M
Muze
Guest
OK, good… I was trying to connect the two. I know this isn’t rocket science, but… lol
- Status
M
Muze
Guest
The “why” is answered in the “how.” The various chemical and physical actions and reactions that have occurred brought those atoms and molecules to that particular state. They exist that way because of the way the physical universe has unfolded combined with the free will actions of men and God.
J
JimG
Guest
Of course transubstantiation can be said to be “incompatible with modern science.” That’s because in the case of transubstantiation, the accidents that we perceive do not match the reality that is there.
Surely it’s not only incompatible with modern science, but incompatible with common experience. And that’s a good thing, because in ordinary life we depend on the fact that accidents can be relied upon to identify reality.
And that is my point. Everything we know is known through its accidents. I have not the slightest doubt that atoms and molecules are really there, that they have a determinable structure, that we can determine reality and analyze reality through observation. I can look outside and see that it’s a sunny day, that the air is clear, the grass is green. I know all this by observation, and observation is of the accidents of those things.
The point is simply that none of that invalidates the facts of how we know. We know about reality by observation, measurement, experiment; and every piece of data that we observe gets to us through the accidents or sense perceptions. Accidents are not unreliable. They are how we know anything. But they are unreliable in the case of transubstantiation.
Surely it’s not only incompatible with modern science, but incompatible with common experience. And that’s a good thing, because in ordinary life we depend on the fact that accidents can be relied upon to identify reality.
And that is my point. Everything we know is known through its accidents. I have not the slightest doubt that atoms and molecules are really there, that they have a determinable structure, that we can determine reality and analyze reality through observation. I can look outside and see that it’s a sunny day, that the air is clear, the grass is green. I know all this by observation, and observation is of the accidents of those things.
The point is simply that none of that invalidates the facts of how we know. We know about reality by observation, measurement, experiment; and every piece of data that we observe gets to us through the accidents or sense perceptions. Accidents are not unreliable. They are how we know anything. But they are unreliable in the case of transubstantiation.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. It is obvious that the O.P, is infected with scientism. To him science is the arbiter of all truth. In his mind no one else can say anything which disagrees with his concept of scientific truth. Along with this intellectual blindness is his apparant wish to hold the Catholic Doctine of Transubstantiation up to doubt by repeating the same uninspired objections, which are all too typical of more narrow minded, and militant Protestants.
You guys are just giving him a feeling of superiority by arguing with him, for he will not agree with anything which threatens his original position.
It doesn’t matter that he has the last word. Let him have it. It doesn’t mean anything. It is his loss if he maintains it all his life.
Linus2nd
You guys are just giving him a feeling of superiority by arguing with him, for he will not agree with anything which threatens his original position.
It doesn’t matter that he has the last word. Let him have it. It doesn’t mean anything. It is his loss if he maintains it all his life.
Linus2nd
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
- Substantial forms can be seen (you and I are different in matter, but of the same form)
- Substance is not seen (it would be an Accident if it were seen)
- Substance is not material (it would be an Accident if it were material)
- Substance does not determine “how it behaves” or anything else about an object, the Substance of an object is the what it is.
- With regards to the Eucharist, he Form does not change, the Substance does (hence Transubstantiation and not Transformation)
- Science makes claims about the physical world & how it works, Substance theory is a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality; this means that Science cannot make any reasonable claim about the truth or falsity of a metaphysical claim
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Muze,
If c), What makes one atom alive and another one not? What is the atomic difference?
- Do you believe life is real?
- Do you believe that the distinction we make between the animate and inaminate is a real distinction?
- Do you believe that that which is real is necessarily something exclusively explicable in atomic terms?
- Do you believe that atoms are a) animate, b) inanimate or c) both?
If a), What makes or causes the atoms that are you to be or become “alive”? Further, how are you atomically different from a particle of dead organic matter; e.g., a piece of steak? How is the living matter different from dead organic matter or a stone?
If c), What makes one atom alive and another one not? What is the atomic difference?
R
Richca
Guest
Alberti_Devoveo: you have made some good posts on this thread but I believe you are mistaken on a couple of points you mention in this post which can only add to Muze’s confusion on the doctrine of transubstantiation.
Point 3: Substance is not material (it would be an Accident if it were material).
