesn't really seem right to me either. I can't tell if his argument is that transubstantiation is wholly subjective, or that it is objective, but the evidence for it is wholly subjective.
Quoting unenlightened
This makes sense. If these things were presented as such, I doubt much debate would arise. It's when the doctrine wants to have its cake and eat it that it gets called into question.
Aristotle said nothing about it, as it had not been invented in his time, living 100s of years before Xist. Aristotle would have called it bollocks too.
The fact was that the blood was taken totransform in substance. the clue is in the word DUH.
There is not one scrap of evidence to think that Luther ever took that to be true.
Insults can also be a response to being confronted with your own ignorance with a valid challenge
"Catholic Church, the change of substance or essence by which the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ.
The Catholic Church teaches that in the Eucharistic offering bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ.[1] The reaffirmation of this doctrine was expressed, using the word "transubstantiate", by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215"
No it didn't. My argument relies on the distinction between naming a thing and asserting a proposition about a thing. When the Christian describes the ritual as being transubstantiation, they are not just naming the ritual (that would actually be an account of the term "Eucharist"); they are asserting that the substance of the bread and the wine has changed into something else. Whether or not the substance changes isn't determined by fiat or by belief. No matter how many times they claim it to happen, it might not actually happen. They might be wrong. Just as those who claimed that the world is flat were wrong.
Quoting Michael
My claim is that the substance changes.
Quoting ProbablyTrue
That's about it. And the reason why transubstantiation occurs iff communicants have faith, is that substance is something we assume, to support our observed experience of the temporal continuity of existence. So there is no problem with saying that at any moment, this particular object ceases being bread, and starts being body of Christ, because it just requires shifting our assumptions concerning the temporal continuity of existence.
The further issue though, is what supports our assumption of substance. There is an observed temporal continuity, but why, what supports this? This is where we appeal to God. So if we say that the substance changes from bread to Christ, then without the assumption of God, we can say anything, because it's all human assumptions. With the assumption of God, it is necessary that God goes along with this transubstantiation, to ensure that it's true. Why wouldn't He?
Quoting Sapientia
You are just asserting "that's what it is", in the very same way that the Church asserts "that's what it is", referring to the articles of the Eucharist. So you're being hypocritical now denying that the Church may do this, when you are doing the very same thing.
But that's not what the law of identity actually says though. Do you understand a difference between the word "same" and the word "what". If I say "X is the same as X", this says nothing about what X is. The word "same" indicates no options. "What" indicates a choice made from options. To say "what a thing is", indicates that one has made a choice from options. What it is, might be bread, might be body of Christ, whatever, "what" implies options.
Quoting Sapientia
I've explained this very clearly to you. It's is absolutely necessary that what a thing is, is other than the thing itself, and this does not contradict the law of identity. It is necessary because all sorts of fictional ideas qualify as "what a thing is", but are not actually things. That is why Aristotle introduced the concept of "substance" into his logic, so we can distinguish fictional things (which are only logical possibilities), from existing things, substantial existence. "What a thing is" does not necessitate that the thing has substantial existence, therefore "what a thing is" is necessarily something other than the thing itself, because the thing itself has substantial existence.
Quoting Sapientia
You've got the temporal order wrong. The ceremony is first, then the objects are consumed. I went through this with Hanover already. Hanover claimed that the ceremony accomplishes nothing, but clearly it does accomplish something. The attitude of the participants toward the items is changed. And, as I said "substance" is an assumption which we make concerning the physical existence of objects. If the substance of the objects changes, this implies that the assumptions of the people, concerning the objects changes, and therefore the attitudes of the people changes. The substance of the items changes, and the evidence, the change in the people's attitude demonstrates this. Is that so hard to understand?
If you believe in God, then the assumption of substance, which is made by human beings, is supported by God. If you do not believe in God, the assumption of substance is difficult to support, and that's why process philosophy is so popular today. But if you do believe in God, then the belief is that God goes along with transubstantiation to support this change of substance. And there is no reason to believe that God would not support this.
That wasn't the claim I was responding to. I was responding to this:
There's a difference between calling the colour of the sky "blue" (an act of naming) and calling the items of the Eucharist "the body and blood of Christ" (an act of asserting a proposition).
And I was also responding (albeit indirectly) to this:
Transubstantiation (unlike the Eucharist) isn't the sort of thing that is established by fiat. One cannot simply dictate that the substance of the bread becomes the body of Christ, just as one cannot simply dictate that the shape of the Earth is flat.
Your argument fails to understand the distinction between a claim like "this planet is Mars" and a claim like "this planet is round".
If a priest says "I now pronounce you man and wife," he has changed the status of the parties, but he hasn't changed the parties in any substantial way. Part of religious doctrine related to marriage is that the man and woman become a single flesh, which might have metaphorical implications, but certainly literally they do not. While we can say that the priest is fully empowered to change the legal relationship between the man and woman, he cannot change their physical state by melding their flesh by his simple utterance.
As I said with Hanover, I don't recognize the distinction you are making. To assert the proposition "this item is the body of Christ", is nothing other than to name the item as the body of Christ. A proposition is by nature a proposal, and no matter how it is asserted, it may be rejected. So your use of "asserting" here is just a red herring.
Quoting Michael
Are you familiar with the term "substance"? It appears like you are not.
The question is: Do those accepting of the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation employ a different epistemological standard for their beliefs than the materialists?
It seemed the thrust of much of the previous debate was that there was some level of logical inconsistency on the part of materialists in rejecting (and even ridiculing) transubstantiation as not being properly rooted epistemologically because both sides are using inherently faith based systems.
Not only do I think this is wrong, but I think the Catholic Church doesn't even present this argument. The official doctrine is described as follows: "The manner in which the change occurs, the Catholic Church teaches, is a mystery: "The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ."[5]:1333 The precise terminology to be used to refer to the nature of the Eucharist, and its theological implications, has a contentious history especially in the Protestant Reformation.[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transubstantiation
That is to say, transubstantiation surpasses understanding, meaning it does not make sense to us mere mortals. It's a mystery. It cannot be known. It therefore is accepted just as a doctrine, not subject to invalidation, and not something that can be derived by observation of the world. It is distinct among events, and it is therefore logical and consistent for a materialist to reject it on the basis of it lacking the epistemological basis consistently relied upon by the materialist.
That you don't recognize the distinction doesn't mean there's not one though. You're just indicating your inability to understand. The Catholic Church claims that the utterances of the priest result in the metaphysical alteration of the bread in an actual way. Those utterances would alter the substance even if the name remained the same and the substance would be whatever it is even if it lacked a name.
I disagree. The substantial change is that sexual relations that were formerly sinful become a sacrament and duty. The legal aspects give a way to approach things from a secular view, but trying to understand transubstantiation without God, and without granting substance to moral condition is not really possible.
Has anyone else noticed that 'substance' and 'understanding' are almost identical? What's that about?
"The Catholic Church understands the real, objective presence of Christ as coming about by the replacement of the substance of the bread and wine with the substance of the body and blood of Jesus Christ, with no change in the accidental properties of the bread and wine—such as its appearances, color, and shape; the change in substance is known as transubstantiation.[9"
"The Catholic Church understands the presence of Christ in the Eucharist as real, that is to say, objective and not dependent on faith."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_presence_of_Christ_in_the_Eucharist#Catholic:_Objective,_substantial_and_entire
This is nonsense, the utterance are the name change. You are proposing a scenario in which the name change occurs (the utterances), without the name change occurring.
In the case of a named article, the name represents the substance, that's why an object can undergo changes while maintaining the same name. Transubstantiation occurs by the power of the Word. The priest changes the name, God goes along with this and changes the substance. If God changed the substance of something, and the name for it didn't change, we would have no way of knowing that the substance changed.
That's an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical one, but not even correct. We could know the substance changed by its behavior prior to altering its name.
I haven't even read your reply yet, only skimmed over it. It's [I]quid pro quo[/I] or nothing. Take it or leave it.
You are making Michael's mistake, mixing up properties for substance.
I replied to everything I thought was relevant, maybe repeat the part that you have a special interest in.
No it isn't. Just as to assert the proposition "I have £1,000,000 in my bank account" isn't just me naming the amount in my bank account (which is actually less than £1,000,000). If I were to assert such a thing then I would be wrong. And so the same could be the case for the Christian asserting that the item is the body of Christ. He's wrong if the item isn't what he says it is (and Sap's saying that it isn't; it's just bread, nothing more).
There is a difference between claiming that the facts are such that X is Y and stipulating that the term "Y" is being used to refer to X.
No, I'm not repeating anything. You can go back and properly address it. Or not, and that will be the end of our discussion.
That's completely different, it's predication, stating a property of your bank account, it's not naming an object. The example is not relevant.
And in the case of the Eucharist, it's not just naming an object. The Christian isn't simply stipulating that he's using the term "the blood of Christ" to refer to the wine. He's saying that the facts are such that the wine satisfies the pre-established meaning of the term "the blood of Christ". His claim isn't true by fiat.
The doctrine of transubstantiation isn't just a terminological one.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, of course you do, but 'actual substance' doesn't 'actually' clarify what is meant. If the 'substance' of your claim is that 'substantial' means 'material' then I think you are substantially mistaken. There is a substantial difference between being married and being single. Plumbers marry female connectors to male connectors, and assembled plumbing is substantially different to disassembled plumbing despite the materials being the same. We call these differences emergent properties.
But again, secular examples are simply preliminary arguments that seek to open the conceptual way to a more charitable understanding of something that is not coming from a materialist perspective in the first place.
Right, the pre-established meaning appears to be what the Church has established, and this is that the items referred to are in fact, the body and blood of Christ. You're like Sapientia, are trying to reach, in equivocation, for some other meaning. But this is the meaning you, or Sapientia attempt to establish, and therefore not the pre-established meaning.
You're making no sense.
I can't make it the case that the water in my glass is the blood of Zeus just by saying that it is, or by creating a religion and having others perform some ritual and claim that the water is the blood of Zeus.
Claims of transubstantiation are more than just word games. If you can't understand that then this discussion will go nowhere.
Nope, I've got that straight. The accidental properties remain unchanged but an essential change to the substance occurs, thus rooting this whole discussion in ancient Greek philosophy, I assume to offer an explanation for why there is nothing empirically verifiable when transubstantiation occurs.
Regardless, I don't see how this is responsive to what I said, which is that a substantial change can occur without a name change, as I don't see how linguistic theory impacts metaphysical change.
In fact, I don't know you deal with the problem that any time anyone says any set of special words over a physical object that changes the attitudes of those hearing it that something mysterious won't happen to that physical object.
If I say "Alacazam" over a rock and everyone thinks I have a rock that contains the blood of Moses, is the rock now different?
Yes, I've said that from the start. I'm just about ready to give up, and it seems that Metaphysician Undercover is not willing to play fair, so...
Quoting Sapientia
Oh yeah, remember this?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You think I'm very uncharitable, I think you are extremely uncharitable. So there!
It doesn't have to be material, but it has to be some substance in the wafer that changed. If wafers have spirits or some non-material composition, that has to actually change. No one says a man changes in literal substance when married (except maybe he gets fat and gives up the notion of happiness). As I see it, you're changing from a literal to a figurative definition of substance. I'm using it literally, but I'm not committed to it being material.
Okay. You win a point. Congratulations. But my request is for you to set that aside and get stuck in, as I have done. I will try to be charitable if you do likewise. Like I said, [I]quid pro quo[/I]. The offer still stands. The ball is in your court.
Would you rather continue the discussion topic or discuss the discussion itself?
I know, you need the will of God to assist you. If everyday you refer to that item as the blood of Zeus, and everyone else around you refers to it as the blood of Zeus, you will keep thinking, it's not really the blood of Zeus, it's really just water. But if by the will of God, it is the blood of Zeus, and you have faith in this, then you will believe that it is the blood of Zeus. And of course, it really is the blood of Zeus, by the will of God.
Then you accept that it is false to argue that transubstantiation happens by fiat simply because the Church says it does. Your arguments are a non sequitur.
For transubstantiation to occur the wine must actually turn into the blood of Christ, which requires divine intervention – something that many will say never happens (and, of course, divine intervention doesn't happen just because the Church says it does).
Glad we got there in the end.
Ok, now you've distinguished between accidental properties and essential properties. A change to essential properties doesn't constitute a change in substance, it constitute a change in the type of object, the substance would stay the same.
Quoting Hanover
Since "substantial change" is something we judge, and somewhat arbitrarily, according to our principles of judgement, I don't see how you can support that claim, unless you appeal to God to support this type of substantial change. Then like I said, God could make a substantial change which we wouldn't even notice.
I don't like that phrase "get stuck in". What do you mean by that? I only conjure up an image of being Catholic, and being "stuck in" this sacrament, without the will power, nor capacity, to free myself from it.
So for now, I will reply to what interests me and not get "stuck in" to something that I might regret later, like quicksand. In case you're not there to pull me out.
Okay, but unfortunately for you, I think that it's too late for that. I think that you got yourself stuck in the quicksand early on, and I would be surprised if you managed to get yourself out of it. I did offer you my hand, but you rejected it. There may still be hope for you yet, as Hanover and Michael are here, continuing on without me: their one true leader.
Ok. Now imagine being a moral realist. The marriage ceremony makes a real, literal, substantial, actual, change in the moral landscape.
Likewise, just as you say, the non-material composition of the wafer is actually changed: - but this does not mean that one can detect human or Godly DNA that wasn't there before.
Not that I personally subscribe to any of this, you understand, but I think I can defend that it makes sense at least, in the context of there being moral and spiritual aspects of reality.
Agreed.
It's not "simply" because the Church says so, nothing with the Church is simple, but it is because the Church says so. God follows the word of the Church. The Church requests this from God, and God gives. Therefore what the Church says is the cause of the occurrence. It's like requesting something in prayer, which comes true. God is the immediate cause of that thing occurring, but God does this in response to the prayer, so the prayer is the cause of the occurrence.
Right, so your original arguments were non sequiturs. You're accepting now that transubstantiation requires divine intervention. But that there is a God who intervenes in such a way is certainly something that can be argued against.
Compare with what you said previously:
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The Church might say that transubstantiation happens, but if there isn't a God who changes the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, then the Church is wrong, and transubstantiation isn't a fact.
Quoting unenlightened
What you offer is not relevant. I was offering to the thread that which is claimed by the Catholic Church. Law is not apposite.
Quoting unenlightened
Transubstantiation is a nonsense. The question here is what nonsense is believed by Catholics.
Alright, so you have an object, a cracker. It's accidently made of wheat and essentially made of crackerness. The priest says his prayer and now it's essentially made of Jesusness and accidently made of wheat. The substance has changed. It's now made of Jesusness and wheat whereas it used to be made of crackerness and wheat. I get that Jesusness and crackerness aren't necessarily made of matter because essences are a bit mysterious, but it's not a regular old cracker any more, right?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I don't know that we can never judge a substantial change, mostly because I don't know what happens when you pepper something with essence.
No, there's no non-sequitur, because the arguments hold with or without God. Without God, substance is a human assumption, it is whatever we say it is. With God, substance is assumed to have objectivity. Divine intervention just provides objectivity to transubstantiation.
See, you still haven't demonstrated a difference between asserting something as fact, and what is really fact. If something is supposed to be fact, this means that it has somehow been judged as fact. If the judgement is not made by God, then it is made by humans. So if God is not the one judging that the items are body and blood of Christ, then it is humans who are making that judgement. Either way, the argument holds. To assume God is to assume real objectivity, to assume human judgement is to assume objectivity by means of inter-subjectivity.
When the Christian claims that transubstantiation occurs he is claiming that the bread's objective substance changes into the objective substance of Christ's body. He isn't just claiming that this is his (inter-)subjective judgement. Therefore if there isn't a God who changes the bread's objective substance into the objective substance of Christ's body then the Christian's claim is false. Transubstantiation, as he means by it, never happens.
Yep. That's the cold hard truth.
To begin with, that the object is a cracker, is a judgement. So let's just say we have an object. That it is an object requires that it has substance. Therefore we assume that it has substance. You judge it as essentially crackerness. This is a judgement made from your perception of its properties. That judgement says nothing about its substance. Since the object is essentially crackerness to you, you claim its substance is the substance of a cracker. The priest tells you its substance is now the substance of Christ, regardless of how you judge its properties. So if you have faith, you follow, and accept this. For you, being one of faith, the substance of the object is now the substance of Christ. And it is a fact because God ensures that it is a fact. Without God, any assertion that X is a fact, amounts to nothing more than a hocus pocus language game.
Own it, Agustino.
I don't recall any reference to "objective" or "objectivity" in the claims of the Church. That's the term I was using to describe the difference between whether or not there is a God. The Church claims that it is fact, and as I demonstrated, it is fact whether or not there is a God. God makes it a truly objective fact, while the lack of God makes it a fact by means of inter-subjectivity. Without God we have no facts other than those provided by inter-subjectivity.
"The presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective. Ontological, because it takes place in the order of being; objective, because it does not depend on the thoughts or feelings of the minister or the communicants. The body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament by reason of the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, which are attached to the proper performance of the rite by a duly ordained minister. In so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that brings about Christ’s presence in the sacrament. According to Catholic teaching, faith does not make Christ present, but gratefully acknowledges that presence and allows Holy Communion to bear fruit in holiness. To receive the sacrament without faith is unprofitable, even sinful, but the lack of faith does not render the presence unreal" - Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: True, Real and Substantial, Avery Dulles (Jesuit priest, theologian, and cardinal of the Catholic Church)
And if there is, then the atheist's claim is false. I doubt we can resolve that question to everyone's satisfaction here. In which case, the best one can do is to try and understand how such positions are and are not coherent in their own terms.
Quoting Sapientia
It seems a bit heated to me. It is at least a charitable and likely assumption that most of the Catholic Church do not intend to deceive, but genuinely believe the tenets of their faith. Claims to have the plain and simple facts, and the cold hard truth at one's disposal seem to show rather the same arrogance that is claimed to be the church's.
Sure. But I'm not trying to argue against transubstantiation. I'm trying to argue against this claim by Metaphysician Undiscover:
It is simply false to say that transubstantiation occurs by fiat. MU needs to do more than argue that because the Church says that the bread and wine is the body and blood of Christ then it must be so.
Exactly. If you have faith, then you fall for it, and if you don't, then you don't fall for it.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It would be a fact if God existed, and if God did so, but God doesn't, so God can't.
Precisely.
Ooh, yes. Very mysterious. Should we dedicate the same amount of time and effort towards the great mystery of the celestial teapot? What if there were hundreds of thousands of pages of celestial teapotology to sift through?
Quoting jamalrob
And what, pray tell, does arrogance have to do with who is right and who is wrong? That's what really matters.
Quoting unenlightened
Whether it's intentional or not, deception is what it is. Or, if that term's problematic, then swap it for another one. Wouldn't that be the charitable thing to do, since you brought up that old chestnut? The bottom line is that these people are under an illusion, and the Church propagates this illusion.
Stating that something is the cold hard truth does not make it so. You merely repeat, again and again, "I am right, I am right, I am right", claiming to be speaking the truth (as if we thought you were arguing for something you did not believe), while your views are disputed by several people.
The presence of Christ is real whether or not God exists, but what "real" means differs accordingly. That something is "true", "fact", or "real" requires a judgement. If it is not God which makes this judgement then it is human beings.
Quoting Michael
I agree, the church would stipulate that it is God which brings this about. But for the atheist there is no God. For the atheist what is "real" is so by human judgement (including assumptions that there is reality without human judgement, which itself is a human judgement). So that there is reality, for the atheist, requires faith in human judgement. And, by the same means that any reality is real for the atheist, faith, the presence of Christ in the sacrament is also real.
