ECT Modern Science and Trent

[glassjester]

That claim isn't being made from an Aristotlean perspective. The Aristotlean metaphysical ontology has been displaced by modern science. There is no "substance" that is "human flesh" or "bread" or "tables" or "laptop computers." These things are nothing more than human invented categories to describe a particular range of molecular compositions.

And this has been the point all along. There is no "substance" that can be changed.

We can call it "matter" instead of "substance," if you like.

We do not directly perceive matter. Do we?

 

[glassjester]

If the bush and the fire were both physical, then some properties were changed so the fire would not consume the bush.

Definitely.

Same goes for all miracles, really.

 

[Tambora]

Definitely.

Same goes for all miracles, really.

IF both the bush and fire were physical. (One or the other, or both, had to change properties.)
If the bush was physical, but the fire was a vision, then the bush was in no danger anyway. (No properties changed.)
And if both the bush and the fire were a vision, then there was no danger. (No properties changed.)

I honestly don't know with certainty which was physical or a vision.
I lean toward the bush being natural and the fire being unnatural.
But if both were natural, then some properties had to change.

 

[glassjester]

IF both the bush and fire were physical. (One or the other, or both, had to change properties.)
If the bush was physical, but the fire was a vision, then the bush was in no danger anyway. (No properties changed.)
And if both the bush and the fire were a vision, then there was no danger. (No properties changed.)

I guess we can't know which it was.

Even in the event that both the fire and bush were physically real, TheMuzicMan would argue that no properties were changed, but that God simply shielded the bush from the flames.

I assume this, because it was his response to the example I provided from the third chapter of Daniel.

Personally, I see no meaningful difference between the two claims that God...
A) Changed the properties of the bush to make it fireproof, or
B) Supernaturally shielded the bush from the flames.

 

[Tambora]

I guess we can't know which it was.

Even in the event that both the fire and bush were physically real, TheMuzicMan would argue that no properties were changed, but that God simply shielded the bush from the flames.

I assume this, because it was his response to the example I provided from the third chapter of Daniel.

Personally, I see no meaningful difference between the two claims that God...
A) Changed the properties of the bush to make it fireproof, or
B) Supernaturally shielded the bush from the flames.

I know it's a rabbit trail from the OP, but I did think of that situation with the burning bush while reading through this thread.
I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

 

[glassjester]

I know it's a rabbit trail from the OP, but I did think of that situation with the burning bush while reading through this thread.
I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

It's a good example. The more, the better.

How about walking on water?
Did Christ change the properties of the water? Or did He change the properties of His (and Peter's) body?

 

[Tambora]

It's a good example. The more, the better.

How about walking on water?
Did Christ change the properties of the water? Or did He change the properties of His (and Peter's) body?

That was unnatural.

And then there is story of the sun standing still.
We could probably come up with a dozen or more examples of things with an unnatural effect.
All to no avail for this topic, as it cannot be proven or disproved by natural means (or at least none that we know of at this time).

FTR, I don't believe the bread the RCC blesses ever changes in any way.
For lots of reasons.
I can say that I am saved by grace through faith, and I have never eaten any RCC bread.
Little babies can't eat the bread.
And yet scripture says one has no life in them without it.
So I do not believe that eating flesh is meant to be literal any more than it is in these other passages.

James 5:3 KJV
(3) Your gold and silver is cankered; and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.​

Revelation 17:16 KJV
(16) And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.​

Revelation 19:18 KJV
(18) That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.​

I think "eat the flesh" means to partake of their belongings, their possessions.
And it is Christ that possesses eternal life.

 

[themuzicman]

We can call it "matter" instead of "substance," if you like.

We do not directly perceive matter. Do we?

Yes, we do. Matter is what you touch, you smell, you taste. It is the actual physical material of the universe. When organized in a particular way, it acts in a particular way, and we label it in a particular way.

Flesh, then, is a particular arrangement of matter than forms cells that have DNA. If matter is not arranged in that way, then it is not literal flesh.

 

[themuzicman]

It's a good example. The more, the better.

How about walking on water?
Did Christ change the properties of the water? Or did He change the properties of His (and Peter's) body?