If substance is not material, is it spiritual then? For Aquinas, the only spiritual substances in the physical universe are human souls, the rest are material substances which includes our own bodies. A material substance is a composite of matter and form. The matter of a material substance is what makes a material substance material. The accidents of a material substance don’t make a material substance material for matter and form are not accidents of a substance. Matter and form are the essential components of a material substance. The accidents make a material substance sense perceptible. In Aristotle’s categories, quantity or extension is the first accident he lists under substance and this accident pertains to the matter of a substance. Quantity or extension is the accident that extends a material substance into 3 dimensional space as well as dividing matter into parts and thus the substance is sense perceptible. Of course, other accidents or qualities such as color make the substance sense perceptible too.
Quantity or extension is an accident of a substance because the quantity of a substance can change but the substance does not. For example, we are little infants when we are born but we are much larger when we are fully grown. However, we are the same human being or person, our substance doesn’t change.
If the substances of the bread and wine are only some kind of immaterial metaphysical substances, then indeed what changes in transubstantiation? The form only? Muze makes this point in some of his posts but I don’t think he understands material substance according to Aristotle and Aquinas nor the doctrine of transubstantiation. We believe that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist. The Church says that the whole substances of the bread and wine are changed into the substances of Christ’s body and blood. In Aquinas’s treatise on the Eucharist in his Summa Theologica, the whole substances of the bread and wine are the matter and form of those substances. Not form only or matter only but both. Consequently, in transubstantiation, the matter and form of the bread and wine are changed into the matter and form of Christ’s body and blood. By divine power do the sense perceptible accidents of the bread and wine remain. They remain without their normal subject, .i.e, matter because the only matter underlying the accidents of the bread and wine after the consecration is the matter of Christ’s body and blood. And the accidents of the bread and wine do not inhere in the substances of Christ’s body and blood.
Point 5: With regards to the Eucharist, the Form does not change, the Substance does.
The form does change as I mentioned above otherwise there wouldn’t be a change of the whole substances of the bread and wine.
U
utunumsint
Guest
I am paraphrasing info from a book by Anthony Rizzi called "A Kid’s Introduction to Physics". Hopefully I get this right. 
)
A physical thing has two parts:
)A physical thing has two parts:
*]The potential part (prime matter)
*]The actual part (the form)
The next thing is as follows:
*]Substances are things that have their own existence.
*]Properties (accidents) are things that can only exist within substances. Properties include: Quantity, Quality, Relation, Action, Reception, Place, Orientation, Environment, and Time.
When you have a change of substance, the form of one substance gets replaced, or absorbed into the form of another substance. For example, when I eat a carrot, the substance of carrot gets absorbed into my own substance. In the process, it loses all of its properties and gains all (some?) of my own. As Dr. Rizzi says “The potential of the first substance to become the second substance is what is called Prime Matter”.
Some other interesting tidbits he gives: Physics is really the abstraction of all reality to the fundamental property of Quantity. It analyzes the physical world in its most general sense, focusing on measurable forces, etc… Chemistry studies the nature of non-living substances, and biology focuses on living substances.
Speaking for myself now, I think the real temptation is to reduce all of existence to fundamental sciences. It is tempting to view humanity strictly from the view of biology (e.g. we are only animals). As philosophical discussions can go, this temptation can devolve into seeing reality only as chemistry, and then finally only as physics. But we can’t be reduced that way. We are not simple animals. We are not simply chemical reactions, axons, and neurons, we are not just a big interplay of cosmic forces. We cannot reduce what is real to such fundamental things.
God bless,
Ut
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
Aquinas makes the distinction between substance and material substance: Substance is being, material substance is the combination of matter and form.
According to New Advent’s article, it is the substance that changes, not the material substance. Specifically, Aquinas states that the Miracle of the Altar is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called “transubstantiation.”.
If I were to ask you to show me being, what would you do? What could you do?
According to New Advent’s article, it is the substance that changes, not the material substance. Specifically, Aquinas states that the Miracle of the Altar is not a formal, but a substantial conversion; nor is it a kind of natural movement: but, with a name of its own, it can be called “transubstantiation.”.
If I were to ask you to show me being, what would you do? What could you do?
U
utunumsint
Guest
I read through the link you gave. Thanks!