Of course the Church rejects that faith is the means by which Christ is present, because the Church recognizes the role of God in this occurrence. But for those of us who do not recognize God as real, the presence of Christ in the sacrament, is just as real as anything else. This is because without God, our entire reality is based on faith in human judgement. And, without God, so is the presence of Christ in the sacrament, real by faith in human judgement. So even for the atheist, the presence of Christ is real, in the same sense that anything else is real, it is real by faith.
The difference being that the faith is not attributable to the atheist, it is only attributable to the participant. So the atheist only claims that the judgements which I have faith in are more real than the judgements which you have faith in. Of course one human judgement is not more real than another, so this is not a proper approach. The proper approach is to argue that one judgement is better than another.
Quoting Sapientia
If God doesn't exist, then the only way that fact is determined is human judgement. That there is fact independent of human judgement is a matter of faith, if there is no God. So if there is no God, then whether or not transubstantiation is a matter of fact, is determined by human judgement. The Fathers of the Church are in a much better position to make this judgement than you are. And if you suppose that there is a "fact" of this matter which is independent from human judgement, then this "fact" is solely a matter of faith.
Does that answer my question about arrogance? You expressed your wholehearted agreement with a comment that was about arrogance, so it is fair to question what relevance arrogance has to who is right and who is wrong. But since you've chosen not to answer, I will answer it myself. It has no relevance to who is right and who is wrong. I could be arrogant and right, arrogant and wrong, humble and right, or humble and wrong.
Now, going back to what really matters, which is who is right and who is wrong - I have already said a great deal about that. So, what do you expect from me? That I restart the whole discussion from scratch?
It wasn't a silly point. I think that that's a silly thing to say, in addition to being unnecessary and provocative, which is just what you reproached me for doing earlier.
It's not irrelevant, and I addressed his point.
You tell me, since you applauded its use as the cold hard truth.
I didn't applaud anything. Isn't it interesting how words can be manipulated to your advantage like that? I said it how it is. The cold hard truth is the cold hard truth, whether it is stated arrogantly or modestly. And that is itself the cold hard truth.
Oh the irony. Says he who brought up arrogance.
Quoting unenlightened
Well, we'd have to actually go into details. So, what is it, specifically, that you're claiming is false? What is it, specifically, that you're claiming is of no relevance? And why do you think that that's the case?
Quoting Sapientia
Not me! If we can't get the details of who brought up what agreed, details are going to be beyond us.
Ok, fine. You've established that it wasn't you. But let's all stop talking about arrogance, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake.
Agreement, not endorsement. And what I was agreeing with was more than that one minor detail which we've been unduly focussing on. I mean, really? A single word?
Oh, the irony!
Let's spend a few pages wondering whether you agreed or endorsed, and whether one can declare an agreement that does not constitute an endorsement. Or perhaps not. I think I'll leave you to imagine that, and all the other details we might go into.
So predictable. That they are listed as synonyms does not mean that their meanings or connotations are identical. I think that you know this, and that you are choosing these words on purpose precisely because of their connotations. First it was "applaud", now "endorsement". What next? Cheering it on? The word "agreement" will do just fine, if that's okay with you. And I'll remind you that it is a fallacy to appeal to emotion. Given that you think that the original comment is heated, wet, and false, it would of course be in your interest to make it appear as though I support it more than I do, so that it appears as though I am guilty by association, in the hope that it might save you the trouble of having to dig any deeper into any more substantive content contained therein.
No it wouldn't, because I am not a Catholic and do not believe in transubstantiation. You agree with what you quoted, you support it (your word) to the extent of claiming its truth, but you neither applaud nor endorse it. Fine. But let's all stop talking about endorsement, in a discussion about transubstantiation, for goodness sake. I mean, really? A single word?
I know you want to have the last word, but so do I.
It would be in your interest, not for that reason, but for the reason that I gave: because you think that what was said was, in your own words, heated, wet, and false.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, that is fine. It struck me as the cold hard truth, although its mention of arrogance was unnecessary and distracting.
Quoting unenlightened
Says he who introduced it into the discussion.
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
We seem to be going in circles. I'll let you have the last word.
I'll remind you that I gave you the opportunity to elaborate with regards to your claim of falsity, and that might have set us on off in a more linear direction, but you did not answer my question. You were too caught up about that of which we should not speak, for sake of goodness.
Quoting unenlightened
Thank you. Very kind of you.
Now, being older, no longer RC and having since encountered Aristotle's Essentialism, I can see that that angst was unnecessary. If one accepts Essentialism - that every object has a metaphysical 'essence' which is what it really 'is', and which is only accidentally and unreliably associated with its sensible properties. If one accepts that then transubstantiation is simply the act of replacing one object with another that has the same sensible properties as the first but a different essence.
In a recent thread I opined to MU that the gulf between Aristotelians and non-Aristotelians was greater, more fundamental, than the gulf between theists and non-theists.
For an Aristotelian, transubstantiation is no contradiction at all. It fits in fine to the metaphysical framework. If one is not then it doesn't, and one rejects it. I'm not, and I reject it, but I don't think those that accept it are in cognitive dissonance, as they just have a different (Aristotelian) worldview within which it makes sense.
Here's my question then: Is there any more to it than that?
And - a supplementary question: if there is no more to it than that, why did the scholastics feel the need to write thousands of pages about it (and a nineteen-page thread about it to pop up while I was asleep!)? Why not just summarise the Aristotelian doctrine of Essences (which can be done in a single paragraph) and then say the last sentence of the second para above? Was it perhaps that they were focusing on how or why the transub happened, and what its consequences were, rather than trying to prove that it could happen?
It's not quite essentialism which is at play here, because it is the concept of substance which the Church latches on to. The reason why there has been so much to debate on the subject is that "substance" is left rather ambiguous by Aristotle. It is introduced to "substantiate" logic. But Aristotle discusses "substance" in a primary sense, as well as "substance" in a secondary sense. In the secondary sense, it appears to substantiate "what a thing is", referring to its species (and this might be what you refer to with essentialism). But in the primary sense "substance" substantiates "that a thing is", referring to its material existence.
Quoting andrewk
The varying worldviews here are fundamentally different, and a worldview provides the basis for any epistemology, so the potential ramifications with respect to human knowledge are broad. Consider, as I said earlier in the thread, that one could adopt the premise of process philosophy, and deny the need for substance altogether. This would completely avoid the need to consider the reality of substance.
However, as the most influential process philosophers have found out, there is an aspect of reality which I would describe as a temporal continuity of sameness, which needs to be accounted for. If we do not have "substance" as Aristotle suggests, or God as the theologians suggest, to account for this, we'll just end up turning to some other mystical principle. How we account for this continuity will influence our knowledge concerning the world. For instance, Newton's laws of motion take this temporal continuity for granted, as inertia, in the first law. If it can be demonstrated that the temporal continuity of massive (substantial) existence ought not be taken for granted, then Newton's first law is undermined as unsound.
If by process philosophy you have in mind the sort of thing proposed by Whitehead, then that would be my approach. Was it him or somebody else that said an object is just a slow event?
A similar (seemingly, to me) approach that comes from a very different heritage is that of Nagarjuna, who makes intricate quadrilemmic arguments that the notion of substance is incoherent. I don't agree with his arguments, finding them logically flawed, although I agree with his conclusion. Nagarjuna was not arguing against Aristotle. I expect he had never come across his writings. He was arguing against the prevailing Indian philosophies of his time. But those philosophies seem to have similarities with Aristotle.
A Nagarjunan phrase I really like (heavily paraphrased) is that each object, living or not, is just what the universe is doing at that time and place. Alan Watts says it is the universe waving (to whom? to itself, would be my guess).
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover Yes, we need to turn to something mystical. 'Principle' sounds a bit too concrete for me - as if a 'mystical principle' might be an oxymoron. I would think that we just turn towards (contemplate, meditate upon) 'the fundamental incomprehensibility of the universe', which is a lovely phrase I picked up from a fictional philosophical book written by the Abbé something-or-other, that was being read by the heroine Flora Poste in 'Cold Comfort Farm'.
I would say that Newton's laws, and any other scientific theory, are rules of thumb that have worked well for us. Like the Hong Kong Dollar exchange rate, it is something that remains very stable until it stops doing so. So it seems to make sense to proceed on the basis that the stability will continue, while the more philosophical will bear in mind that the stability could cease at any instant.
I agree that the concept of substance is fundamentally incoherent. It's just like the concept of God in that way, it is something assumed because we apprehend a need to assume it. Then it ends up being just an assumption which stands in place of real knowledge, and this is why it is fundamentally incoherent, it is not real knowledge.
Quoting andrewk
That the stability which we've known in the past, (what was), will continue indefinitely into the future (what will be), is precisely that fundamentally incoherent concept, which stands in place of real knowledge. So if we want real knowledge we need to approach this issue.
Quoting Agustino
Your original question makes no sense to me in this context, if I interpreted it correctly. When you asked me what I would see, I took that literally, as in, asking what it is that I would observe. I would observe no difference in the bread and wine.
The purported difference is that the substance has changed, and that the elements of the Eucharist which were formerly bread and wine are now the body and blood of Christ. But that isn't something I'd expect to see, and I don't know how I could know that to be the case.
And I didn't say that I had no internal criticism. I do. The internal criticism is epistemological: how can we know this? Even under the assumption that it is true, that question remains. What I did was emphasise the distinction between external and internal criticism, because the absence of that distinction seemed to be the cause of some confusion.
Quoting Agustino
I don't recall mentioning the laws of physics.
Quoting Agustino
I disagree, but I think that this is semantic. I'd call that a miracle, as would countless others. In fact, I think that if you put it to the general public in the form of a survey, then the vast majority would agree that it's a miracle. So you're just not speaking the same language as the rest of us.
Quoting Agustino
You agree that it's not supernatural, which is all I require.
Quoting Agustino
There are no doubt collective accounts of ghosts too. And what you are or are not willing to die for is irrelevant as a proposed criterion. I wouldn't be willing to die for most of what I'd testify to having witnessed, but that doesn't discount my testimony.
Quoting Agustino
No, I can't add metaphysics to the list. That's far too vague and unexplained. And if you think that you've got a solid case, then you must have much lower evidential standards than me - at least when it comes to what we're talking about here. Elsewhere you raise the standards, creating a double standard. The stuff that we're talking about here gets special treatment, because it's your religion. But that isn't a reasonable, objective stance to take, and you should admit that.
Quoting Agustino
No, it's not that I don't understand it, it's just that I have a different take on it. Can't you appreciate that? I certainly didn't suggest taking out the central role of Christ or that Christ is not what matters or that faith in Christ is not essential. These would just mean different things to me. We would be abiding by different interpretations.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, I know that you'd want to see some evidence for it. That's why I asked what it would take. How much testimony? What if it was a central tenet of your religion? What if people reported mystical experiences which they attributed to the sea lion? These were not rhetorical questions.
This is where your double standard becomes evident. You are hesitant to bite the bullet because it strikes you as so ridiculous, but it isn't all that different from the claims of religion, and if you were able to stand back and assess the situation from an objective viewpoint, then I think that you'd agree.
Do you feel that real knowledge is achievable? Do you think anybody has achieved it? Perhaps some might say that Lao Tzu, Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha, Mohammed, Joseph Smith or Zoroaster achieved it, although I feel that Enlightenment - impossible to pin down as it is - sounds very different in concept to knowledge.
I believe that real knowledge with respect to this subject is a noble goal. Whether or not it will ever be obtained by anyone, in any absolute sense is not really relevant. I think it is only by having a belief like this, that it is to some extent achievable, that we can be inspired to broaden our horizons and uncover principles previously unknown. By previously unknown, I mean unknown to any human being. I think that enlightenment involves getting a glimpse of what is unknown to everyone, somehow seeing that it is there. By getting a glimpse of the unknown, we realize how vast the realm of the unknown actually is, and in some instances how and where it relates to the known. We can then proceed to develop strategies to approach it.
Just out of curiosity Michael, how did you separate all these transubstantiation related comments from the non-transubstantiation related comments in The Shoutbox thread?
We would need to split off into another thread if we wanted to really break down Aristotle's theory of substances. It's not clear why my substance isn't one of my properties, but I grew tired of reading about it online last night, so I gave up for now.
My point is that I don't agree that the path to enlightenment is paved with being open to the legitimacy of all other beliefs, but more often the opposite: rejecting nonsense and moving on. So , coming to the party with no preconceived notions about the legitimacy of the Church, these beliefs strike me as no more or less valid than a faith based system I could create on the spot.
Wow, that's a lot of work, it takes me fifteen minutes just to find a particular post sometimes.
Quoting Hanover
Isn't any type of word use essentially the same type of "faith based belief"? So if you reject transubstantiation, you make the statement, "I have no faith in the way that they use words". But you cannot make any valid statement about whether what is expressed by transubstantiation is true or false, without addressing the nature of substance. And if you do, you'll most likely realize that there is nothing there to prevent the validity of the concept of transubstantiation.
From the perspective of a modern scientific viewpoint, substance is taken for granted. And what is taken for granted cannot change or else that would contradict "taken for granted". In religions, substance is not taken for granted, it relies on the will of God. So "taken for granted" is not absolute, it is relative to God as "granted by God"; therefore substance can change by the will of God. How can we ever make a judgement about which of these perspectives is "true", when they are probably equally false, just different ways of representing the unknown?
Quoting Hanover
I see a big problem with this perspective. Very few things persist through time, the ones which do are massive objects like the earth, sun and stars. An "idea" or "belief" is not at all massive, it's very fleeting, and as we grow older they slip away to failing memory, until we die, and they're gone. To have a belief which may persist for generation after generation of human beings requires a very structured system of communication, word use. Ever play the game "Whisper Down the Valley"? Your decision to reject as "nonsense" a system which has allowed ideas to persist for hundreds, even thousands of years, is not a rational decision.
This is the part of the discussion I disagree with you the most I suppose, which I'll get back to in a second.
As it relates to transubstantiation and the references to arcane Aristotlian philosophy, I'll acknowledge you simply wore me down. I don't really think anyone truly adheres to those views and his various categories and so it seemed an exercise in learning a purely historical system for academic purposes. I couldn't really sort out all the distinctions, and so when I began reading up on it online, it became clear that the issues of concern for me were concerns for everyone.
One thought I did have, for example, from a Cartesian perspective, is that I am composed of two substances: mind and body. It would make sense to say therefore that the properties of the person-object are that it is composed of those two things. That would make a substance a property, and while the identification of the mind substance/property could not be empirically shown by putting it under the microscope and seeing it, it could certainly be identified behaviorally in the person through the display of consciousness. This whole issue made me question your claim that the interjection of the body of Jesus into the wafer could not be known by the person except by faith because it is not the case that substance changes are per se undetectable.
In fact, the way I saw it is that you simply divided the world into two sorts of properties: those that were detectable and those that were not. A wafer therefore has things you can know about it and things you can't. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the real words one should use instead of essential versus accidental properties is undetectable versus detectable, at as it relates to this discussion.
Whether I'm a better person for having thought about this, I really don't know.
But to your over-riding point that this is all some sort of language game and that I am just rejecting their word usage, I'm really not. I'm being offered no evidence whatsoever of the claim they're making, and when I ask, I'm being given an explanation based upon a thousands year old antiquated logic system that no one really adheres to. What happened was that the Church arrived at a notion based upon biblical passages and then used the contemporary logic to try to explain how it could be. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
And so the difference between a system that I make up on the spot and the Catholic one is simply they came up with theirs first? We can pretend its longevity is based upon its validity, but that would simply overlook certain political and historical realities.
That's interesting. It does have some force against the comparisons some people have made with things they have made up on the spot and that have no meaning or function. But I think ideas can be persistent because they are functional without being true.
Quoting Hanover
No, stuff you make up on the spot is likely to be functionless. The stuff that L Ron Hubbard made up on the other hand, clearly functions psychologically as a cohesive force, and has attraction to outsiders looking for answers and meaning in their lives. But longevity does have its own attraction too, as advertisers know. 'Transubstantiation - tried and trusted for 2000 years. Recommended by your ancestors.' As against 'New improved religion, with added science and no nasty morals. Scientology, the only religion designed for the modern age'.
Whereas 'Truth - you probably won't like it, and it'll do you no good.' is not a great advert.
Longevity can be the result of all sorts of things, from it being true, to it being functional, to it being a way to manipulate the masses, to it being just something that stuck and became local legend, to whatever. The point being that longevity offers us nothing in terms of proof of value or whether it'd be better to finally abandon it and move on.
This all seems an argument for tradition for tradition's sake. And they call me conservative.
I quite agree. But moving on does not come with a guarantee either. Seems like there's nothing for it but to think things over and discuss them back and forth and make the best choices we can. Sounds like hard work.
I think you still misunderstand the nature of substance. If a person is composed of two substances, then the person is two individual objects. To say that one thing is two substances would really be contradictory because substance is what validates the existence of the thing, so this would be like saying one thing has two existences. So substance dualism says that the human person is composed of two distinct things, body and soul, and this is why the soul can persist as a thing even without the body. It is usually argued that Aristotle's system is not consistent with substance dualism.
You're really just turning things around, saying that there is one thing (person) with two substances mind and body. This allows you to say that the one thing, person, has two properties, body and mind. The proper understanding of substance dualism would be more like two things, body and soul, each with properties. Each of these would be an individual substance.
If you check Aristotle's "Categories" Ch. 5, "Substance in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse." In no way can primary substance be a property, this is what is explicitly excluded from the definition. "Substance" refers to the individual thing itself, not a property of the thing.
Quoting Hanover
It's really not a matter of dividing the world into two sorts of properties, it's a matter of dividing the world into properties and the particular thing (substance), which has the properties. This is sometimes explained as "what the thing is" (properties), and "that the thing is" (substance). In any case, the substance is the existing thing which is said to have the properties. In the case of transubstantiation the existing thing, substance, changes from being the substance called "bread", to being the substance called "body of Christ", while all the sensible properties stay the same. So at this time all those sensible properties, which were prior to this, attributed to the substance that was known as bread, are now attributed to the substance known as body of Christ.
Quoting Hanover
Yes that is exactly what you are doing, rejecting their word usage. When you accuse someone of saying something untrue, you are rejecting their word usage. The Church has said, that for the purpose of our ceremony, we are not going to call this object "bread" we are going to call it "body of Christ". You object, saying that it shouldn't be called body of Christ unless it really is body of Christ, so they are engaged in some sort of deception. They say it really is the body of Christ, God ensures this, so there is no deception. It's just a matter of you rejecting the way that they use words, and how they turn to God to justify this usage.
Quoting Hanover
The only claim they're making is that they are authorized to call this object "body of Christ". What you're failing to grasp, is that anyone is allowed to use any words they want to refer to any object. We don't need evidence to support our usage when we refer to objects with words, but if someone thinks that the word usage is wrong, then they'll point this out. If people are ok with the usage, they'll go along with it.
Quoting Hanover
This is pure, unabashed, conceited vanity. Do you really believe that you could come up with a ceremonial practise which would be in use two thousand years from now? Come on. Not only is it a "system", but it is a practise. That's where I think the root of your misunderstanding lies. You are looking at this as if it were a logical system or something like that, which is reducible to a set of claims. It's not, it's a practise. And that's why "word usage" is the proper representation of transubstantiation rather than "assertion", or "claim". So if you look at it for what it is, a practise, (not instinctual, but learned practise), which has persisted for that long, then you might start to grasp the gravity of it.