The text doesn't tell us, but this is a false dichotomy. It may well simply have been the case that the Holy Spirit held him above the water.

 

[themuzicman]

I guess we can't know which it was.

Even in the event that both the fire and bush were physically real, TheMuzicMan would argue that no properties were changed, but that God simply shielded the bush from the flames.

I assume this, because it was his response to the example I provided from the third chapter of Daniel.

Personally, I see no meaningful difference between the two claims that God...
A) Changed the properties of the bush to make it fireproof, or
B) Supernaturally shielded the bush from the flames.

They key is that, if God changed the properties of the bush, then, had we taken a sample of the bush at that time, it would actually be physically different.

 

[glassjester]

Yes, we do. Matter is what you touch, you smell, you taste. It is the actual physical material of the universe.

Any interaction you've ever had with anything material, has been mediated by the senses.
You only have direct access to ideas, sensations, perceptions... not matter, itself.

To paraphrase George Berkeley's open invitation to refute Idealism: if I'm wrong about all things existing only as ideas in a mind, give an example of something that is not.

 

[themuzicman]

Any interaction you've ever had with anything material, has been mediated by the senses.
You only have direct access to ideas, sensations, perceptions... not matter, itself.

Which means I've had interaction with matter. The answer is still "yes." And this is what science tells us: That we do have interaction with matter.

To paraphrase George Berkeley's open invitation to refute Idealism: if I'm wrong about all things existing only as ideas in a mind, give an example of something that is not.

This is only an issue with an atheistic worldview.

The Theist (and specifically Christian) worldview move beyond this problem.

And if we go this direction, then you cannot even prove that Christ ever existed, much less propitiated your sins.

 

[glassjester]

This is only an issue with an atheistic worldview.

The Theist (and specifically Christian) worldview move beyond this problem.

And if we go this direction, then you cannot even prove that Christ ever existed, much less propitiated your sins.

Berkeley was a bishop in the Church of Ireland. Very, very Christian.

Anyway, you can't scientifically prove that any historical figure existed.
Why does that matter?

Is Berkeley wrong? Can you provide an example of a material thing that you have direct experience of?


I apologize for this, and I won't be offended if you don't bother to read it, but here's a better description of what Idealism is, philosophically. It's a much better explanation than anything I'd be able to come up with.

http://www.philosophypathways.com/essays/kennedy2.html


I know links are annoying - just offering it, if you're interested.

 

[themuzicman]

Berkeley was a bishop in the Church of Ireland. Very, very Christian.

I know this. But this is the problem with the view you're taking.

Anyway, you can't scientifically prove that any historical figure existed.
Why does that matter?

You're basing your conclusion upon the ability of a historian to perceive reality. If you're going to doubt our ability to perceive reality, you have to doubt his ability, as well.

Is Berkeley wrong? Can you provide an example of a material thing that you have direct experience of?

You're asking questions from a particular world view that begins with the self. It's effectively humanism in that is makes men and God equal. While it's useful at times, this is one of the fundamental issues: If you begin with man's perception, you can't actually demonstrate that anything exists.

When you begin with Theism, and go through the exercise to show that Christianity has the one true God, we can then speak of God creating man with the ability to perceive matter directly via the senses as a function of man being given dominion over the earth.

And in that world view, yes, I can demonstrate it because it is a necessary consequence of being Christian.

I apologize for this, and I won't be offended if you don't bother to read it, but here's a better description of what Idealism is, philosophically. It's a much better explanation than anything I'd be able to come up with.

I understand what it is. But it begins in the wrong place, and thus comes to wrong conclusions.

http://www.philosophypathways.com/essays/kennedy2.html


I know links are annoying - just offering it, if you're interested.

I get what it's saying, but it is inherently not Christian, and to use it to defend a supposedly Christian doctrine only shows the invalid nature of that doctrine.

 

[glassjester]

I get what it's saying, but it is inherently not Christian, and to use it to defend a supposedly Christian doctrine only shows the invalid nature of that doctrine.

I'm not using Berkeley's idealism to defend transubstantiation, per se. This part of the discussion is a bit of a tangent (although a valuable one).

To be clear, I'm far from convinced by Berkeley's ontology (it's a bit pantheist), but his epistemology is undeniable.