I take this to mean that the miracle of transubstantiation is only possible because it is God who makes this substantial change happen. All created beings are constrained by their nature to make changes in terms of material substances, unless there is a miraculous intervention. And only God has the power to alter a substance directly, at the level of being itself. This would seem to be an ability appropriate for Christ, the Yahweh (the I AM).
But also, I am thinking that this only pertains to the actual change. After the change (transubstantiation) has occurred, There is a true material substance type merging of the body and blood of Christ with the accidents (the properties - that which science can observe) of the bread and wine…correct me if I am wrong.
God bless,
Ut
R
Richca
Guest
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Yes, Transubstantiation is a miracle of God. After the change of substance there is no merging of Christ’s body and blood with the accidents of bread and wine. The accidents of bread and wine adhere in no subject. The accidents form a veil behind which is the physical, glorified body of the Living Christ. This is Catholic Doctrine. See the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Linus2nd
M
Muze
Guest
Yes.
Not sure what you mean by a “real” distinction. Something is “animate” if it consumes food and discards waste in order to sustain itself.
For the physical world, yes. There is obviously a spiritual realm which is distinct from the physical world/
You’re asking a cross category question. Whether an atom is animate or inanimate is dependent upon what molecule and larger structure it is a part of. If it is consumed as food and integrated into an animate object, it is animate. If it is then discarded as waste, then it becomes inanimate.
It’s kinda like asking if pieces of rubber are part of a car.
Participation in a system that consumes food and discards waste.
I consume food and discard waste.
The structure consumes food and discards waste.
Let’s use a cat as an example. The organization of atoms and molecules in a cat for a system which consumes food and discards waste.
Humans are unique in that in addition to the physical system, we are also spirit.
Whether it is part of an animated system of molecules or not.
M
Muze
Guest
Apparently you’re missing the point of the article. Using Aristotle’s substance theory as Trent/Aquinas do is incompatible with modern science. Thus, one must either reject substance theory and the doctrine of Trent, or reject modern science.
M
Muze
Guest
All this is fine. But it is STILL incompatible with modern science, because substance theory makes claims about the physical as it describes the metaphysical that aren’t compatible.
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
Substance theory says that any object can be broken up into two components: the material and the immaterial. The material is obviously the Accidents: the color, shape, feel, etc of an object. The immaterial is obviously the Substance: that what the object is, its essence or form or similarly defined words (not exact, mind you, but they are close enough IMO).
Now then, tell me how science, which deals explicitly with the material, can possibly refute the immaterial notion of Substance?
U
utunumsint
Guest
They use substance theory to explain a miraculous change. This is an example of faith seeking understanding. But we are still talking about something that does not correspond with the regular course of nature. It is, by definition, supernatural. And therefore not something that science can comment on.
You are setting up a false dichotomy.
God bless,
Ut
1
1AugustSon7
Guest
Which is exactly our difficulty, isn’t it?
Attaches and discards atoms, you mean.
In order to ? That’s teleology, my friend. Atoms don’t do anything ‘in order to’ anything. If you’re going to be such a reductionist, teleology has to go, too.
Apparently it is not quite so obvious for you and millions of atheists.
No, you’re confusing things. In atomic theory there is only one category for physical reality: atoms. Your body, my brain and our computers are only atoms: they are not supposed to be sneakily hiding behind some other “structure(s)” or layers or whatever of reality: they are the reality. Atoms are the structure and the (only) layer to physical reality. It’s all just atoms, baby: one or many, atoms they are.
Now you need to realize that you’re apologizing for atomic theory as such. “Food” is one of those human linguistic categories you blithely dismissed earlier as Aristotelian ignorance. You must speak in terms of atoms, which we simple-minded humans only call “food” for our own atoms and memetic “purposes”.
No; nothing I said is remotely like that.
A system? Another euphemism for your own synonym “atomic arrangement,” which I prefer. “Consumes”? You mean atoms binding with each other. “Food”? Atoms don’t eat because they aren’t alive and don’t need food. “Discards waste”? You mean Breaking Bad, er, breaking bonds with the consequence of ‘released’ atoms.
Tisk, tisk. More atomic sinning: you are atoms and those atoms aren’t alive. “You,” as we Aristotelian linguist weirdos understand it, are thus far still a linguistic fiction. But by food I take you to mean atoms and by waste you mean yet more atoms. But I am glad you realize that you are, in fact, alive quite in spite of being composed of ordinarily lifeless/inanimate atoms.