Quoting unenlightened
You may have noticed that I have been purposely staying away from "truth" here. My argument from the beginning has been that transubstantiation is a valid verbal practise, this would most likely base its validity in its functionality. Only when Michael pressured me on the fact that my position is inconsistent with that of the Church, did I turn to truth. I agree that there's a claim of truth, as it's God who makes the spoken words true. But I believe that without God we do not have real objective truth to any words, as truth and objectivity are based in inter-subjectivity without God. At this point, without God, I don't think there's a real line between true and functional, as true appears to be a special type of functionality.
Quoting Hanover
This is false though, longevity is proof of value. For human beings to preserve something, it must be of value to them, so if it is preserved it has value. Value though is inherently subjective, what I value is not necessarily what you value. Longevity is proof of a value which is passed from one generation to the next. Because it is not of value to you, you can refuse the practise. But if the practise still continues, you cannot deny that it has any value, just because it has no value to you, because the fact that it continues demonstrates that it has value.
Here's another way of demonstrating how your way of looking at this issue is completely backward. We can designate names to objects for any purpose, whether its for a logical proceeding, or any other proceeding, we name objects. Wittgenstein explains this at the beginning of the Philosophical Investigations, the tradesperson names the object, the apprentice learns the name. So for example in a trial court there may be an object labeled "exhibit A". What this says, is that for the following intent and purpose, i.e. the following trial procedure, this object will be known as exhibit A. And in a logical proceeding we'll say "let X be...", so that the object described is known as X.
In a similar way, the Church stipulates that for the intent and purpose of the following sacrament, the objects will be known as body and blood of Christ. Furthermore, the Church insists that for all intents and purposes these items will be known as such. What this stipulates is that there cannot be a practise in which these objects are known as anything other than body and blood of Christ. Therefore in relation to any practise, these objects must always be known as body and blood of Christ, so it is impossible that the objects might be known by any other name. What the Church has claimed, is nothing more than ownership of these objects; it has claimed all rights of usage for these objects, as well as naming rights with respect to that usage. Would you deny them these rights?
I have yet to see a demonstration otherwise. Hanover was trying to make a distinction between reporting what is the case, and decreeing what is the case, but failed to substantiate this distinction.
As far as I see, there are objects of the sacrament which are named, and the objection is to the naming of these objects.
There's a difference between naming and predication. When I claim that the 45th President of the United States is Barack Obama I'm not simply stipulating that the 45th President of the United States is to be named "Barack Obama"; I'm claiming that the thing referred to by the name "the 45th President of the United States" and the thing referred to by the name "Barack Obama" are the same thing. And, of course, my claim is false.
Claims of transubstantiation are of the latter kind (where it is said to be literal and not just a metaphor).
Their claims are far more substantial than just word games as part of a ritual. That's exactly why there are theological discussions on the matter.
I'm not really interested in what some individual Christians believe, as those beliefs are all over the place. What I'm interested in is the act of transubstantiate itself, and this is how it is presented by the Church itself, in the sacrament. I have never taken part, so I cannot claim to know exactly what takes place.
Your objection seems to rely on the claim that there is some sort of predication going on here. Could you justify this claim by referring to the sacrament, and the act of transubstantiation itself, and not by referring to what some Christians believe about it.
Your question doesn't make any sense to me. There are people eating bread and drinking wine. Some claim that the substance of the bread and the wine literally changes into that of the body and blood of Christ. Any competent speaker will understand that their claim isn't to be understood simply as some stipulated naming convention, but as predicating some fact about the world. What proof can there be except asking those who claim such a thing what they mean by their claim?
This is a very peripheral, perspective dependent, subjective, description of the situation. Let's get beyond that, right to the point. You are describing the people as drinking wine and eating bread. The Church is describing them as drinking the blood of Christ, and eating the body of Christ. Clearly there is inconsistency between these two descriptions.
My claim is that you have no respect for the naming practise of the items of their sacrament. So you are using unacceptable names to describe the items being consumed. Unless you can justify your use of unacceptable names, then your description is also unjustified. You might attempt to justify your description, that the people are consuming bread and wine by referring to the sensible properties of these items. But the principles of the sacrament request that you do not refer to the sensible properties of the items, as these are accidental to the substance which is being consumed. Such an attempt would only prove that you have no respect for the naming practises of the sacrament.
So how do you justify your description that they are consuming bread and wine, without demonstrating the validity of my charge, that you have no respect for the naming practises of the items of their sacrament?
If the court instead labeled the object 'incontrovertible evidence of the defendant's guilt', then one might start to question their judgement.
See, you are still making the same mistake. You are referring to the object as wine, when in fact, it is called the blood of Christ. We are trying to determine what it is in fact, what is the proper name for it. So when you ask what is the fact, is the wine wine, or is the wine blood of Christ, you have just begged the question because you have already premised that it is wine. The appropriate question is whether the object is properly called wine or whether it is properly called blood of Christ.
I'll make things easier for you, in light of unenlightened's comments. Instead of you justifying your description, which calls the stuff wine and bread, you can show how the Church's naming is logically inconsistent. Let's say that "body and blood of Christ" refers to the flesh and blood of the person, Jesus, who died on the cross, as well as the items in the sacrament. All you need to do is to show inconsistency in this naming practise.
The Church claims that the substance of the flesh and blood of Jesus are the same substance as the items of the sacrament, and this justifies the naming practise. So we need to provide an understanding of "substance", which denies that this is possible, or at least to make it highly unlikely. It appears to me, like "substance" is what all individual, particular things have in common, it is one universal. So I don't see how the substance of one particular object could differ from the substance of another particular object, if it is one universal, therefore all objects would be of the same substance and there is no inconsistency.
There's a difference between what a thing is and what a thing is called. They might call it the blood of Christ, but if it isn't the blood of Christ then they are wrong, just as if I call the 45th President of the United States Barack Obama then I am wrong because the 45th President of the United States isn't Barack Obama.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This isn't what the Church means by "substance", given that transubstantiation is the change from one substance (namely bread and wine) to another (namely the body and blood of Christ). If there is just one universal substance then the substance doesn't change and so no transubstantiation happens.
Whatever it is you're talking about it has nothing to do with Christian theology.
I look at that as a pointless argument. What a thing is, is dependent on two things, how you define your terms, and your judgement of the thing in question. Naming a thing is much more fundamental than this, allowing us to avoid both of these problems. We assign the word to the thing, and the thing goes by that name. This is not saying what a thing is, it is identity, it is giving a thing an identity. In the case of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it appears very clear to me that the ceremony is a ceremony of naming the objects, giving them a new identity in the eyes of God, like baptism is, and marriage is, these are instances of giving things (people in these cases) an identity within the structure of the religion.
It is very clear, that in the sacrament, the Church is assigning these names to these objects, giving them a particular identity. It is not looking at these objects and judging whether or not they fulfil the conditions required by a definition to be called by these names. Your argument is really a straw man because the sacrament is a case of naming items, not a case of describing what a thing is. The priest does not look at the object, and state the name suited for describing the object, the priest assigns a name of identity, to the object This is what such sacraments consist of, giving things a particular identity (naming them) in relation to God.
Quoting Michael
The fact that you started into this discussion talking about properties, instead of substance, demonstrates that you have even less knowledge of Christian theology than I have. And I must say that your understanding of such sacraments is very deficient. When the priest declares the man and woman husband and wife, do you believe that what the priest says is a falsity, because the man and woman are not married at that time? That appears to be the logic you are using. Do you not see that they are husband and wife because the priest has named them as such. Likewise, the articles of the Eucharist are body and blood of Christ because the priest has named them as such. Your argument, that even if the priest has named them as such, the priest is wrong if they aren't really such, is completely missing the point, because they only are such by virtue of the priest naming them as such.
To make a coherent argument you need to demonstrate that it is wrong for the priest to name them as such. Or, you need to demonstrate that the priest has no right to name them as such. But to say that the priest is wrong, if they aren't really such, is just nonsense, because they are really such by virtue of the priest naming them as such, just like the man and woman are husband and wife by virtue of the priest naming them as such. That is the way these sacraments work. The Church is wrong only if it is wrong for it to assign these names. The question of whether or not the objects are the proper objects which the words refer to, can only be determined by determining whether or not the church is wrong in assigning these names. So to go at this from the opposite direction, and say that the Church is wrong if the items are not the body and blood of Christ is just backwards. We must take it for granted that these items really are the body and blood of Christ, because that's what the Church calls them, and determine whether or not the Church is wrong in calling them this.
Just ask a Christian what they are doing when they claim that the bread and wine literally changes into the body and blood of Christ. Just ask them what they mean by the term "transubstantiation". They'll tell you that this isn't just a word game or name-assignment. I've shown you a cardinal's take on the matter here.
You don't seem to understand the difference between those who claim that transubstantiation is literal and those who claim that it isn't. Although the latter is just a case of naming items, the former is a case of describing what a thing is (and open to being wrong). We're supposed to be talking about the former.
We're specifically talking about claims of literal transubstantiation. There's nothing to argue if it's just a metaphor.
He seems to want to say that if it doesn't literally happen then it happens by fiat, which is ridiculous.
If there isn't a God (or, I suppose, some other power) who (or which) changes the substance of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ then transubstantiation doesn't happen. You can't simply say, as he says here, that because people refer to something as being "transubstantiation" then ipso facto it is transubstantiation. Else I might as well argue that because I refer to him as being "wrong" and me as being "right" then ipso facto he is wrong and I am right. It's a bastardization of Wittgenstein's "meaning is use", which he seems to be pushing.
This is what you said there:
Quoting Michael
See, the presence of Christ is dependent on "the proper performance of the rite".
Quoting Michael
That's right, I look at this whole question of whether or not it is "literal" as a red herring, and nothing more. "Literal" is a vague, ambiguous term which holds no force in comparison with the law of identity which allows for the direct association of a symbol to an object. Am I "literally" MU, or is that just a name I call myself? When we are discussing the identity of an object, the question of "is it literal?" is not even relevant
The issue is whether or not it is correct, or right, for the Church to name (identify) the items as they do. It makes no sense to ask whether the items are literally what they are called, because it is implied that there is a direct symbolic relation between the words and the items, such that if the relationship were anything other than direct, it would not be an instance of these items having this name.
Quoting Michael
That we're "supposed" to be talking about a description of what a thing is, is your false presupposition. Descriptions refer to properties, and that's where I corrected you when we first engaged. Now you keep wanting to slip back into descriptions of what the thing is, as if that is what we are "supposed" to be talking about. It is not, we are talking about identity, not description. Is it correct for the Church to identify these objects as body and blood of Christ? You want to turn to descriptions of the objects, and a description of what "body an blood of Christ" refers to, in order to address this question. But this is not what we're supposed to be talking about, and it is completely irrelevant because of that, we are supposed to be talking about substance. Clearly we're not supposed to be talking about descriptions and this is made clear by the word "transubstantiation".
Look at the quote above. This is what is claimed. There is "the proper performance of the rite". There is the promise by Christ to appear, which is carried out by the Holy Spirit. That is the description. If it is true, as you seem to be insisting, that there is no presence of Christ, then one or both of these conditions must not have been met. Either the rite was not properly performed, or the Holy Ghost did not fulfill the promise of Christ. There is nothing else to describe.
Quoting Michael
Thinking that the other person is not making sense is exactly what "talking past each other" is.
Quoting Michael
If, "proper performance of the rite", means "fiat" to you, then it happens by fiat. What you do not seem to recognize is that assigning identity to an object is an act of fiat. The proper performance of the rite is the act of fiat which assigns identity to the objects.
Your claim seems to be that these words, which are assigned to the objects for the means of identification, have a meaning (some sort of "literal meaning") other than the meaning which is created by the direct association of identification. Your argument seems to be that this "literal meaning" is inconsistent with the meaning created by direct association. I can only assume that the objects named by direct association do not appear to you to fulfill the conditions of your "literal meaning", and that is the basis of your rejection. But the Church has dealt with this objection, it is not a matter of appearance here.
Quoting Michael
This is exactly the problem with "meaning is use". I am wrong because you say I am, in reference with your rules of usage, and you are wrong because I say you are, according to my rules of usage, and that's the way it is. Right and wrong are relative to our rules of usage so we may both refuse to compromise because we are both right. What recourse do we have but to appeal to God?
God is, assuming he exists, a useless ambiguous cunt who "moves in mysterious ways" but not so mysterious as to allow the powers that be to use his "word" to enforce definitive rules on others. 21 pages of semantics. Wonderful. The only thing religion is good for is illuminating what the religious feel comfortable accepting without thinking.
How would you address the problem then? My way of using words is right according to my rules, and Michael's way of using words is right according to those rules. The two ways are very contrary, so they can't "really" be both right. You could claim to know the right way, and that both mine and Michael's are wrong, or you could side with one or the other, but that still wouldn't make your way any more right than either of ours, even if it were two against one. Furthermore, we can't appeal to pragmatics because my rules are good for my purposes and yours are good for your purposes. How would we determine which purposes are the right purposes? If we all insist that we are using words in the correct way because we are following our rules, how do you propose that we might compromise and find agreement? And if we do not find agreement, won't our ability to communicate be jeopardized?
The non-believers are arguing semantics as much as the believers. More than 400 posts and people are still making the same arguments they did at the beginning. My sympathies are with the believers. They are simply stating their belief. In arguing against that belief, not a single believer I've read has put himself imaginatively in the place of the believers and come ready to listen. If you don't do that, it's not reason.
Really?
Right, so no wonder you haven't adequately judged the matter if you don't know the criterion of truth in this case. I suggested that the criterion of truth, in this case, is experiential. You have to experience it, and it is that internal change that is the substantial change mentioned. So bread and water remain physically bread and water, but their meaning has changed for the believer. So, by all means, this is a mystical experience, that is open to those who take part in the Eucharist.
Quoting Sapientia
A miracle it might be, so long as you understand that the traditional definition of a miracle as something that "breaks the laws of nature" is silly.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, it actually does discount your testimony in comparison to someone who is willing to die for what they've witnessed. If you have no skin in the game, it's easy to testify for anything. And don't be silly now - if you were a judge and a man risked his life to testify something, while the other didn't risk anything, who would you believe?
Quoting Sapientia
That's not true from my perspective at least. I apply the same standard to all claims in intellectual matters.
Quoting Sapientia
Sure, I can absolutely imagine a world - not our world though - where the sea lion produced mystical experiences, and everything around the universe revolved around it. Sure, nothing ridiculous in that. Just a different world from ours. In ours, as we know it today, that would indeed be ridiculous.
The one telling the truth?
Sure, but isn't "skin in the game" one of the criteria you will use to determine the truth ceteris paribus?
What distinctions aren't supportable?
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Excellent exposition. I would add that this view of substance is inescapable for Aristotelians and even Cartesians, however substance can also be seen, as per the Schopenhaurian understanding of it, as the inner meaning of things - that is their substance, as opposed to their appearance. So in this Kantian/Schopenhaurian framework, what is substantial is defined as opposed to what merely appears. The Will is substance (or conatus as Spinoza calls it) - the phenomenal world is appearance.
No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weight.
There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. It's why I never substantively participate in philosophy of religion to begin with (which I think is akin to beating a dead horse). There's selection bias going on on both sides as to defining transubstantiation. To those participating I'd suggest that they, before moving on to particulars, try to agree on a single definition if this thread is to have any chance of moving forward.
I would agree that statements against interest carry greater weight, the most significant being a confession (which is precisely why they must be given freely to be admissible). In your scenario, perhaps someone in fear for their life who offers testimony that places them in greater danger might be considered more honest, although exaggerating the testimony might also occur in that situation in an effort to assure the conviction. That is, once you've taken a swing, make sure you win the fight. I guess the point is that it really depends on all the facts.
Now that's a pointless suggestion. The reason why we cannot decide whether transubstantiation refers to something real, is because we cannot agree on what the word means. If we came to an agreement as to what the word means, the discussion would be over.
Quoting Benkei
The problem here, is that what a word means, or refers to, any word, is a matter of faith. You are adverse to arguing faith, as you've stated here, so you say "let's just agree on a definition, and get on with the discussion". But if we remove "faith" from this discussion, there is nothing left to discuss.
Of course, a reasonable person would know that reasoning is not "arguing against." You're playing a game, that's not reason.
Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher.
I've made this point before in a number of places - I'm not a theist in any normal sense of the world. I don't have any belief in a personal God or in any supernatural phenomena. I'm an engineer and I love science. But - I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. They talk and think about it differently than I do, but then again, just about everyone talks and thinks differently than I do about just about everything.
Exactly. A good point to stop talking then and move on.
You're reversing it though. An argument is giving reasons for a specific idea or theory and you were talking about arguing against belief. It's generally accepted those reasons should be reasonable, which is why we don't accept "because I felt like it" when you kick the cat.
Quoting T Clark
Uhuh. That's so vague that it doesn't mean anything.
As to transubstantiation, it has no basis in the Bible as in the relevant passages they are symbols of his sacrifice. Transubstantiation is therefore an elaborate ritual totally made up by the Church where people eat disgusting bread and drink bad wine and have to wait in line annoyingly long and get confused about which hand goes on top of the other. According to the Catholic church, transubstantiation happens in a manner surpassing understanding. Which is double-speak for "it beggars belief so you'll have to take it from us in faith".
So, the only thing for atheists to do at this point is to shrug and get on with the important things in life, which is eat a fresh, crispy baguette with a selection of cheeses and drink velvet wine at home in the company of friends or family.
Why? I can list the horrors caused directly by Catholicism - The inquisition, the persecution of 'witches', the sanctioning (and more horrifically, later cover-up ) of child abuse the execution of heretics. All of these things directly the result of a belief that one person (the Pope) has the power to directly communicate God's wishes. The persecution of Gays, the opposition to condoms in AIDS prevention, the unequal treatment of women, the persecution of the native south-americans, early support for the slave trade... shall I go on?
You either have to take the view that these things are not directly the result of Catholic teaching but rather the result of humans just being bad, in which case the same is true of all the good things the Catholic church has done - or you take Catholic teaching as being responsible for all the actions of it's followers, including the horrific ones.
Catholicism is either irrelevant to the actions of humans or it is directly responsible for some pretty horrific mass murders and abuses. I don't think it's unreasonable for the victims of such abuse, still going on to this day, and their supporters to carry just a little antipathy towards the Church.
No, that's my point entirely, you can't have one without the other. Either the Catholic Church is no force for anything whatsoever, or it is a force encouraging both good and bad things, neither of which are exclusive to it.
In neither of these cases are the importance given to its tenets in philosophical discussions justified. Either it is an irrelevance because it has little influence on human thought, or it a an influence like any other, capable of inducing both good and bad behaviour.
The reason why the bad behaviour it has encouraged is so important is that the judgement of such must take place outside of religious belief. To be truly religious is to believe that someone else (the book, the prophet, the guru) has access to a truth to which you do have access, and that therefore their word cannot be questioned by your own faculties (it is not 'faith' otherwise). So how would a true Catholic be able to say that the inquisition, the witch hunts, the child abuse etc was wrong? Their church told them it was right.
As to the detail of your list;
Virtue ethics existed in a pretty well defined system through Aristotle (and well before then).
The first recorded example of arbitration in law was in the wars of the Summarian king mesilim hundreds of years before Christ.
The independence of the judiciary, at least in the UK was written in the 1701 Act of Settlement which was directly a response against the influence of the Catholic Church.
The first declaration of universal human rights was on the Cyrus Cylinder in 539bc.
'Just' as in the massacre at Acre?