We do not perceive matter. We perceive our sensations.
This should hardly be controversial.

 

[themuzicman]

I'm not using Berkeley's idealism to defend transubstantiation, per se. This part of the discussion is a bit of a tangent (although a valuable one).

To be clear, I'm far from convinced by Berkeley's ontology (it's a bit pantheist), but his epistemology is undeniable.

We do not perceive matter. We perceive our sensations.
This should hardly be controversial.

It isn't controversial. It also isn't relevant, as Aquinas (and Trent) use Aristotlean ontology, not Berkley's epistemology.

 

[glassjester]

It isn't controversial. It also isn't relevant, as Aquinas (and Trent) use Aristotlean ontology, not Berkley's epistemology.

Epistemology is totally relevant here.

Do you believe that we directly perceive matter, or that we perceive our sensations?

 

[themuzicman]

Epistemology is totally relevant here.

Do you believe that we directly perceive matter, or that we perceive our sensations?

Our sensations ARE our perceptions. We have one body that perceives via the senses. You're trying to create a distinction where none needs to be made.

And you're wandering very far away from Trent, which makes a substantiation argument, not a perception argument. The fact is that Aristotle's attempt to bring metaphysics into the physical world, especially in the way that Trent presents it, is dead, superseded by modern science.

Given modern science, if the bread was literally the flesh of Christ, would we not perceive it as the flesh of Christ in some manner?

 

[glassjester]

Our sensations ARE our perceptions.

That's just blatantly untrue.
Where are you getting this?

And you're wandering very far away from Trent, which makes a substantiation argument, not a perception argument. The fact is that Aristotle's attempt to bring metaphysics into the physical world, especially in the way that Trent presents it, is dead, superseded by modern science.

I'm not straying in content, just presenting you with a terminology you might be more amenable to. You seemed very averse to discussing the distinction between properties and substances. So why not speak of matter and perception instead?

You insist that modern science would deny any distinction between sensation and perception.
That claim is objectionable. Two people often come away from the same sensory experience, with very different perceptions. We often perceive things that we haven't sensed at all (ie, dreams). And most commonly, we sense things that we never perceive at all (most sensory input is simply 'filtered out').

I invite you again to explain how you came to this conclusion (that there's no distinction between sensation and perception), and what particular findings of modern science support it.

Given modern science, if the bread was literally the flesh of Christ, would we not perceive it as the flesh of Christ in some manner?

As with all things, only if God so willed it.

 

[themuzicman]

I'm not straying in content, just presenting you with a terminology you might be more amenable to. You seemed very averse to discussing the distinction between properties and substances. So why not speak of matter and perception instead?

Because that's not the distinction that Trent makes. Trent makes a clear claim about the nature of the bread which modern science has proved false.

You insist that modern science would deny any distinction between sensation and perception.
That claim is objectionable.

Science makes distinction between sensation and perception for the purposes of discussing each, not for the purpose of separating us from reality. When our senses perceive incorrectly, that's an abnormality, a dysfunction, usually a disease.

And this is very distant from Trent's claims.

Two people often come away from the same sensory experience, with very different perceptions. We often perceive things that we haven't sensed at all (ie, dreams). And most commonly, we sense things that we never perceive at all (most sensory input is simply 'filtered out').

But now we're a very long way from Berkeley, who was speaking of sensing and perceiving real things. And the reason two people come away with different MEMORIES, is that they each have different internal priorities regarding what to remember. The filter isn't on perception, but rather on memory.

I invite you again to explain how you came to this conclusion (that there's no distinction between sensation and perception), and what particular findings of modern science support it.

OK, you've now completely ripped what I said from its context by introducing things we haven't spoken of. We were talking about sensing and perceiving in the context of actual, real bread and the idea that it becomes the actual, real body of Christ.

Unless you're going to claim that the body of Christ is just something we dream about, we're very afar afield from the discussion at hand.

As with all things, only if God so willed it.

So, now you have God literally changing the fundamental nature of the universe in some mysterious way in order to preserve Trent, which says nothing of the sort.

Thus, as of right now, you're expressing transubstantiation in a way that that is distinct from Trent, and thus, Trent is in error.