“The structure”? Oh yes, you mean atomic bonds again. Or arrangements. Or systems. Or molecules. Or… But lest just ignore that. So ‘the many atoms’ (a.k.a “the structure”) apparently “consume food (???) and disard waste”. But atoms don’t need food. And they aren’t alive. And they don’t poo, as far as I know. You really need to stop using this anti-atomic lingo. You need to learn from the Churchlands how to speak like a proper neuron machine.
Problem: the atoms aren’t alive.
Have you noticed something missing yet? How do you get from lifeless atoms to living atoms?
But apparently a collection of inanimate atoms anyways. So man, by your definition, is inanimate atoms + spirit. But what is the relationship of this spirit to the atoms?
“Animated system of molecules”? But what animates it? Maybe that spirit you alluded to earlier? And “System of molecules”? I think you mean “arrangement of atoms” as you repeated inisitently ad nauseam earlier. Your whole complaint against substance theory is that everything is just an “arrangement of atoms”. Now I am asking you to think about the implications of that.
Problem: “system of molecules” does not “animate atoms” make.
You are a physical (atomic) being. You are alive. The atoms in you either are or are not. But if the atoms-that-are-you are not alive, then neither is your body (or anyone’s, for that matter). So what causes atoms to be or become alive? Your body is alive. Your body is atoms. Atoms are not alive. So what is causing these lifeless/inanimate atoms to suddenly be the structure actively composing a single, living body; namely yours? What brings all these atoms together into one, single, unified living harmony that is you? Add as many atoms as you like. How it is they manage to collude together and become animate in even a single cell organism is still a baffling mystery.
Are you seeing why the Greeks insisted that life was an invisible and immaterial principle? You can’t get life out of dead/intert matter. Something is causing the atomic thing called you/your body to be animate and unified as one single living organism : i.e., a unity. The atoms that are you are alive somehow ; if they are not, then neither are you. Making desperate appeals to “molecules” or “structures” or “arrangements” or even “systems” is just evading the problem by adding artificial layers to atomic theory: it’s all just atoms, Muze. Atoms that, somehow, in you, are alive : because if they are not, then neither are you and neither is anything else.
M
Muze
Guest
You’re selling the definition of “substance” short. It is still part of the subject. In fact, Aristotle clearly states that the substance is the fundamental efficient cause of the subject, and determines how it behaves.
Indeed, it is this logical process that allows Aristotle to posit the existence of “substance” at all.
Short of this, there is simply no basis to claim that an “immaterial” substance exists beyond the concept that gives description to the subject. And that cannot undergo conversion.
So, if you’re going to simply take a fidiest view of “substance” then I guess that’s OK, but I don’t think you can expect anyone to take that view seriously.
M
Muze
Guest
I was referring to the definition of “alive”, but that’s fine.
If all you’re going to do is play picky technician and take everything in the worst possible way, we’re done.
My definition CLEARLY did not intend to speak about intent. The processes that exist have this effect. I could say that an Oxygen molecule gives up its electrons IN ORDER TO form a bond with two hydrogen atoms which makes the water molecule, and I’m not talking about teleology.
Guilt by association and attempting to tell me what my opinion is.
Two fallacies in one sentence.
You’re committing a category error, here. “Animate” or “inanimate” describes how something function. “Atoms” define what a thing is comprised of. If a collection of atoms in a particular structure of molecules functions in a way that sustains itself through consuming food and discarding waste, then those atoms are function in an “animated” fashion.
Another fallacy.
Yes, the modern scientist is “simple-minded”, whereas ancient Greek philosophy is somehow… not simple minded, in spite of the fact that Aristotle was not an atomist?
I believe this falls somewhere in the “ad homenim” family of fallacies. Possibly appeal to “authority.”
And since science has proven that the physical world is made up of atoms, then I’d say “apologizing” for atomic theory is probably good place to be.
(And I don’t recall ever using the term “Aristotelian ignorance.”)
It’s exactly like that. Another category error.
If you want to use that level of specificity, sure.
Another category error. A group of atoms may function in such a way that is “animate.” The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Again with the category error. The atoms may be arranged in a way such that the function in an animated fashion. Or they may not. So, to say that all atoms are “lifeless” is a fallacy.
Problem: the atoms aren’t alive.
Same fallacy. Again.
- Status