This doesn't refute any of the points but I really don't care to go in depth into these things. It's sufficient that I consider them great for the argument I made.
Delusional people have risked their lives in order to maintain their delusions. They are even willing experience ridicule because the risk of losing the delusion is greater (be ridiculed or lose one's eternal status in heaven?).
And what risk is there really when losing your life brings the greatest things for you (going to heaven for eternity)?
The only way to distinguish between the validity of different claims is to apply the principle of falsification.
Of course it refutes your points, you said
Quoting Benkei
I gave you examples of them existing before, or in opposition to, the establishment of the church.
it doesn't get much more refuted than that.
It is not sufficient that you think they're great, this is a philosophy forum, not an evangelical platform. If you're not prepared to argue your case I suggest you don't make it.
That would be boring and not the issue in this specific thread. Suffice is to say that stones in the shape of wheels existed before the wheel was invented. So no, you haven't refuted my points but as I said, I don't feel like writing an exposé on this. Anybody who's studied law can tell you where my examples came from, you can bother them with it.
The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher.
Yeah, nice value judgment. :-*
Of course people have faith and they have religious experiences. Yet neither faith nor religious experiences have anything useful to say about reality. You just get a "says you" "no says you" discussion that never ever goes anywhere. So take out faith and religious experiences and we can start talking about the things we both at least agree on exist.
What does useful mean?
Quoting T Clark
... and its perfectly on topic, good point to make. Someone brings up some of the atrocities done in the name of religion and refutes the idea that it has provided substantial benefits and all of a sudden its 'boring' and 'not the issue'.
I wasn't aware that this was a forum reserved for apologists.
But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away.
This is the type of nonsense I'd like to avoid and I'll probably quit this thread soon.
Equating and conflating faith to the point it becomes meaningless is really just semantics. I defined faith earlier in this thread as "the evidence of things unseen". When I say "remove faith" we are removing any evidence submitted for things unseen such as souls, God, miracles and transubstantiation. Instead we can talk about the aesthetic appeal of J-Lo's ass (can we still do that in the #metoo era?), which is actually real but no faith is necessary to hold an opinion on the matter.
Only a philosopher will ask. 23 pages on transubstantiation and nothing happened. We can pin a link to this thread next to the word "useless" and let that be a definition by demonstration.
I stepped away a minute and a few pages went by, so sorry if I've missed a point here or there.
I'd draw a distinction between faith generally and religion specifically. To the extent there's an underlying current of "physicalists and Catholics both rest on faith at some fundamental level, so neither can assert greater validity," I don't find that at all persuasive. To a large degree, the foundational beliefs of a physicalist (or someone generally non-religious) are things like there being an objective reality that is knowable through our senses, as opposed to fairly specific and structured claims like transubstantiation. If attempting to decipher the nature of reality, I rely upon my senses and reason and you rely upon the five books of Moses, surely you can see that we don't just have different foundational anchors, but they are of a significantly different type altogether. My point being that I am relying upon some fairly basic means of acquiring information, whereas you are relying upon some old book, and I therefore can say that we are not using faith in the same way.
I also don't find it all useful to refer to the antiquity of a doctrine to determine its validity, nor do I think it matters much how many good or bad things a faith has cast upon the world when assessing its value. Religion generally, and most certainly Catholicism, is as much a political institution than anything else, and just like a government can feed the hungry, it can engage in wholesale murder. Its success or failure to speaks also to its political pull in gaining and keeping adherents, not to its inherent rootedness in truth. It's clear that there are all sorts of religions worldwide with tremendous diversity among them, many thousands of years of old and many with hundreds of thousands and even millions upon millions of followers. Surely they can't all be right, which would indicate their being right has little to do with their success.
The question isn't whether it has nothing (as in zero) to offer. The question is whether its fundamental beliefs are true, from the resurrection to transubstantiation. It takes no hubris for me to say those things are false. It takes blind faith for you to say they are true.
But sure, if the Catholic Church had a food drive, I might throw a can of green beans in the bin and be thankful to the Church for offering something of value to those in need. And to the extent the institution survives by offering a strange mythology to a susceptible people, I'm in favor of it, so long as it keeps having food drives and the like. But to the extent anyone should argue that the mythology has a value outside of its political influence in creating group cohesiveness, as in suggesting that the mythology must be rooted in reality, I say such simply does not logically follow.
I believe it's actually a very relevant question. What you mean by useful is very important. Many things are not useful in the sense that they don't have immediately observable results, but without them, everything falls apart.
In the Christian tradition, for example, prayer, worship, meditation and contemplation are means for the believer to get in closer communion with the Lord through His Son Jesus Christ. You may say that getting in closer communion with God is useless - it doesn't put food on the table, it doesn't make your wife happier, it doesn't make you more successful, it doesn't save your kid from an illness, etc. etc. While it's true that very often it may not directly do those things, it does help.
For example, without meditation or contemplation, you find that you lack motivation. You don't feel like going to the gym, you don't really feel like working hard anymore, you become more depressed, etc. All these things impact every single area of your life. So while the spiritual side may not play any direct role in providing what is useful, it plays an absolutely critical role in making what is useful possible for you in the first place.
So I think that without a solid spiritual foundation many aspects of life are impossible. And that doesn't necessarily require that you are a Christian, or even a believer of any of the particular religions when it comes to the box that you tick on surveys. But it does require that you are a believer in heart.
For example, the one version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Last one is from here.
So I think many atheists, including people like yourself, really do have a poor understanding of religious traditions.
From Wikipedia
The following can indicate a delusion:
The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.
Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:
It is a primary disorder.
It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.
I have indicated the parts you exhibit in bold. The ones in italics are the clear indications that you have a delusion.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, you listed to me a bunch of symptoms and shown ZERO understanding of how medicine actually works or what those words mean. Headaches are the primary symptom of brain cancer. Does having a headache mean that you have brain cancer? Probably not - and not just statistically, but also because brain cancer usually produces a SPECIFIC TYPE of headache, that is different from what you've likely experienced before as headaches. When you just regurgitate a list of symptoms, you miss all that.
Yeah this is a case in point. You have no clue what "inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility" means. That means that the person starts swearing at you, cursing you, threatening you, being physically violent, etc. That's what a delusion actually looks like. But of course, you know none of that.
Irritability synonyms: irascibility, testiness, touchiness, grumpiness, moodiness, grouchiness, (bad) mood, cantankerousness, curmudgeonliness, bad temper, short temper, ill humor, peevishness, crossness, fractiousness, pettishness, crabbiness, tetchiness, waspishness, prickliness, crankiness, orneriness
Most people who have brain cancer don't experience other symptoms prior to diagnosis.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, you listed many, and failed to understand all of them. I don't meet probably any of those, I might meet a few, but definitely not all that you've bolded.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yeah, you do have to look at ALL the symptoms, and in addition, you have to understand what they mean. Delusions are usually part of psychiatric disorders. Psychiatric disorders are manifestations which halt someone's ability to function in society, that's one key characteristic. So unless my "delusions" harm my ability to function in society, they can't be medically qualified as delusions.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes I am perfectly aware it says often. So what? That's a red herring.
The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
In other words, you can behave normally, except when your delusion is questioned.
Most people with delusions have them as a means of coping with the stress of life and the knowledge of death and an unfair world.
Persistent sad, anxious, or “empty” mood
Feelings of hopelessness, or pessimism
Irritability
Feelings of guilt, worthlessness, or helplessness
Loss of interest or pleasure in hobbies and activities
Decreased energy or fatigue
Moving or talking more slowly
Feeling restless or having trouble sitting still
Difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions
Difficulty sleeping, early-morning awakening, or oversleeping
Appetite and/or weight changes
Thoughts of death or suicide, or suicide attempts
Aches or pains, headaches, cramps, or digestive problems without a clear physical cause and/or that do not ease even with treatment
Now someone may think they meet all of them, because they don't understand what they mean. Take the first one... If you feel sad every now and again, and get a little anxious when you go out of the house, etc. you may think you have a tick for that one. FALSE. The sadness, anxiety, and empty mood described there actually mean that you're so sad that you can't bring yourself to wash, you're so anxious you can't go out of the house anymore, etc.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Those are not delusions in a medical sense.
I never made that distinction.
Yes, that's the problem. You never made that distinction, but you gave me a list used to diagnose a medical condition. Is your claim that I suffer of the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no?
You suffer from delusions. You asked me to show you that you are delusional. I did.
I asked you for a yes or no answer. Are you incapable of following directions? I want a yes or no answer to the following question:
Quoting Agustino
I gave you an answer. It's not my problem if you don't like it.
No you haven't. You said I suffer of delusions. What does that mean? Do you mean the medical condition known as delusions? Yes or no?
>:O - yes, quoting the dictionary certainly does make my point very well. You don't understand what ANY of those synonyms mean in the context of diagnosing a psychiatric condition.
I mean that you hold beliefs that alleviate the stress of knowing you will die and cease to exist. In other words, you cover up reality with your nice beliefs in order to feel better about your finite existence.
It seems that you don't know what any of those words mean in the context of THIS conversation.
Good, so you don't mean delusions in a medical context, therefore the list of symptoms used to diagnose the psychiatric condition of delusions that you provided is worthless, and that's a fact.
Now let's discuss this new assertion of yours. So it seems to me that you want to say that I hold beliefs solely for the purpose of alleviating the fear of death. Correct?
Let's start with this one: Do you not accept your premise unquestioningly (that God, the afterlife, the supernatural, spirits, etc., exist) which then has an influence on how you interpret your experiences - that these experiences are "spiritual"?
No, not unquestioningly. It would be most productive if you answer my questions before anything else though. Please try to concentrate, it will facilitate having a discussion.
Quoting Agustino
Not solely. You hold your beliefs for the purpose of alleviating the stress of knowing the world is a certain way that you don't like or agree with. Also, to make yourself feel more meaningful, more special, than your really are.
There are several types of delusions, which religion seems to overlap:
Again from Wikipedia:
Erotomanic type (erotomania): delusion that another person, often a prominent figure, is in love with the individual. The individual may breach the law as he/she tries to obsessively make contact with the desired person.
Grandiose type: delusion of inflated worth, power, knowledge, identity or believes themself to be a famous person, claiming the actual person is an impostor or an impersonator.
Jealous type: delusion that the individual's sexual partner is unfaithful when it is untrue. The patient may follow the partner, check text messages, emails, phone calls etc. in an attempt to find "evidence" of the infidelity.
Persecutory type: This delusion is a common subtype. It includes the belief that the person (or someone to whom the person is close) is being malevolently treated in some way. The patient may believe that he/she has been drugged, spied upon, harassed and so on and may seek "justice" by making police reports, taking court action or even acting violently.
Somatic type: delusions that the person has some physical defect or general medical condition
Mixed type: delusions with characteristics of more than one of the above types but with no one theme predominating.
Unspecified type: delusions that cannot be clearly determined or characterized in any of the categories in the specific types.
So religious beliefs would be a mixed type encompassing a degree of erotomanic (God loves me and is interested in my life), grandiose (I am a eternal spirit and the body is just a faulty copy of myself (imposter)), and maybe a bit of persecutory (War on Christmas when there is no war on Christmas).
Yeah, so right now you're talking to an atheist so starting out like this is just begging the question to me. Let's not shall we?
If eternal hell exists and if you are someone who is likely to be in hell in the afterlife, would hell be something to be afraid of? Yes or no?
This makes no reference to God. Clearly the delusion applies to actual human persons.
Really?
Quoting Harry Hindu
>:O doesn't sound like what you were quoting above.
Nope, not begging the question at all. I expressed something in Christian discourse, you want me to translate to atheist? It's just a question of translation. You cannot figure the meaning of those terms. Read the rest of what I wrote. You don't have to be a theist to meditate for example.
What about the meaning of words, aren't they things unseen? Or do you claim to have seen the body and blood of Christ? If you've taken part in the Eucharist, you have evidence that the items are body and blood of Christ, because you've seen them, and seen that this is what they are called. If you think that the words refer to something else, or that the items should be called something else, you are going on faith in something unseen.
Quoting Hanover
I don't see that we use "faith" in a different way. I would think that you have as much faith in modern books, like the stuff taught to you in schools, as you have in your senses, just like me. So for instance, you probably believe that things are made of molecules and atoms, though you don't sense them. And you probably believe things about the universe which you don't sense, and about historical things which you weren't there to sense. But I have very little faith. That's why I scour the books for consistency, reserving my faith for things which have been demonstrated to be deserving of faith. And, I believe that it is reasonable to have more faith in ancient books than modern books because they have stood the test of time, by demonstrating their consistency.
The thing about faith is that it is the means by which knowledge is passed from one person to the next without immediately testing that knowledge. If the knowledge turns out to be faulty, this will eventually be exposed, it will be dropped, and will not stand the test of time, like the geocentric universe. In relation to the vast amount of knowledge that was produced thousands of years ago, only a very small part has remained, the rest has been dropped because it wasn't really worthy of our faith in the first place. In relation to the vast amount of knowledge which is produced in the modern environment, we have no way of knowing which aspects will persist, and which will be dropped. Therefore the probability is much higher that the knowledge from ancient times is more deserving of our faith. Compare fragile ideas which have been in existence for two thousand years, with fragile ideas that were created yesterday. The person who created the ideas yesterday insist that they will be around for a long time into the future. Which do you think are more deserving of your faith?
Quoting Hanover
The different religions have fundamental principles which are very similar, God, communion, good behaviour, etc., especially if you allow for the different social conditions within which they exist. And if they have similar fundamental principles, then your claim "surely they can't all be right" is unjustified. Atheists like to pick at accidental differences and say "see they're all different, they can' t all be right". But look at all the different people out there in the world. Would you say "see they're all different, they can't all be human beings"?
The ones with a proven track record, obviously.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Yes, I think this is about right. There are differences between religions, but there certainly is a shared mystical core in all of them.
The shared core is one of the things which validates religion as a real thing. It is a real property of human existence. Likewise, as much as we are all very different, as human beings there is a "shared core", and it is the shared core which validates the claim that there is a single species called human being.
I very much agree.
I have expanded on that thought much more in other threads. I even started one where I tried to discuss it in depth. I made a valid point - in my opinion, theists have a more complete understanding of the nature of reality than atheists, materialists, realists, and their ilk do. It's a respectable philosophical argument with a history. My point - It is not reasonable to dismiss theism out of hand.
Knock yourself out. Have as much antipathy as you want. What does that have to do with the value of a Catholic world view? And the sins you have enumerated are small change. A few tens of thousands of lives. What they did in the new world with the Indians and slaves is the real game. So what?
Don't get me wrong, I do hold there are moral truths, but I also think some cultures think wrong is right. The same holds true of religion, and you can't arbitrarily reject those you feel are too primitive or that hold to satanic beliefs.
You're also departing the crux of this thread, and that is the question of the validity of the Euchrist. I'm pretty sure the Jewish faith, for example, rejects that to the core.
But if I call the item a grizzly bear... (and around we go).
Your test for validity uses a stopwatch, not a petri dish. Monarchies have existed longer than democracies, so let's stick with that.
One of the first principles taught to you in philosophy class, and you dismissed it, without reason, as "flawed". Some people just weren't meant to be philosophers.
That's why I got out of mathematics, I couldn't grasp what they were teaching in algebra, so I knew mathematics was not my calling.. You can't grasp what they teach in philosophy, yet for some reason you still want to be a philosopher.
This type seems to sum you up quite well, but I'm sure you won't see that irony.
I;m baffled. You said
Quoting T Clark
I'm struggling to see how that's not a statement clearly suggesting that an accurate assessment of the Church's virtues is essential to good philosophy on this subject. Apart, it would seem, if you want to conclude that the Church has little or no net virtue when all of a sudden you're claiming it becomes irrelevant. This is just fashionable fence-sitting.
As to.
Quoting T Clark
I'm speechless... A few tens of thousands is OK? How many people need to be victims of genocide for you to move of the fence, does it have to get into the millions? Or is it all made better if they do a bit of good work for charity' later on? If Hitler had done a bit of leafleting for Oxfam would it become 'monstrous hubris' to keep going on about the holocaust?
I find your dismissive lack of value for human life and dignity quite shocking. The Catholic Church killed tens of thousands of people and subjected probably ten times that amount to abuse in the form emotional and physical torture in the name of it's bullshit religion, Nothing... absolutely nothing makes up for that.
You can't buy your way out of crimes against humanity with a bit of charity work.
I am a raised Catholic. I've already set out above what I think about transubstantiation. And obviously I'm not going by faith at all. After you named it "the body and blood of Christ" we can run every conceivable test on it and establish that it's still stale bread and bad wine. So my statement actually corresponds to reality and isn't something "unseen" as it is a claim about the world as-is. I'm the one that is saying something that can be proved by conventional means. Your point can only be proved through faith which renders it a fairy tale. This is the same "really real" nonsense expounded every time people have a religious experience except that it has been ritualised.
You might have, I'm not familiar with your posts on the subject. On it's own the sentence is meaningless and not something I can really respond to. Perhaps if you link me to the relevant thread I can give you a more substantive reply as it's quite a claim. Theist seem to have an understanding of nature that you happen to agree with. That's very nice.
Why not? All theists have is tradition, a couple of anecdotes and a few books as proof. And of course faith. Mustn't forget that one. In light of the weak evidence (e.g. none whatsoever) and the failure of every conceivable philosophical argument for God then it's entirely reasonable to dismiss it out of hand. Out of "respect" for religious freedoms we just don't dismiss it out of hand, which in itself is an archaic remainder of an overly religious society.
EDIT: Oh wait, absence of proof isn't proof of absence. :-}
You're begging the question as you already assumed the existence of God and go from there. Since I don't accept the premise, the argument is unnecessary to be considered. And yes we can meditate but you specifically related those things to becoming closer to God. I don't ascribe to that either. As a result we cannot have a meaningful discussion on the subject.
What do you obtain by meditating? That - whatsoever you call it - is what I call getting closer to God.
I see you're not very cultured. It's a conditional statement. If X is true, then Y. Do you know the truth conditions of a conditional statement? Obviously not, because if you did, you would know that if X is false, then the conditional X -> Y is still true.
It's not a matter of being cultured. I was a believer the first half of my life. It's a matter of being logical and reasonable.
IF hell exists, would I be afraid of it? Sure, I'd be afraid of hell, the God that wants to put me there for the simple infraction of not believing in it's existence, and of people like you who agree that I should be put there for not believing in their stories for which there is no evidence.
Isn't the existence of hell a big IF? You say that you don't accept it's existence unquestioningly, but if you are changing your behavior as a result of you believing it does exist, then that is a true symptom of a delusion. You are changing your behavior based on an IF, for which there is no evidence of it's existence.
Oh so, you're not actually getting closer to God, since he doesn't exist but you're just calling it that?
No. Questioning someone's premise for which there is no evidence is not indicative of having a grandiose delusion. It IS indicative of having delusions if you go about believing in things, unquestioningly, for which there is no evidence in order to make you feel better in the face of things for which there is evidence.
So you don't believe that you are an eternal spirit and that the body is just a faulty (sinful) copy of yourself? If eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist, then what it the point of a body? What is the point of a soul when all that does is make me a faulty copy of myself?
Okay. Thanks for that admission. It was a simple yes or no question, you could have answered it sooner and avoided all this dragged conversation. I'm not trying to ask you difficult questions.
Now onto the next part.
If the existence of hell would be a source of fear, then couldn't someone be an atheist and disbelieve in God so that he can go on under the delusion that there is no hell in the afterlife and not have to worry about it now while living his life? I mean you certainly have a nicer night's sleep knowing that whatever you happened to have done, nothing will happen in the afterlife.
This would be exactly like the theist who, because he is afraid of death under your conception, hearkens unto the notion of God. So too the atheist, because he is afraid of responsibility and being held accountable for what he has done, hearkens onto the notion that there isn't a God.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Right, and you too - you're changing your behaviour based on the if that God doesn't exist. You claim that the theist believes in God because he is afraid of death and mortality, while the theist claims that you disbelieve in God because you are afraid of hell. So either position is as much a delusion as the other based on the criteria you have offered.
All this shows is the limitation of thinking that either position is intellectually based on fear, as if there couldn't be rational reasons for believing or disbelieving. So this psychologising is kindergarten level philosophy. We have to go beyond those stupidities and finger pointing if we want to gain a deeper understanding of the issues.
You have no clue what "God exists" or "God doesn't exist" means, so don't try to talk in languages that you don't understand. Go back to the experience of meditation.
Affirming with your conviction that there is no evidence (which is actually a negative) is much more likely to be a delusion than not. You can say that you have not personally found the evidence, that is different than saying there is no evidence. Because, how do you know there isn't any evidence?
Are people who never heard of God and hell delusional? Once they hear of God and hell, but see no evidence for it and reject it make them delusional?
Who told you eternal spirits don't need bodies to exist? As far as I'm aware, Christianity talks of a BODILY resurrection of the dead, so, by all means, it doesn't suggest there are spirits without bodies around.
Did you read, for example, Genesis? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve did have bodies. So the body in its natural state is holy, it is meant to be a temple for the spirit, and together the two form the person.
?
How do you know there isn't any evidence that unicorns exist? Do you live your life based on all the claims that have no evidence? Why do you change your behavior based on just one claim that has no evidence, and not all the others, which have the same amount of evidence - none?
You change your behavior based on the IF of God's existence, but not the IF that unicorns exist?
Is that a fact, or your opinion?
I have not found evidence that unicorns exist, but there might be horses with horns somewhere in the Universe, how am I supposed to know there aren't? :s However, whether there are or not, isn't very relevant to my life. Whether there is a God, on the other hand, is a lot more relevant.
Yes, until the bodily resurrection of the dead.
In other words, you made up a story, for which the only evidence is an ancient book written by people with no access to the knowledge we have today, and is filled with slavery and murdering people who's only "crime" was believing in a different God. Is The Lord of the Rings evidence that elves exist?
There are two different issues at play here. Short analogy before I answer:
Plato talked about a "true falsehood". A true falsehood is something that is believed in your heart, and thus makes you ACT falsely. A regular falsehood though, is something that is just words - that isn't believed in the heart. So if you study yourself, you will probably see this distinction - there are things you believe in your heart, and they reflect on how you act, and then there are things that you believe just in words.
That distinction is important here. Because "God" and "hell" (as words) are referring to experiences. They are not self-referential - you don't find the meaning of those words by reading a dictionary entry. And it is their propositional content that is important, not the words themselves. So someone can absolutely never have heard of "God" or "hell" and yet still know what God and hell are. I'm sure there are even atheists who have this knowledge.
So the answer to your question is no - not necessarily.
Quoting Harry Hindu
If they just hear the words? Words must be understood first. That requires understanding their referrents within experience, not just being able to cite dictionary definitions. So if they just hear the words, don't understand and find no evidence, then they are not delusional. But if they do find evidence, which they reject, then they are indeed delusional.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Have you read the Bible from cover to cover? I can suggest to you a series of videos that explains it quite well. The Bible is formed of different literary genres, so it's by no means meant to be taken literarily. And the Bible is just one source of revelation - Apostolic Tradition is another, and personal revelations are yet another. So when trying to find the truth, you're looking for evidence being affirmed by all sources of revelation, and, where possible, also by reason. If there is a conflict between reason and revelation that must be resolved.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Sure.
To give an example of this.
A true falsehood is if you believe that your brother had sex with your wife (for example) and you rush and kill him, even though he hasn't actually done it.
A regular falsehood is when you're delusional because of high fever and want to commit suicide, and I tell you that this pill is a euthanasia pill, while in truth it's just an anti-anxiety medication. I have told you a lie, and you will act according to the lie, but it is not a true falsehood because you don't misinterpret the correct nature of reality - which you would do if you were to commit suicide.
I'll take this personal attack and your failure to answer the question as an admission that your earlier points were silly.
Then tell me - what does "God doesn't exist" mean?
And it's not a failure to answer a question. It's wisdom. You don't go around answering stupid questions. If I asked you "are you still beating your wife?" would you answer it?
Quoting Agustino
So that's why, actually struggling and trying to understand so that you can ask good questions is important. If you just come with a destructive attitude, you cannot make any progress in understanding the other. Not any question that you can ask is a good question and merits answering.
The only conclusion to be taken from the above is that you did assume the existence of God, otherwise the question wasn't silly. In which case you were begging the question. QED.
Quoting Benkei
The only conclusion to be taken from your statement above is that you did assume the non-existence of God, otherwise your question is stupid. In which case, you were begging the question. QED.
When you stop playing childish games like that, please get back to me, otherwise, it's really a waste of time for both of us, and doesn't get us anywhere.
I'm sorry, I meant to make an illustration by analogy, not to insult.
Quoting Hanover
The argument is an argument from probability, it is not an argument from necessity. These are two different types of arguments applied to different types of subject matter, just like inductive and deductive are two different types of logic, used for different purposes. That the argument is a different type from what you are used to, does not make it a flawed argument.
When I was in high school I may have considered the principles of algebra and trigonometry as flawed because I was having difficulty understanding them. The lack of a concrete referent troubled me, so I could not proceed to the level of abstraction required because I was unwilling to accept the articles on faith alone, I needed to understand through concrete reference. The teacher did not provide concrete reference, because the time for concrete reference was grade school and I was supposed to be far beyond that. I now recognize that my unwillingness to accept these principles on faith did not make those principles faulty, but it did make me a bad mathematician.
Faith is one of the methods which we employ in our approach to the unknown. When we apprehend someone as authoritative we may be inclined to accept on faith what is given to us by that authority. Another method of approach is probability. When the solution to the problem at hand cannot be known, we judge the likelihood of success in various solutions, and proceed on probability.
Plato demonstrated that virtue is associated with how we approach the unknown. Courage for instance is an approach to the danger within the unknown, which involves a judgement of risk, in today's term, "probability". To judge all forays into the unknown as risky, leaves one without courage, cowardice. And inversely, to judge all such forays as without risk leaves one as rash. The capacity to judge such probabilities (risk) correctly is courage, and courage is a virtue. So Aristotle described virtue as the mean between the extremes.
If an individual is unwilling to accept the articles of faith, this person still requires an approach to the unknown, in order to maintain one's status as virtuous. That approach is the approach of probability, likelihood. When you reject the approach of probability, as you did when you said these arguments of probability are flawed, this makes you a bad philosopher, just like my rejection of the articles of faith made me a bad mathematician.
Quoting Benkei
After you run all your test, you still have the issue of what qualifies as "stale bread" and "bad wine", your definitions. This is necessary in order to make your judgement as to whether the test results are according to the definitions. That these terms ought to be defined in the way that you define them is something "unseen".
And by the way, I don't assume the existence of God in such a discussion, I assume the POSSIBILITY for the existence of God. If God's existence is impossible, a priori, then you could adopt your attitude, but you haven't shown that to be the case.
So if you want to have a discussion, you must assume the possibility of God's existence too. Otherwise, no discussion can be had.
Open a dictionary, try using language on an everyday basis. No faith involved. Although admittedly your language use is getting increasingly idiosyncratic.
I wouldn't believe the my brother had sex with my wife without evidence. Your words are evidence, but not proof. When someone claims something, I need more evidence.
I cannot give you evidence, as I said evidence is found in your own experiences. God isn't something or someone that can be shown in a photograph, the way I'd show you a gazelle, or a black swan. And even then, you could say that the photograph doesn't correspond to something that exists in reality, but was altered with Photoshop, etc. So some faith is inescapable to live in the world. Whatsoever knowledge is transmitted to you requires some faith to be accepted.
Quoting Harry Hindu
My claims are with regards to the cumulation of my experiences, which includes time spent studying Christianity, the Bible, Buddhism, mysticism, philosophy, and other such subjects. So I am trying to convey you my experiences through words. I cannot make you, through those words, to have the same experiences. You have to do the work yourself, as it were.
Fair enough. I admit that that was a bad example. I can admit that I'm wrong. You have yet to do that - a symptom of being delusional.
Let's use another example. How do you know that your god is the right god? There have been so many devised by human beings. There may be evidence that a god other than any devised by humans exists, so why don't you change your behavior based on that? Isn't it because you were raised in a family that believes in that particular kind of god?
No, it requires logic and reason - by integrating all knowledge into a consistent whole. God doesn't use faith and neither do we when determining someone's guilt or innocence. Faith is accepting a premise unquestioningly - a symptom of a delusion.
Exactly, you have already accepted the premise unquestioningly and made it your life's work to study this particular god.
If all you have to go on is other people's words, then how is it that you don't believe in other gods, or everything anyone says, for that matter? What of their experiences of different things than what you experience? How do you explain why we experience things differently?
So now you're moving the goal posts because at no point did you assume the possibility by, for instance, saying: "meditation could move one closer to God, were he to exist". Instead you put it out there as a fact. Also, you and I both know you don't assume the possibility since you have faith in his existence.
As far as I'm concerned there is no data or observations available to rationally assume the possibility as it is as likely as the existence of unicorns. So if you want me to entertain the possibility, get me data or observable facts. Until then any discussion about God, his properties or my relation to him is indeed moot.
Sure, I've done that many times.
Quoting Harry Hindu
God is a referent to something or someone that can be experienced. So I know that my God is the right God because I experienced Him. This isn't to say that the Christian God is the real God, and the Muslim God is the false God, etc. No. The word "God" in all religions refers to the same underlying reality, approached through different manners and understood to different extents. Catholicism for example freely admits that salvation is possible for Muslims, for Buddhists, and even for atheists. I had a post about it in this thread earlier. And Eastern Orthodoxy admits the same.
So take the attitude that us Eastern Orthodox have with regards to conversion. We say come and see for yourself - try it out. "Taste and see that the Lord is good". Without that experience, you cannot know.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, my family are mostly atheists. It's true that the prevailing faith in my country is Christianity, and that did play a significant role as to why I became a Christian, and not a Buddhist, or something else. Keep in mind that religion is also a communal activity - that's one of the reasons for being a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist and not an independent seeker. I think it's best for people to delve deeper in the religion of their country, wherever they happened to be born. It is their tradition, and they are most equipped to understand it and progress most fully in it, rather than switch.
Quoting Harry Hindu
So what about the Christian God is inconsistent with our knowledge?
Quoting Harry Hindu
I haven't studied just one religion.
LOL. Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by seeing things the way I see them. You've just proved my point.
By doing that I tried to show to you that I'm referring to different things by God than you are. You refuse to accept my usage of "God", because you want to stick to whatever understanding you have of God. And this is deeper than the question of whether God exists, because that question requires that we use the same definition. So far, we're not even using the same definition (and more importantly, the same understanding) of the term.
Quoting Benkei
That is true, just like you have faith in his nonexistence. But - for the purposes of this discussion I did assume the possibility of his existence. And we both must assume that for a conversation to be possible.
I didn't make the underlined comment.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The point that I was deluded? Or what point?
Let's start with our moral codes. People call the Christian God loving, yet the Bible shows otherwise. If hell exists, that also shows that it isn't loving.
Quoting AgustinoIn other words, Christianity is a mass delusion perpetuated by the culture. By surrounding yourself with people with like-minds reinforces those beliefs, but it doesn't prove them.
You did say to "come and see for yourself". I don't understand the distinction you are making between seeing and experiencing.
I'll re-prhase, but that doesn't take away from my point:
Sure, non-believers can receive salvation by experiencing things the way I experience them. If that's not a symptom of a grandiose delusion, I don't know what is.
I don't see how this is analogous. Algebra and trigonometry do in fact have concrete references, and I agree that it's a poor way to teach to simply itemize the steps the students are to perform without offering an understanding as to why those steps must be performed. The problem I have with transubstantiation is not that the teacher has failed to provide the underlying concrete basis for it, but it's that the teacher has specifically told me that it's a mystery.
The argument is a resort to humility, to argue I should just accept there are certain things beyond my comprehension, and instead of smugly rejecting them, I should take pause and recognize it is my limitations that keep me from understanding it. If you were trying to explain to me some complex physics problem, I'd agree with you, but it's a bit hard to accept the same with reference to transubstantiation when the explanation you offer is to tell me that it's just one of those mysteries. I think a better response would be to take pause and then declare that the emperor wears no clothes. That often takes more courage than blind acceptance.
What does it mean to "come and see for yourself"? Try what out?
You're not a believer, you used to be one. So you don't understand, at least anymore (maybe you never have, I wouldn't know that) how the term "God" is best to be used, and what it refers to. I, who am a believer, am more likely, by the fact that I devote more time to study and understand this than you do, to understand what "God" refers to. So it's best if you accept the definition of God that I point to, and then ask constructive questions about it. Such as, if God is found in this experience (meditation), why does the Church insist on these particular set of rituals? Why do I have to say I believe in order to be saved? Etc.
The problem with God is that I cannot point to God the way I point to a glass of water. God is not a sense experience, but more like a meaning, or a pattern, something that is subtle and must be directly perceived. So I can force you to experience a glass of water and become aware of it, but I cannot force you, on command, to experience God.
Have you read the Bible from cover to cover?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Depends. According to Christianity, the gates of hell are locked from within. God cannot force people out of hell against their own will - at least He can't if He is loving and respects their free will.
To experience it.
Same thing. I made no reference to you when I said non-believers can receive salvation.
Saying that virtually 90%+ of people (an estimate of the religious) who have ever lived were deluded is indeed a form of grandiose delusion.
The problem is that you assume superiority in your position. It would make as much sense to argue that you should open your mind to the enlightenment of atheism by someone who insists they have had ineffable experiences of the lack of a supreme being as it makes for you to argue the opposite.
And I think this conversation has changed objectives to something far more moderate, which is simply to argue for the possibility of a higher power, which, from my perspective, is far more defensible than arguing for the validity of transubstantiation. The vagueness of what God is allows plenty of room for acceptance, whereas transubstantiation is a very specific doctrine clarified by the Catholic Church that does not offer much wiggle room for skeptics to take it seriously.
But to the extent that we're now just arguing that there might be some higher power out there, there seems not to be much controversy in accepting such a claim other than by pretty committed atheists. I'm not saying atheists have nothing significant to say in that regard, but I do know that if that were the focus of the OP, we wouldn't be in the 28th page. It was the outlandish attempts to defend transubstantiation to a secular crowd that generated the discussion.
You said atheists can even receive salvation. I consider myself an atheist. The only way to receive salvation is to experience what you experience, which means to see things the way I see them.
What you are saying is no different than fundamentalists Muslisms, who say that you have to experience things the way the do in order to receive salvation. What you are saying is that you have the truth in your experiences - and that in order to get at the truth, you have to experience what I experience - a symptom of a delusion.
I didn't say all atheists will receive salvation or can receive salvation.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't see how the last part follows.
Quoting Harry Hindu
In order to know what "water" means, you must experience water no? That's no delusion, that's quite sensible.
What age will we be when ressurected? Bodies age, will we continue to age?
What about what happened before we were born? Were we non-existent? What is the point of being born and to die just to be ressurected? How did you come by this information? Have you asked any of these questions of yourself, or do you simply believe in this stuff unquestioningly?
Exactly. My point is that in order to receive salvation, one must experience things the way you experience them. In other words, we must simply accept your own understanding of your own experiences and hope that ours is like yours without fully knowing what your experience is.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, now try that with god. What kind of experience should I have to know that it is god?
Then you need to explain your distinction between seeing and experiencing.
I assume that I know better what the word "God" refers to, and I've cited why. So at the very least, my definitions (or the believer's more generally) ought to be accepted as a starting point. I don't think there is much room to doubt that someone who devotes more time to one particular topic - say God - generally understands it better than someone who never devotes much time to it.
Quoting Hanover
I, personally, made no mention of a "higher power" as of yet, as that is another thing that requires definition and must be sought for within experience.
Quoting Hanover
What actually happened in this thread was that the secular crowd rejected the definitions (and understandings) of transubstantiation offered by the theistic crowd, and therefore they've been off-topic all along. The statement transubstantiation happens and the statement transubstantiation doesn't happen are both true at the same time, since there is an equivocation on the word transubstantiation.
A symptom of a grandiose delusion.
Quoting Agustino
It looks like he still doesn't see his problem, Hanover. He knows better what the word "God" refers to, you ignorant dolt.
I devoted my entire first half of my life to God. I was saved, baptized, read the Bible, went to church, and I still ended up rejecting it when I opened my mind to other alternatives, which included other religions, philosophies and science, that didn't carry all this unnecessary and contradictory baggage. How do you, Agustino, explain how people who have studied it, come to different conclusions?
Bodies age in this world, as things stand now. We don't know how it will be in the afterlife.
Quoting Harry Hindu
We don't remember anything, so I take that as we didn't exist. Scripture makes no reference to this state.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Who said just to be resurrected? The point was to live in communion with God, and be an image of God on Earth. But man sinned, and things spiralled out of control. God was faithful to mankind and has kept saving and protecting man, and ultimately guiding him towards redemption. That is our history.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Scripture, Apostolic Tradition, personal revelation (experience) and reason.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Sure.
Quoting Harry Hindu
What makes you think you or Hanover know better what "God" refers to? I cited reasons for making this claim, so that's by all means not a delusion. Do you disagree that the fact that I spend more time than both of you combined studying this topic likely means I know more about it than both of you combined, at least with reference to what "God" refers to?
Citing reasons doesn't mean that it isn't a delusion. Delusional people cite reasons for the beliefs all the time in order to maintain the delusion.
Do people who study astrology really know more that those that don't? You might say that they know more about astrology, but is it real knowledge?
Whether it's real knowledge or not doesn't change the fact that they do know better than those who don't study astrology what astrology-specific terms mean or refer to.
Quoting Harry Hindu
So you disagree with the reason given? Based on what considerations?
That didn't answer my question about what age we will be when ressurrected. Why wouldn't it be different, if our bodies are still the same, just ressurrected - whatever that actually means?
A contradiction.
If it's not real knowledge, then how can you say that they know better than others?
It will very likely be different, since creation is in a fallen state now, and after the Resurrection it won't be. How it will be different, it hasn't been revealed to us. Some people, including in the Church, do have opinions, but those are just opinions. I'm personally of the opinion that bodies will not age in the afterlife. If you want, I can explain to you why I think so.
Know WHAT better than others? What the field-specific terms refer to? They know that better than others because they frequently use those terms and try to understand them (while others don't).
So, they know what the terms mean, which is to say that what they refer to, but the things that they refer to aren't real, wouldn't you agree? So, again, how is it knowledge if the terms they use refer to non-existent things - like the influence of the planets and stars on your life?
And what about the 72 year old Muslim, or Hindu, who has studied their religion their whole life and disagrees with what your word, "God" refers to? Your argument suggests that they know better what the term, "God" refers to. You seem unwilling to admit that there are others that have studied "God" more than you and have come up with a different idea of God, or that it doesn't exist at all - a symptom of a grandiose delusion.
Correctness in language use is totally faith. The fact that I can remove myself from good faith and get idiosyncratic if I want, demonstrates the reality of this. You seem to already recognize this so I don't see why I need to tell you.
Quoting Hanover
If you think that the reasons for making the particular steps which are made, in these mathematical proceedings having concrete references, then I think you are hallucinating. The reasons why the steps are performed, are complex, often ambiguous, and in no way constitutes a concrete reference; just like the Church's reasons for performing their rites cannot constitute a concrete reference. In mathematics, the reasons for the steps of procedure being as they are, are extremely vague, and sometimes completely arbitrary. That the circle has 360 degrees for example, is completely arbitrary.
Quoting Hanover
That these symbols, 1,2,3, etc., are the symbols which are used, to signify what they do, is just as much of a mystery, or more, as the mystery of transubstantiation. But that does not incline anyone to loose faith in the use of these symbols. So I really don't believe that it is the simple fact that transubstantiation is a mystery which inclines you to have no faith in it. I think that there is something else about it that you do not like, so you refer to this "mystery" as a scapegoat, an excuse to reject it. It's as if I didn't like mathematics for some reason, so I turn to the mystery of why "2" is used, and why "3" is used, and why all the other symbols are used, instead of some other symbols, as an excuse to reject the proceedings of mathematics for being based in something "mysterious". The very act of having faith is the means for accepting that which is a mystery. To withhold faith from everything which is a mystery would produce the ultimate skeptic. You don't appear like the ultimate skeptic, so I think your withholding of faith is not really because it is a mystery.
Quoting Hanover
The argument is that your rejection is unjustified. If you are so smug in your rejection, that demonstrating this to you requires humility, then the blame for this humility is your smugness, not the argument.
Correctness in language use is a matter of correspondence with reality. Or use in itself and convention, or whatever other theory you'd like to adhere to. Faith isn't involved as these are things we can observe. People say "goodbye" or point to the "moon". We can try to ascertain whether they correspond with reality or we can ascertain that the convention exists. In your case, I simply pointed out the idiosyncracy of claiming "faith" is involved when deciding something is bread or wine. Hmmm... guess what! These are observable facts! Amazing! No faith involved.
Depends what the terms are in question are.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's not non-existent things. I imagine they must make predictions based on the planets and stars that the state of my life. Those predictions can be verified, once you understand what they are and what they mean.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Depends on the particular person. Study time is necessary to know better, but not also sufficient.
And I doubt they'd disagree. As it has already been said by multiple people in this thread, there is a mystical core that all religions agree to in one way or another. They may disagree about the path to get there, but not about the destination.
This isn't the starting point for a conversation about God, it's the ending point. What you've done here is no different than it would be if I simply declared myself an authority on any subject, declared I knew better than you, and then proclaimed that you should defer to me for guidance. That posits you as Socrates, where I suppose I'm supposed to listen carefully to your comments and questions and try to obtain your wisdom. Anyway, this entire line of conversation hinges upon the fallacy of appealing to authority, although in this case, you appeal to yourself as the authority. Quoting AgustinoI don't agree with this. We've all been relying upon the Catholic definition of the term throughout.
I really don't understand this comment. I could draw you a unit circle, show you tangents and whatever else you need if you really want me to graph out the basis of trigonometry. That the measurement system is arbitrary (360 degrees as opposed to 100 degrees in a circle) hardly impacts the validity or usefulness of the conclusions. And, even to the extent that mathematics is abstract, it hardly puts it in the same epistemological class as religion.
The best I can decipher this argument is that you're saying that the world's a complex, confusing place, and there are things none of us understand in the physical world, so it's just as acceptable to posit religious truths as explanations. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
The reason "2" means 2 is because someone declared it a while ago. How's that mysterious? The reason we refer to transubstantiation as "transubstantiation" is for the same reason. That's not where the mystery lies. The mystery lies in how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
My point remains that your argument was from the point of view that we ought be humble regarding those things we don't understand and try to understand them. The concept of humility when faced with otherwise preposterous beliefs if often presented by theists as the best way to try to understand them.
So I go to a number of different Catholic churches and observe that the items are referred to as body and blood of Christ, so I ascertain that this convention exists. You perform your tests, and insist that the items are stale bread and bad wine. Why should I accept your unclarified claim that what you say "corresponds with reality", over the convention of the church, which are very clear. Your claim of "corresponds with reality" is just a covert appeal to convention with your definitions of bread and wine being nothing but convention. I am very suspicious of such covert activity so I prefer the Church's position where the role of convention is fully exposed, and not concealed by a claim of "corresponds with reality"
You don't need The Lord of the Rings. Just follow these instructions:
1. Pick any item that you know exists.
2. Call it "elves".
Now elves exist. Impressive, huh?
Without the measurement system, there is no procedure. You cannot proceed without accepting on faith, these arbitrary assumptions, the numerals. You could draw me circles, and whatever shapes you like, showing me how they are related, but these are useless without the numerals.
Quoting Hanover
The argument is that faith underlies all we do. To reject something simply because it is faith based, is an unjustified rejection.
Quoting Hanover
You haven't quite stated the analogy properly here. We interpret "2" not as 2, but as having a meaning, "2" has a meaning. The meaning is roughly one individual is grouped with another individual, to make a unit, and this unit of distinct individuals is signified by one symbol, "2". That is how I interpret "2", maybe you don't interpret the meaning in exactly the same way as I do, but we do not interpret the meaning of "2" as 2 because that is circular and it doesn't give us any meaning at all. Further, the reason why "2" has such a meaning is not because someone declared it as such, but because this belief is upheld, and this is faith.
You interpret "transubstantiation" as "bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died thousands of years ago". As is the case with "2", the reason why "transubstantiation" means this is because the belief that this is what it means, is upheld, and this is faith. You say that it's a mystery as to how bread becomes the flesh of a guy who died a thousand years ago. I say that it is a mystery as to how one individual is grouped with another individual to make one unit. Why are they one unit under the symbol "2", which is what is declared in mathematical proceedings, and they are not two distinct units, as the meaning of "2" indicates? Now how is your mystery any more mysterious than my mystery?
I don't think so. In order to determine whether God exists or not, then we must first agree on a definition. If you go back as far as Socrates and Plato, you will find that before going any further, any philosophical discussion must agree on definitions (and that doesn't mean purely agreeing on the words of a definition, but more importantly on their meaning). For how can we answer the question of whether there is a God or there is not a God if we don't first agree what God refers to or means?
The problem here is precisely that atheists don't want, by sheer will, to agree with the definitions provided by the theists. The theists aren't interested to discuss the strawman God (or transubstantiation) of the atheists on the other hand. So no progress can be made. I told you to accept the definitions of the theist, for the sake of progress, and because, the theist studying these aspects of reality more, is likely more aware than you what God refers to.
Quoting Hanover
That's not true, but if you want to discuss transubstantiation or God, you must agree with the definitions of the person you seek to combat in this case, or otherwise make clear why you disagree. Without agreeing to the definitions you are actually discussing something different.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, we've been using the same words, BUT with different meanings. That's exactly the problem. You understand by "literal change" something different than I - or other believers - understand by a literal change.
No, that's not what is being said. You have to go to the propositional content of the words. When you call any item that exists as "elves", assuming that others adopt that usage of the word elves, that means that elves has taken on the propositional content of whatever item you have picked. So when used in those particular contexts, elves now refers to whatever that item refers to. Elves could also have other meanings (referents) in different contexts - in the context of Lord of the Rings, it refers to particular humanoid characters which have certain traits.
And no, Lord of the Rings isn't evidence that elves exist, the same way that the Bible isn't evidence that there was a literal flood of water in Noah's day that covered the whole geographic surface of the Earth.
But the Lord of the Rings is evidence that, for example, power corrupts, the same way that the Bible is evidence that immorality is self-destructive. You have to understand the literary genre of what you're reading. If you read the Bible like an asinus (much like many incapable New Atheists or fundamentalists are doing), taking it as a book of latest physics, you're going to miss the whole point.
Agreeing to the theist's definition of terms is a slippery slope when the definitions themselves allow for zero disagreement once accepted. If an unbeliever is foolish enough to agree terms, then they've already lost and will only proceed down a rabbit hole.
Why do you think so? In order to have a conversation with a physicist about quarks, I must agree with his use of the term quarks - namely that quarks are the smallest known particle, and they have such and such properties which can be detected in such and such ways. If we don't start from his definition of quarks, then whatsoever I'm talking about with him will clearly not be what he means by quarks.
I may very well think, as a non-physicist, that quarks are pink balls or whatever, but that's irrelevant. To have a conversation with a physicist, I must accept his definition. So likewise, to have a conversation with a theist about transubstantiation in this case, the atheist must accept the definition of transubstantiation that the theist provides. This seems entirely natural.
You can define it, but I don't have to believe it. One issue in this thread is the suggestion that defining it entails believing it to be real, which is dubious.
Where was that suggested?
This is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it suggests that the theist has some superior method of understanding God, as if the skeptic lacks the capacity at the same understanding, that the skeptic hasn't spent just as long as the theist in considering these issues, and that the skeptic might not have reached a very different conclusion than the theist. It's also very wrong to think that there is some monolithic thought process among theists, ignoring that the definition of God that one theist might have from another may vary widely even in the same church and same pew on any given Sunday. And, of course there are very different views from one church to the other, one denomination to another, and certainly one religion than another. Then there are those who take the idea of God very seriously but who find that no religious doctrine does it justice and who find that the study of religious literature is not the avenue to enlightenment in that area.
Your assertions that you know exactly what God is and that you stand with some authority on that question speaks loudly that your views bear no relation to my own, as I see one's relationship with God as personal, subjective, unprovable, and unverifiable by definition. To present God as this object fully subject to a complete knowable definition candidly feels to me like you have no idea what god is, but are instead just trying to define another object. Consistent with what I've said though, you may have that belief, and it is certainly yours to have, but it offers nothing for me, seems overly simplistic, and by positing yourself as a guru of sorts, it makes it impossible for me to take you seriously.
Quoting Agustino
By literal change, I mean not symbolic. The bread is the same in substance than it was before and after the prayer.
I'm not following your argument that "arbitrary" = "faith." I don't see the correlation and I don't understand why I can't accept that we use all sorts of arbitrary symbols to describe reality without having faith.Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
There are foundational beliefs that anchor us into reality, sure. We might accept that our senses report to us what is occurring in the real world, and we might accept that reason and logic provide us insights into reality. Those foundational beliefs might at some level have to be accepted on faith, simply because a foundational belief can't have a further foundation; it's the origin of our belief.
If you're saying that your foundational belief is whatever the Catholic Church happens to tell you is true, I'd say that foundation is a much less rudimentary foundation than mine that no doubt relies upon many other more rudimentary beliefs, thus making it not truly foundational. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
You find it mysterious why people notice similarities among things and group them into categories?
Sorry. I don't understand what you're trying to say. I went back and looked at what I wrote and I can't figure it out.
Quoting Inter Alia
You didn't read my post carefully. Actually, it's significantly worse than you say. I said the church, in complicity with Spain, is responsible for the deaths and slavery of millions in the new world. So, do we say that Spain has no value? How about Great Britain, Germany, the US, etc., etc. They are all responsible for the deaths of millions and 10s of millions. Are they without value. Are their cultures without value.
I'm perfectly willing to accept it as reasonable if you answer "yes" to those questions, although I disagree. If you don't, then you are applying your rules in an inconsistent manner.
I can not figure how to link to one of my old posts on a different thread. The thread is called "objective reality vs. the Tao". I'll go learn how to link.
Doesn't make sense to start this discussion up again here. If you want to open a new thread, I'll participate.
I don't agree with the understanding of nature theists have. Did I say that? Is it an ad hominem attack if I call you Mr. Snooty-pants?
I've already responded to your comment.
Quoting Benkei
Yes, I agree. And when you and I are in charge, we can stomp religion out. We'll get the NSA to do something really useful for once.
If some deity of theism existed and wanted me to know it did, or had critically important messages for me, then it would have no problems what so ever letting me in on that.
Isn't that what qualifies something as a deity in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, non-deceptive, trustworthy, etc)? And, ex hypothesi, such a deity would be the only authority on its messages. It's not like I'm strangely "resistant" or anything, and such a deity would know that already.
Meanwhile, I'm certainly not going to take all the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans for it. Why would anyone? (Could anyone, even, given all the incompatibilities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, ...?) Requiring other humans to indoctrinate me isn't something I'd expect of a worthwhile deity. No, that's just gullible, biased, non-thinking tomfoolery. (Perhaps akin to delusion, as mentioned by @Harry Hindu.)
Where does that leave things? Those claims can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. What's the simplest coherent explanation?
You wrote
Quoting T Clark
and
Quoting T Clark
From those statements I understood that;
1. To come to a discussion without understanding the good things the Church had to offer was the sign of a bad philosopher (virtually word for word what you said). It seems then completely prejudicial to say that bringing to the discussion all the bad things that same church has caused is pointless, "so what?" as you put it.
2.You suggest that, were we talking about Nazism, this would somehow be different. i.e an accurate assessment of the net harms/benefits of the institution would become relevant. After all, Nazism brought full employment, security, gave a lot of people hope and a sense of identity but you're implying that, were we talking about Nazism, we would not have to bear these benefits in mind alone because they would be outweighed by the atrocities, and yet you seem unwilling to carry out the same calculation with Catholicism.
3. You feel something, directly resulting from being Catholic (or some other theist position), provides an enlightenment about reality (from your last statement above). This means the question of Spain (I understood the reference, by the way), Great Britain, Germany etc is irrelevant because you're not claiming that something intrinsic about being Spanish, British or German provides any benefit unavailable to other nationalities. Were you to claim such a thing I would indeed point to the atrocities carried out by these countries as evidence against such an argument, so there is no inconsistency in the application of my rules. If the enlightenment you're referring to still encourages people to engage in genocide then I'm not interested in it.
Basically, I'm struggling to understand why mention of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church (or any other religion) is constantly being stonewalled on this thread.
Quoting Benkei
Quoting Hanover
Quoting T Clark
My understanding was that the question centred around why someone would have the faith they do in something as seemingly inexplicable as transubstantiation. Answers given seem to revolve around the fact that faith in Catholicism is not like faith in unicorns or Santa Claus because the catholic church is a meaningful organisation. An assessment of what it means to be part of the catholic church seems to be the crucial next step in that discussion, but everyone seems to want to avoid that in favour of a further 6 pages of "I believe this...well I don't...well I do...well I don't" ad infinitum. If that's what you guys enjoy, I will leave you to it.
I don't disagree with what you said after you stated your disagreement, but that doesn't change anything. You're just preaching to the choir and missing the point. Of course, if I were to call my cat "elves", then, in this language, which I'll call "Sapienglish", "elves" would "take on that propositional content", i.e. it would mean my cat. That's just meaning as use, which I have stated my agreement with. But Sapienglish is not English as we know it, it's just a made up language.
Now, if you relate this back to what Metaphysician Undercover is doing, hopefully you'll see the problem. Benkei was right to draw attention to the idiosyncrasy of his language use, and I was right earlier on to question whether Metaphysician Undercover was speaking English, despite that being taken out of context and used against me by Buxtebuddha in a fairly successful attempt at character assassination. Metaphysician Undercover is not, despite the appearance, speaking the same language as the Eastern Orthodox Church. This is your own church, yet your inclination seems to be to jump to his defence, despite the implications of doing so, perhaps because you associate yourself with him as part of the theistic crowd, which you contrast with the secular crowd which you associate with myself and others. Tribalism can be an unfortunate distraction.
Let's pick some astrological terms then:
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/astro_gloss.html
Take your pick.
Looking at those terms, is seems to me that astronomers, use many of those terms as well, and would know what they mean. It's only astrologers that add more "meaning", that can't be falsified, and therefore can't be predicted. Horoscopes are to general to mean anything. Reading horoscopes of other signs that I am not indicate that I share traits of all of them, not just one.
Quoting Agustino
This is an appeal to popularity - a logical fallacy (tell me how you are using reason to get at your truths again). At one point in history, most people believed the Earth was flat and at the center of the universe. Did that make them right? This is just evidence of a mass delusion. Most humans fear death, including atheists. It's just atheists have rejected or haven't succumbed to the delusion the fear feeds. We accept our finite existence and get on with our lives as atheists understand better than any theist the value of life. An afterlife diminishes the value of this life, the only one we have. Imagine how much more precious this life is without an afterlife.
Watch this video. This video was done in Brazil, which has the largest number of Catholics in the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUD4cuTQn2E
The people in the elevator experienced something different than what a scientifically-minded atheist would experience. Why?
Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? You're simply misconstruing the meaning of your experience based on a faulty premise.
Quite right.
I also think that @Inter Alia was onto something when he mentioned fashionable fence-sitting and apologetics. Prejudice against that which is associated with New Atheism might be another factor. It's like some people find it so distasteful that they overcompensate, tiptoe around certain subjects, and give credit where it's not due.
It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree.
You can think what you want, doesn't make it true.
:s so you think a scientifically-minded atheist would not be afraid in that situation? Fear is a normal reaction when strange, out of order events happen. That event was out of order. If the elevator stops, electricity goes out, and then you find that another random person is inside the elevator who wasn't there before wouldn't you be scared? I'd be very scared, and I might even attack that person out of fear. Becuase I just wouldn't know what happened. Maybe someone hijacked the elevator, some psycho, and they're trying to kill me. How am I supposed to know in just a few seconds reaction time?
I wouldn't necessarily assume it was a ghost, but by all extents something abnormal is happening. I would definitely assume that.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No. It's because an event that they didn't expect - actually multiple events that they didn't expect - happened all at once. So they were confused and afraid because they couldn't understand what was happening. Anyone would be afraid, regardless of religious convictions.
If it's not readily apparent to you that the use of arbitrary symbols requires faith, then you may not grasp this even with an explanation. But it's very simple. There is a reason why you use the particular arbitrary symbol which you do, rather than some other arbitrary symbol. The reason is that you have faith that the other person will understand better, what you want to say, by your use of that particular symbol rather than some other. Since the symbol is arbitrary, there is no other reason for you to use it except that you have faith it will get you the desired result, the other person will understand you. All communication is based in faith.
Quoting Hanover
I think you're just talking out of your hat here. You seem to have no idea as to how faith is foundational to knowledge, as you do not even seem to realize that faith is necessary for the use of symbols. How do you define faith? I would define it as confidence inspired by trust. Do you agree with this? If so, do you see how faith is necessary for communication to succeed? And because communication depends on faith, that's why deception is so easy for those with the will to deceive, because trust is taken for granted when we communicate.
But deception rapidly destroys the capacity for communication because the deception becomes evident, and we loose faith in those who demonstrate deception. That is why it is impossible that transubstantiation is deception, because it has persisted. We might have a start toward understanding each other if we begin with this point. If we can agree that it is not deception, because it has persisted, then we can proceed from here. Is it just an old club, with an odd use of symbols for purposes other than communication, like mathematics is, or is it something else?
Quoting Hanover
I didn't think you'd understand what I was saying there. I'll explain it again. We have a symbol "2". What 2 means is that there is one distinct object and another distinct object, two distinct objects. But in mathematical proceeding, the symbol "2" refers to the number 2, which is taken as one unity. So in it's true meaning, it means two distinct objects, but in the proceedings of the mathematicians, it refers to something contrary to this, one unity. How is it possible that 2 means two distinct things, but it also refers to one unity which is known as the number 2? Either there is two distinct things symbolized by 2, or there is one unity symbolized by 2, but to claim both is contradictory. But this is what is the case, what 2 means is completely different from what 2 refers to. So how this contradiction can be what is the case, is no less of a mystery to me, then what is a mystery to you, that "body and blood of Christ" means some guy who died thousands of years ago, and also refers to the objects of the Eucharist in the proceedings of the Church.
First off - thanks for a thoughtful reply.
I think bringing up the bad things the church has done is fine, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion. Are you saying that there is something intrinsic about a belief in God, or, more specifically, the Catholic God, that leads to atrocities? It seems like you are. I go back to my Spain/Germany example. You don't buy it, but I think it's appropriate.
Quoting Inter Alia
My point was that Nazism is a doctrine which is inherently vile while Catholicism is not. As I said, you appear to disagree with that. I did not intend to do a cost/benefit analysis. I was looking at Christianity and Catholicism as ways of seeing the world. It's not the way I see the world, but I can see it's value. A lot of people I like and respect, including my wife, are Catholic.
Quoting Inter Alia
I'll say this, but as I wrote in a response to Benkei, I'm not interested in pursuing it in this thread. To me, the world - all of it, everything - is as much human as it is physical. I don't mean that in a mystical way. I am not positing any supernatural forces or entities, although I'm not explicitly rejecting them either. I can make a good, rational case that that position is completely consistent with a scientific view.
Quoting Inter Alia
In what way am I stonewalling? I just don't believe that it's relevant to the question at hand.
Quoting Inter Alia
I don't find the idea of transubstantiation any more inexplicable than quantum mechanics. I don't have any belief or understanding that it actually happens, but I also don't put any energy in believing that it doesn't. Belief in the tenets of the Catholic faith is a whole world view that I see as having value, even though it isn't my way of looking at things. Believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny are not.
I'm guessing you won't find my response satisfying, but I enjoyed the chance to think this through better for myself.
I realise it's not necessarily the discussion you wanted to have here, but I feel like your considerate responses deserve a better explanation than perhaps I have been able to give so far. The reason I think the atrocities of the Church are relevant are to do with trust.
We take virtually all our understanding of the world on trust. even if we're lucky enough to be a cutting edge scientist, that will only be one field and we'll be reliant on the integrity of the rest of our team. For the rest of us, we just trust scientists to explain the world, some of us trust religious leaders also. But this does not make us blind, we can still apply our rational (and emotional) insights to help us obtain pragmatically true theories from these people, that insight is in the form of judging whom we trust. I trust most scientists to provide me with explanations about events in the world to help me make decisions in my life. I trust them because they have not (as a mass) demonstrated anything other than a desire to obtain reliable, useful theories. There are some branches of science I don't trust, like medicine, there have been a number of problems raised with impartiality and the influence of the big pharmaceutical companies whose motives are clearly profit, not knowledge. There are many other examples, but on the whole I trust scientists because they seem reasonably decent people.
So when a priest tells me that the wafer has somehow become the body of Christ, I don't dismiss the information as obviously nonsense just because it sounds a bit unlikely (as some here seem bent on doing). My personal understanding of physics and it's limits is simply not sufficient to make that decision. But what I can do is try to understand the motives of the person or institution telling me, their character, their trustworthiness in this. This is where the Catholic atrocities come in. When I hear that this institution has previously allowed torture and murder, currently allows child abuse to go unpunished, subjugates women, ostracises homosexuals and refuses to help fight AIDS, I question whether this is the institution whose explanation I'm going to take on trust in this matter.
The alternative explanation (that the wafer remains a wafer) comes from secularism. Secularism is not an institution, nothing overall good or bad has been done in the name of secularism, they seem to be just ordinary people. It's not that I can't see any reasons why they might want me to accept their explanation, but as there's no institution behind it, I just take the individual's trustworthiness into consideration. Hundreds of people I've met seem to think the wafer is just a wafer, they're all just ordinary people, none of whom are engaged in covering up child abuse, or torturing people so they seem on the whole a lot more trustworthy. I know there are loads of really good Catholics, and I mean no insult to any of them, but they're not independently providing me with their explanation, they are acting on behalf of their institution, so it is their institution whose trustworthiness I need to judge.
So basically, I think judging the character of the person or institution providing the explanation you are considering is absolutely crucial to the process of deciding whether to adopt it or not and I'm afraid the Catholic Church has overall failed to demonstrate its trustworthiness in this matter, for the reasons I've given.
To equate the idea of transubstantiation with quantum mechanics in terms of inexplicableness, is to suggest that they're equally explicable. I think that the only way that you could find the idea of transubstantiation to come anywhere near quantum mechanics in terms of explicableness is if you disbelieve transubstantiation and could explain it in great detail by delving into why there's no good reason to believe it and why lots of people believe it nevertheless. That would indeed require a lot of energy if we are to grant your equivalence, given that quantum mechanics is a topic which is so complex that there's enough there to fill an average-sized book and yet still have only scratched the surface. But going to such a great length is simply not necessary in the case of transubstantiation. This sort of thing requires little more energy than the energy required in explaining why you don't believe that there's a celestial teapot or that the content of the tale of St. George and the dragon corresponds with historical fact. (The only factor that distinguishes these sort of claims from those that we've been discussing is popularity. The claims that we've been discussing are more popular because they're central tenets of organised religion, which is of course very widespread. But that can be counted in their favour no more than it can count (or could have counted) towards the favour of witchcraft, flat earth theory, the geocentric model, luminiferous aether, and so on). It's not rocket science!
Actually I think the tale of St. George slaying the dragon is factual. Is there something wrong with that? :B O:) >:)
You're forgetting that the "other random person" was a little girl, not a big scary dude.
If it were me, I wouldn't react that way. I may be confused at first, but not fearful. I would then begin looking for an explanation as to how the child got into the elevator. Because I know that ghosts and zombies aren't real, I would probably start to think this was a prank.
Things happen all the time that I don't expect, but that doesn't make me fearful. It makes me inquisitive.
I don't know what New Atheism is and how it is different from just atheism. Is what I've been arguing "New" atheism, or just atheism? I don't know of any "new" way of rejecting claims that can't be falsified.
If there's a reason I use "2" and not "3" for 2, then "2" is not arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is that it is not based upon a system or reason, but it's just random or whim. Not every symbol is arbitrary, but some are based upon prior similar usage (as when we adhere to roots) and some languages attempt to make the word look like the thing it represents (like hieroglyphics). Regardless, though, I would agree that whatever the basis for why we have chosen a particular symbol, the typical user has no idea what it is. All of this is terribly irrelevant though because none of this requires any degree of faith. The reason I believe "2" represents 2 is through empirical evidence. Every time someone uses "2," I know they mean 2. If someone starts using "2" to mean 3, I'd correct the person because it would be contrary to what I empirically knew to be true, and the argument would consist of empirical examples of usage.
This reliance upon empirical evidence is not limited to language usage, and I wonder why you've chosen to use it as example, but it is used to know most things about the world. And, as I've said, I fully acknowledge having faith in the truth of empirical evidence (and in my ability to reason) as those things are foundational to any understanding of the world.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
I think you've defined "belief" and not "faith." I would define faith as belief inspired by something other than proof. It is a belief often the result of spiritual apprehension but sometimes the result of necessity. Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
This categorization of two dogs as two objects and then on the other hand categorizing them as a group isn't mysterious and has nothing to do with transubstantiation.
Right, so isn't "empirical evidence" reliant on faith? The nature of time is such that whatever is empirical evidence, is now in the past. isn't it necessary to have faith in our systems of memory in order to claim that something empirical (in the past), is evidence to a present matter?
Quoting Hanover
You have claimed already, that this type of faith, having faith in empirical evidence, is a different type of faith, or a different sense of the word "faith", from faith in religious services. Let me see if I can draw out that difference. In the service it is declared that these items are the body and blood of Christ, but the empirical evidence is such that "the body and blood of Christ" refers to the person who died years ago. If I understand you correctly, you have more faith in the memory systems which provide the empirical evidence that "body and blood of Christ" refers to the person who died, than you have faith in the person performing the service saying this, which was bread and wine, are now body and blood of Christ.
In the one case, you refer to memory systems and have faith in the ability of the memory system. In the other case, one has faith in the ability of the person to describe what is occurring at the present time. It appears to me, that faith of the first kind, also requires faith of the second kind, because what happened at that time, had to be described. So faith of the first kind (faith in empirical evidence) has two levels of faith, faith of the second kind (faith in one's ability to describe what is occurring), as well as faith in the ability of the memory system.
So it appears to me that you have faith in the abilities of the people who described what occurred thousands of years ago, you have faith in the memory system employed, but you do not have faith in the person describing what is occurring now, at the Eucharist. You seem to believe that there is an inconsistency between the description thousands of years ago, and the description now, it is impossible that "body and blood of Christ" refer to these very same things.
Here's a question. If you have faith in that description from thousands of years ago, such that "body and blood of Christ" refers to that person who died back then, then what about the rest of the description, that he rose from the dead? Do you see what I mean? You have enough faith in the description to believe that "body and blood of Christ" refers to that person who died, yet you have no faith in the rest of the description. How is it the case that part of the description qualifies as "empirical evidence", yet another part does not? If the description is untrustworthy, shouldn't we dismiss the entire testimony as unreliable? Then why would you even believe that "body and blood of Christ" refer to some dude who lived thousand of years ago? And if this is the case, then there is no problem with the Church saying that these items are called "body and blood of Christ", because there is no reason to believe that these words refer to anything other than these items. There is no inconsistency in terminology. It is granted by fiat that these items will be known as "body and blood of Christ", and because this phrase cannot be reliably associated with anything else, there is no conflict.
Quoting Hanover
I think that "proof" is far too ambiguous here. In logic, "proof" refers to valid logical proceedings, but this leaves the matter of the soundness of the premises. What counts as a sound premise is debatable and what qualifies as "proof" is relative.
Quoting Hanover
How two things become one, just by looking at them in a different way is very mysterious to me. But what is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things. However, this is very relevant to transubstantiation, in two different ways. First, we have two different things, the guy who died, and the items of the Eucharist, and they become one under the name "body and blood of Christ". Second, we have the bread and wine, and the body and blood, two different things which become the same thing under the name "transubstantiation". So what is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things, but they are actually one and the same thing, and that is how it is the case that two different things become one and the same thing. I find that very mysterious. What is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things, but depending on how we look at them they are one and the same thing.
I don't particularly trust scientists. I don't particularly distrust them either. I do, conditionally, within limits, trust science. I put my conditional faith in scientific consensus. That, I hope, washes out corruption, incompetence, and self-interest.
Quoting Inter Alia
I have no problem with your opinion on this, it's just not one I share. I can't defend Catholic doctrine because it's not a world view that I find useful for myself. On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that Catholics have a similar attitude toward the church as I do about science - they see the connection between what the church teaches and their own understanding of the world.
Quoting Inter Alia
That's kind of a stretch. The objection to religion comes from rationalists, materialists, realists, and yes, scientists. That's one of the reasons there are limits on my trust in science. Science lacks the vision to see alternative understandings of the world as valid.
To me, transubstantiation is interesting as an idea, a belief, as part of a vision of the world. It's not an understanding I share. I do put energy into understanding how other people view the world. I was going to say that I just don't have an opinion, but that's not quite right. Or that I don't care whether or not it's true, but that's not right either. I can't imagine you find this explanation, if that's what it is, satisfying.
Quoting Sapientia
I said I don't find them any more explicable. I believe that quantum mechanics is as good a description of how the world works as any we have now. That belief is based on my understanding of the scientific consensus. But when it comes down to explication, QM doesn't explain anything. It just describes what happens in certain situations. Physicists make scrambled eggs of any attempt to actually explain it. If I were a Catholic, transubstantiation might be the same. Neither is more or less inconsistent with common sense.
Quoting Sapientia
The only factor that distinguishes these sort of claims from those that we've been discussing that you can see and accept is popularity.
Thanks for your response, and my apologies for the delayed response.
I never suggested that the theist has a superior method of understanding God or that the skeptic lacks capacity to achieve the same understanding.
Quoting Hanover
I did suggest this, but the truth of this claim is quite evident for two reasons:
(1) The theist considers God to be, probably the most important topic, while the atheist and skeptic, since they disbelieve the existence of God, according significantly less importance to the study of God.
(2) If you look at the stats, you will see that the vast majority of philosophy of religion philosophers are theists (72.3%). This is the opposite of overall philosophers, where most are atheist (72.8%). What this shows us is that theists tend to study God (and hence philosophy of religion) significantly more than atheists, especially since the pool of all philosophers contains more atheists than theists. (stats here)
It's entirely obvious to me, and almost undeniable, that theists will understand, on average, the notion of God much better than atheists granted the two reasons provided above, one logical and intuitive, and the other empirical and statistical.
Now I understand if you don't want to accept this claim. I just put it forward hoping that you will accept it so that we can move from this point to other more relevant points. But if you reject it, that's not a problem. The claim isn't essential to my argument.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
EDIT: ooops I forgot to respond here.
While there are significant differences between Churches in terms of rituals, practices, ways of worship, etc. there aren't many significiant differences between conceptions of God, especially amongst theologians. Take a thomist and a scotist. They may disagree on a lot of metaphysical issues, but they don't by and large, disagree on the notion of God. Muslims may disagree that God is a Trinity, but they will not disagree that God is One - which Christians also believe, hence Triune (trinity + one). Etc. So disagreements are minor, and agreements are more profound.
Quoting Hanover
My assertion isn't that, it's simply that I have a more accurate notion that the atheist, that's all. So my knowledge is probably terrible - but that terrible is still much better than your average atheist.
Quoting Hanover
I agree with you to some extent, hence why rational knowledge that can be achieved of God is only partial and never close to complete.
Quoting Hanover
No, the bread is precisely not the same in substance. The doctrine claims that there is a change in substance, but not in the properties. Here is what substance means:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm
Hence why the mystical experience of which I have spoken of at first is absolutely necessary to understand transubstantiation. The substantial change is of a mystical nature - the inner nature of the bread and wine changes, in other words, their significance. But to perceive that, you must experience the mystery - there is no other way. It is useless to put it into words when the experience is lacking. Words can only be taken on faith.
Sure. You're not talking theologians here, you're talking about divinations and other forms of peasant claptrap. If anything, Christianity is largely responsible for the elimination of this type of superstition. Nietzsche understood as much, hence he labelled Christianity as nihilistic.
Here's what Montaigne had to say:
And really there's tens if not hundreads of other philosophers which bother to make this point. If you don't bother to read these sources, I can't help you.
Quoting jorndoe
>:O - as if the deity was like a bearded human living in the Sky. So pathetic. Again, we're not discussing the peasant understanding of God. You have to step up your game.
Quoting jorndoe
If a deity told you the Truth, then what free will would you have? None. To know the Truth is to act the Truth - and that must be a free choice. So when God "hardens the hearts" of unbelievers, it simply means that He does not reveal Himself to them, in order to allow them to freely choose their unbelief. If he revealed Himself, He could force them to believe. As Pascal said:
Quoting jorndoe
Yep - again this is the common-folk superstition that you're talking about, not theology. Nobody told you to accept that.
Quoting jorndoe
The simplest coherent explanation is that there would be no fake doctors if there were no real doctors.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Please read these links.
Quoting Sapientia
If meaning is use, dictionary definitions are meaningless. You said you accept that meaning is use. So read how the term is used by the Church.
He might be, why are you telling me?! I've never backed MU's argument for that matter, and I haven't even followed it that closely. I do agree with him on some of the shorter points I've seen him make and which I've read.
QM explains a lot. It solves problems and answers questions. The whole of QM is one big explanation. So I find your claim that QM doesn't explain anything completely absurd at face value and wonder whether you mean something else.
What other distinguishing factors do you think that there are with regards to transubstantiation, the resurrection of Christ, and the examples I gave? How about this one? It is a customary expectation to give the former special treatment, such that they're treated with more respect, and so as to give them credit were it would not be given in comparable examples.
Just giving you a heads up.
I don't expect you to agree with me. I've been generally staying out of discussions with you because you are impenetrable. Unwilling to even try to imagine that there are other valid ways of seeing the world than yours.
That means you want me to do work. Which means you'll have to wait >:)
I was talking about Hinduism (which includes some polytheist varieties), Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses), Islam (Sunnis, Shias), Mormonism, Scientology, you name it. All those there that people get assimilated by and start taking seriously.
Quoting Agustino
Seems the Muslims have taken over, where the Christians left off?
Quoting Agustino
Looks like an ordinary non sequitur to me. But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ...
Quoting jorndoe
Quoting jorndoe
... for me to take any one of them more serious than any other. But there's no such arbiter.
You start talking about something you call "Yahweh", you don't show Yahweh, Yahweh doesn't show, all that's left is your talk. Others talk about something they call "Vishnu", they don't show Vishnu, Vishnu doesn't show, all that's left is their talk. Yet others talk about ... Exactly as if Yahweh, Vishnu, etc, are fictions. I wonder why... Don't you?
I also observe that there are little-to-no means of differentiating existence of all these entities (and their characteristics, plans, demands). It's all equally dubious. Exactly like grandiose stories told by fallible (obsessed) humans.
Quoting Agustino
I'd say we can differentiate fake and real doctors. Differentiating fake and real fantasies, on the other hand, ... :D
Non sequitur. This literarily has nothing to do with what you've quoted.
Quoting jorndoe
So I'm supposed to take you seriously because you've shown an aptitude to populate your posts with irrelevant links?
Quoting jorndoe
What? :s
Quoting jorndoe
There is no record to set straight. The mystical kernel is very similar amongst the religions, with differences being, for the most part, just differences of expression. Man has had a relationship with the divine from the very beginning of times.
Quoting jorndoe
Yeah, I'm not that mystified that some call it "snow" others call it "schnee" or "neige" or even "?". What's the big deal with that?
The fact that the experience of God is subtle and hard to find is something that is known across all the religions. The talk is the finger pointed towards it, not the experience itself.
Quoting jorndoe
What makes you think there are multiple entities? That would indeed be absurd. I think you really do have a first-grade understanding of religion. It's really becoming pathetic. You're like a child trying to speak a language he cannot understand. It's better to stop doing that, and try to understand only one religion deeply first. That might give you the insights you need to understand the rest too. You're like a little boy who has learned a few words in French and thinks he's now able to have a conversation in it.
Quoting jorndoe
Yeah, apart from you thinking they are fantasies, you haven't provided any other evidence. Your inability to become aware of certain aspects of existence isn't shared by everyone else.
And it's a bit disingenuous to tell others what they're talking about.
Let me know if you want to stick to the post.
Anyway, incidentally watching the mass in Rome; those folk are big on transubstantiation, unlike, say, the Jews and the Muslims.
Merry Christmas!
Sure the Jews and the Moslems don't have the doctrine in the same manner, but they sure do have equivalent doctrines. The point of transubstantiation is that man can come to share, by grace, in the Divinity of the Trinity - ie, God became man so that men may become gods. Doesn't the same doctrine exist in Kaballah or Sufi mysticism? Of course - the essential point that man can share in a divine essence (though not in the sense of his essence becoming one with the divine essence) is there.
None of the differences you've mentioned are profound differences. A profound difference is a difference in content, not merely in language. For example, such a difference is on reincarnation between the Christians and the Buddhists - though even there things are debatable (ie, what reincarnates - cause Christians would agree that atoms and matter, and maybe even desires and tendencies reincarnate).
That's why I said your post is a joke. It's not even worth the effort for me of addressing each of those petty little points. Nobody - no academic - stoops so low as to discuss at the level you want to carry the discussion at. That level displays a profound misunderstanding of religion. For example, you don't even understand what transubstantiation means - you literarily have no understanding about the content of it, you just repeat a string of words. You find a different string of words in Islam, or in Judaism, etc. and then you go like "Oh see, irreconcilable differences, they can't all be right!". You don't understand what those words mean, so you have no clue at all if you find a similar doctrine expressed through different words in another religion.
If your post was submitted to any academic who deals with comparative religion, you'd easily get an F.
Merry Christmas!
In due time of course. Why, were you thinking to contribute when these matters came about?
I think people, especially those who identify with New Atheism, generally fail to distinguish between the religious, social and political aspects of organized religion. Ignorance of anthropology and forgetfulness of the point that all organised religion has its origins in mystical hierophanies contribute to this "low-quality" debate.
That is why all discourse remains at the level of conflicting organized religions and fails to grasp the process through which these organized religions came to be in the first place. As such, it is very likely that where there was initially unity, through the process of solidification and ossification of dogmatic structures meant to preserve the teachings (a process that translates an experience into language), there arose irreconcileable differences.
Once we are at the level of organized religions, it is absolutely essential to disentangle religious, social, and political aspects from each other. You mention the proper method of baptism. That isn't a religious aspect, so much as it is a socio-political one for each church. The religious teachings of Christianity establish Baptism to be a matter of the heart - it has nothing to do with any ritual hosted by any church.
For example, one version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
Last one is from here.
And this is acknowledged by the Orthodox Church equally. So at this religious level - or even mystical level if you will - there are virtually no disagreements. However, when it comes to "the proper method of baptism" - that is no longer a religious issue at all. It is a socio-political one. Different cultures, different churches, etc. have their own ways, and they each think their way is the most appropriate way to illustrate & convey physically the mystical change of baptism. To support their independence, they must stand by their own ways. Furthermore, there is a political element, in that every church wants its own variant of the proper method of baptism to be followed, since it can grow its power and number of adherents that way.
So the schism in the Christian church were really socio-political matters, not religious ones. Even Martin Luther, he mostly disagreed with the way the Church was behaving as a socio-politicial organisation, not otherwise.
Other matters such as burning witches, etc. (which jorndoe makes allusion to, thinking it's a knock-out blow or something) were again not religious matters, so much as they were socio-political ones. So it must be remembered that organized religions don't solely have a religious function, but also a socio-political one. The goal of the socio-political structure isn't just to sustain the religious function, but also power, influence, and survival - and to achieve this, any means can be used. In this regard, an organized religion is no different than a political party - the people in charge control the socio-political decisions taken.
Even if you go back to the Bible, to people like Abraham, they were still sinners. Abraham gave his wife to other men because he was afraid he would be killed multiple times, and asked her to say she is his sister. Indeed, Abraham displayed a very developed talent for politics. So if even Abraham can do that, how much more can a pope commit atrocities when at the head of the Church?
Quoting Agustino
The difference between Lutheran theology and liturgy isn't all that different from Roman Catholic. Some Lutherans take pride in their Catholicity, others not. It depends which social group in Europe their tradition originated in, and then what happened when it was transplanted to the United States. And those changes were often more clearly social or political, and only somewhat religious.
It isn't just nouveau atheists that fail to understand the "religious, social and political aspects of organized religion." Both ardent and wishy-washy Christians get confused about this too (here speaking of the American religious experience). To compose a figure of speech, the church is located in an inter-tidal swamp between God on the one hand and society on the other. Twice a day the swamp is swept back and forth by tides and drainage off the land. God and society are thoroughly mixed up in the church.
In his sermon this morning Pastor mentioned a Pew Research study that was in the news about the change in percentages of people who believed in several aspects of the Christmas story:
A) angels appearing to the shepherds
B) the virgin birth
C) the star leading the 3 kings, or 3 wisemen
D) the manger scene
Belief was surprisingly high (in the 40-55% range), but falling slightly since the last survey. Pastor H. pointed out that these elements of the story were not central to the meaning of the Incarnation, which is what Jesus' birth is about. (The reading for today was from John, "In the beginning was the Word...) Christians have difficulty sorting out the significance of mangers, mysterious wisemen, angels & shepherds, frankincense, immaculate conceptions, and a woman who is still virginal after delivered a baby. The idea that the author of a gospel had good reasons to embroider the Incarnation story sounds like either an attack on the truth (for those who take it literally) or proof that the whole thing is a crock, for those looking for an exit.
The change from the priest facing the cross and a wall during the eucharistic ritual to facing the congregation didn't go down well with some, and those people are still unhappy about it, decades later. Everything is supposed to stay the way it was 50 years ago, or the foundations begin to shake.
Most Christians don't recognize that for their individual church operation, the tail of real estate (upkeep of the church building) is wagging the dog of their religious mission--especially when a congregation shrinks in size, and isn't using the building very much. Give up the holy white elephant building?
N-O-T -A- C-H-A-N-C-E!
The existence of a building with a congregation's name on it is proof that they are a real church.
Though December 25 marks the beginning of Christmas in the church calendar, the secular calendar marks midnight 12/24 as its end. Christmas Day is just a rest up for the year end post-Christmas sales drive. And reports, of course. Lots of people have reports to turn in by 12/31--or worse in years like this, 12/29.
Your thesis that all organized religions are essentially the same, whatever religious essence might be, is anything but obvious, and very doubtful. There are far too many religions to suggest it's possible to distill a few unifying truths and to also not require discarding critical distinguishing elements. That is, Judaism is not in essence Christianity.
That is true, although there is a slight difference here. These ardent & wishy-washy Christians usually do have a degree of epistemic humility and openness to the mystical side of religion that atheists don't.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree.
Quoting Bitter Crank
The problem with these religious surveys is that when people answer them, most of them don't really understand what they're answering if they answer "yes", "no", "maybe", etc. To truly understand these matters does require a degree of theological education that most people don't have. So then it quite often ends up being one of those cases where the person thinks "I know I must answer this", but aren't quite sure why.
It is almost a given that when you're looking for the essence of something you will discard accidentals. The fact that such a universal unifying core exists is proof enough that religions have been grappling with what is essentially the same hierophanic phenomenon. So when atheists bring up the point that religions are all different and therefore they can't all be right, they fail to understand the significant portion in which religions are actually not different.
For example, sure Judaism disagrees with the Trinity. So what? It doesn't disagree at all with the overarching narrative. The Trinity is indeed a religious doctrine (not a socio-political one), but that is almost at the very peak of possible mystical experiences and direct revelations, and it's not a truth that is available to all. So it's quite possible that Judaism either has not perceived that experience in which the truth of the Trinity is grounded, or they have, but they don't express it through the doctrine of the Trinity - instead, expressing its inner meaning through a different doctrine.
Quoting Hanover
Sure, of course not. But they're both attempts at grappling with the relationship between man and his divine ground and do bear significant common ground with each other.
I don't subscribe to the idea that essences exist. There are only particular traits that once fully subtracted leave the object at nothing. I understand the need to invoke accidental and essential properties when discussing the doctrine of transubstantiation because the Church relied upon those concepts when forming the doctrine, but I don't find it useful or persuasive as a metaphysical theory.
It is not a fact that a unifying core exists. If Christianity is right, Judaism is wrong. The fact that missionaries knock on my door is evidence someone doubts the ultimate legitimacy of my beliefs.
Quoting Agustino
And it is not only possible, but probable, that they find the triunity an incoherent attempt to save Christianity from polytheism. And the Mormons accept the trinity as three different entities, rejecting the triunity and embracing a form of polytheism.
And what is more essential to Judaism than the first commandment and monotheism, yet I am supposed to believe polytheistic religions that worship idols are essentially all the same?
Quoting Agustino
Which is only to point out that the word "religion" means something and there must be something similar for us to catagorize them in the same bucket. Are all rocks the same because they're all rocks?
That is much like saying "if Einstein is right, then Newton is wrong". It gives entirely the wrong impression since Newton is absolutely not wrong in-so-far as we're concerned with motion on Earth, or in any given portion of spacetime that can be treated as flat.
Quoting Hanover
Well, you have to remember that missionaries don't have just a spiritual mission, but also a political and social one. So by converting you to their church they achieve political and social goals much more than spiritual ones in this case.
Quoting Hanover
Well, I think that it's clear that some properties are essential to an object, while others are not. For example, a three-sided figure is still a triangle regardless of the proportions of the sides, or the color of the lines, etc. So three-sidedness is an essential property of a triangle - if an object lacks those, it cannot be called a triangle, unless of course you re-define what a triangle is.
Quoting Hanover
Quoting Hanover
An idol is often taken to be a physical object that stands in for God, so I don't see how Christianity is worship of idols - unless you take it that, for example, icons are the same as idols. But the difference, as Jean-Luc Marion explicates it in God Without Being, is that the idol traps the gaze, not allowing it to move beyond the object. Whereas the icon moves the gaze beyond itself, unto the invisible God.
With regards to Monotheism, there is still one God in Christianity, much like one triangle is one triangle even though it has three sides. So a further explication of the inner nature of God if you will isn't a denial of monotheism - it's merely an addition to it, a continuation, a further explication. Which is exactly why I've said that you can accept the monotheism, without also accepting the Trinity, without being wrong in an absolute sense.
Quoting Hanover
No, they're clearly not the same in their accidental features, of course not (and religions are also not all the same in the symbols they use, in their socio-cultural practices, and in their politics, etc.). But there must be something they have in common in virtue of which we see a resemblance amongst all rocks, and thus call them all rocks, thus grouping them together.
Jews do not believe Jesus was the son of God. I think most would agree that Jesus' position as the son of God is an essential element of Christianity. If one insists upon dividing the world into accidental and essential properties, I don't know many who would consider Jesus's role as savior and son of God as a non-essential part of Christianity. So, yes, if Judaism is right, Christianity is wrong in an essential, non-trivial ort of way. Do you not agree with this?
Quoting Agustino
That might explain someone in a leadership position who actually worries about overall numbers, but the kid in the tie on his bicycle is at my door because he thinks he has the key to truth and heaven that is lacking in whatever religion I subscribe to. Quoting Agustino
The reason we can't decipher the accidental from essential property of a chair, for example, is because the distinction isn't real. A chair that cannot be sat on can still be a chair. A four legged chair with a missing leg is still a chair, even though it sits broken on the floor. A chair in a dollhouse is still a chair, even though it serves no function of being a chair. There are a set of properties that make something a chair and it's possible that two chairs be chairs yet not share a single property. In your case of transubstantiation, you even suggested that the essential property not even be empirically knowable, indicating that essence is a transcendent property, like the soul of something, imbuing it with chairness. Like I said, I reject essentialism, which might be why I consider your suggestion that all religions share an essence unsupportable.Quoting AgustinoAs I indicated, Mormonism is polytheistic. http://www.mormonhandbook.com/home/polytheism.html This is directly from a Mormon website. Are you now declaring Mormons non-Christian? There are plenty of other religions that are polytheistic. Are you still claiming that they are essentially the same as Christianity?
If you want to really rest your argument on the accidental/essential distinction, then you are going to be required to itemize the properties you find essential to Christianity and then to the various competing religions. We will then need to see what the common essence is of all religions. That's your thesis, right? And then once we find that essence, you're going to have to be committed to the idea that any belief system with that very basic essence is just as valid as any other. Quoting Agustino
You're now rejecting essentialism and arguing Wittgensteinian family resemblance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance. If that's where you're falling on this, we're in agreement, but I think what's really happened is that you're simply recognizing the unsupportability of essentialism and you're trying to adapt to the objections being raised.
For what it's worth, I did learn that what we consider Aristotilian essentialism (i.e. "the doctrine that some of the attributes of a thing (quite independently of the language in which the thing is referred to, if at all) may be essential to the thing and others accidental. E.g. a man, or talking animal, or featherless biped (for they are all the same things), is essentially rational and accidentally two-legged and talkative not merely qua man, but qua itself.") is based upon a paper by Quine and he never confirms that view was actually attributable to Aristotle. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essentialism
I point this out because I never found the conversation about Aristotilian metaphysics philosophically significant. It's value is historical because apparently the Catholic Church adopted his views long ago when arriving at an explanation for transubstantiation. I suppose if some academic or theologian really wanted to figure out the underlying basis for the Church's position, they could go back and read the original texts. It's sort of like if I wanted to know why the American founding fathers referenced inalienable rights, I might want to go back and re-read Locke's view on natural rights since that's it's origin, but that hardly means I need to accept Locke's views. I'd just be trying to figure out where those views came from. And that is important too, if not just to point out the obvious fact that these views on transubstantiation are historically rooted as opposed to being rooted in the inerrant word of God.
And, since I mentioned Locke, he did mention primary and secondary qualities of objects, which seems another futile attempt at distinguishing properties out of objects (in his case, subjective properties versus objective properties as opposed to Aristotle's essential versus accidental). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary/secondary_quality_distinction
Of course, I agree with it, but that's besides the point. It's like telling me that if Newton's laws of motion cannot predict the movement of rays of light around the Earth, then they are wrong in an essential way compared to Einstein's theory of relativity. Sure! So what?! For all this time I was trying to point out that they have an essential core in common - on Earth, they both make the same predictions.
Christianity and Judaism still have what is essentially the exact same worldview. There even are some Jews (called Messianic Jews) who have adopted the centrality of Jesus qua Messiah affirmed by Christianity.
So my point is that you are not "wrong" in any absolute sense if you follow the tenets of Judaism or Christianity - you may simply not be completely right, in an explicit manner.
Quoting Hanover
Sure, but there are a lot of elements that go into building up that belief for him. Some of those reasons may have to do with insecurity, others may have to do with wanting to share his knowledge, others may have to do with peer pressure and social expectations, etc.
Quoting Hanover
Right, I do not doubt that they see themselves as polytheists.
Quoting Hanover
If you're asking me what I personally think, then I don't think Christianity is Mormonism. I identify Christianity with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, which were the very first organisations that arose out of the Movement created by Jesus and the Apostles. That's the original Christianity in my view.
If you're asking me what Mormons think, I think they would see their religion as a continuation of true Christianity.
Quoting Hanover
With regards to their core, in many cases this is so. Organized religions arise out of man's encounter with the divine, ie hierophanic experiences OR out of internal disagreements within one religion. The latter explains the emergence of Protestant groups or the Orthodox-Catholic schism, etc. But it is the former that is of the essence, and that is universally found across different religions.
The Jesus Movement formed because, first and foremost, the Apostles and the people who knew and met Jesus saw something worth dying for in Him - they were utterly impressed by the character and the person of Christ, and saw in Him the fulfillment of the Jewish Tradition. That was an experience of the divine, including the many mystical experiences that the Apostles had such as the one of Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus.
The Jewish religion arose out of the mystical experiences of the Jewish forefathers - Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Their encounter with the transcendent, which they termed and conceptualised as God, is what spawned the entire Jewish religion.
The Buddhist religion arose out of Siddhartha Gautama's dissatisfaction with life - or rather observation that life is corrupted by suffering - and search for a meaning beyond this, and it finishes precisely with his encounter with the transcendent which provided for the cure he was searching for.
You also seem to have a peculiarly legalistic understanding of belief. For example, someone says they believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and someone else says they disagree, they think, for whatever reason, that it's a false belief. You will conclude they have different beliefs. I disagree. That's not what belief is, especially not with regards to religious matters. I can tell you that I believe in pink flying elephants, it doesn't mean that I really believe it just because I want to assent to that proposition when it crosses my mind. To really believe it, I must believe it in my heart, which means that I must act according to that belief.
So someone who says that Jesus is the Son of God and then proceeds to rape and murder an entire village doesn't believe it - even though he may assent to the words. And someone who says that Jesus isn't the Son of God, and he's absolutely sure of it, but behaves according to the Will of God, showing charity to his friends and enemies alike, following the moral law, etc. etc. that one does really believe in Christ, even though he does not explicitly know it or acknowledge it (hence the notion of Anonymous Christian or baptism of the heart, etc.).
Do not forget that another universal feature of religions is that the consciousness of the believer must be changed by the religion. So that is what true belief is - when you become a new person as a result of the religion.
So to believe isn't the same as verbally assenting to this or that. Without the underlying mystical experiences saying that God is One, or there are three gods, etc. are empty nonsense, words without any meaning whatsoever. It is only the underlying hierophanic experiences which give meaning unto those words. So it's entirely irrelevant if one says they're a polytheist, and the other says that they're a monotheist - that's not how we're going to see if they really disagree. Those meanings must be ultimately rooted in practice and experience and life.
Quoting Hanover
I already said what is common to all (or most) world religions. That is their foundation in hierophanic experiences, their overarching narrative (a fallen state, followed by something that allows for redemption and communion with the divine), etc. How these things are cashed out in particular symbols, according to particular cultures, languages, peoples, etc. is less relevant. Prayer, meditation, contemplation, devotion, etc. - in other words spiritual practice - are common to all religions.
Quoting Hanover
Right, so then there are objects like chairs which we cannot define by a single list of necessary properties without a specific context. Then there are words like triangle in Euclidean geometry which we can define by a single list of necessary properties, which is the example I've given and you've ignored. Why is that? My sentiment was always that in the one case we really mean a multitude of things by "chair" in different contexts, and because in our language we tended to use the same word for all of them, the word chair is in effect impossible to define in a consistent way in order to cover all that we mean by chair at once, across all contexts. So something could be a chair because they have properties A and B, and something else could be a chair even though they have properties D and E (which are actually contradictory to A and B) and so on. So I think the above says more about our language, and how we chose to linguistically divide our concepts than it does about reality. It's important not to confuse language with reality.
Quoting Hanover
I do not see why accepting family-resemblances would mean a rejection of essentialism.
SEP says:
"Essentialism in general may be characterized as the doctrine that (at least some) objects have (at least some) essential properties"
Wittgenstein's point with family resemblances is that what properties are seen to be essential to a concept depends on how that concept is used (ie, meaning is use). So that doesn't mean that the concept does not have essential properties, all that means is that those essential properties depend on what place it has in a language game.
So, for example, in the context (or language game) of Euclidean geometry, being three-sided is the essential property of a triangle.
Quoting Hanover
Religions have their origin in experiences of the divine. Are these experiences all different? Probably. But that doesn't make them "not experiences of the divine" because of differences they have with each other. And I don't think this requires your acceptance of essentialism to agree with. All that you need to see is that these mystical experiences are the root of religions, and it is going back to those lived experiences that is of importance and relevance. Because otherwise, there is one God, or there are three gods aren't in any way or sense different from each other - they'd be vacuous statements. So religious discourse only has meaning with reference to these foundational experiences. The defect with the atheist arguments here is that they remain at the level of discourse, thinking that that discourse has meaning, in the absence of referring to those foundational experiences.
To look at it in a different way, religions all seek to put into words something that is fundamentally affective, a matter of the heart, and cannot be shared very well through words. What words are chosen, largely depends on the context in which the religions themselves arise. The underlying experiences are by all means not the same - but they do share commonalities and resemblances. That is why some religions may be more "right" than others, in a loose sense, in that they convey experiences more or less fully. But most religions do contain truth.
Quoting Hanover
Well if by "underlying basis" you mean how the Church came to have Transubstantiation in the first place, then it would be rooted in Apostolic Tradition and the practice(s) surrounding the initial hierophanic experiences of the earliest believers, clearly not in philosophy. There would really be no further reasons. So philosophy's job is merely the explication of those practices in a way that they can be understood as part of an overarching whole, which makes it easier to help others towards being open to and having the same experiences. When I want to share an experience with you, I tell you a story - about how it happened, what I did, how it felt, what I learned, etc. So philosophy, in this case, constructs a similar narrative that can explain the basis of the tradition. But this is not essential - the essential bit is the mystical experience and the change of heart that underlies whatever ritual is taking place.