Aristotle's notion of substance

[hicetnunc]

Second, Aristotle was NOT an atomist. And that is the key difference between the two, which would make Aquinas’ use of substance theory a bit quirky, as substance is supposedly present in the subject, but the nature of the physical subject is very different between the two.

Neither Aristotle nor Aquinas thought of substance as being “present in a subject”. This is the whole point I think of where you seem to misunderstand what is meant by substance, and why I asked you earlier (to which we never got an answer) what you thought the meaning of “present in a subject” meant in reference to substance. In the Metaphysics V we read, “substances are neither present in a subject nor predicated of a subject, so that while they are the subject of other things, they themselves do not have a subject.”

The spirit is spirit.

This is simply a tautology and tells us nothing.

Muze, I have to be totally honest with you in all charity: you are way out of your depth on this. You’ve waded into a complex philosophical discussion with little more than a couple of ill-informed caricatures of substance. You’ve latched onto a combination of words “incompatabilist” and “science” in Howard Robinson’s article, and drawn a conclusion that misses the whole point of the article. You’ve repeatedly misunderstood and misrepresented Aristotle, and you clearly have no understanding of the development of the treatment of substance in the history of philosophy in the intervening years between then and now. You first fished around for an answer in Plato before being induced to abandon that mistaken line of reasoning. Then you’ve fished around for a link to elemental theory, where there clearly is none. You are unable to explain spirit and identity. You have no idea how St Thomas helped clarify some of the problems in Aristotle’s system.

But I suspect that you really only have one ideological mission here: to try to undermine Christ’s teaching on the Real Presence in the Eucharist handed down through His Church. And you thought you might accomplish that by tossing around some ill-conceived and pseudo-philosophical arguments. Most ironically, you’ve even used language that St Thomas uses is explaining substance without realising it: “the nature of consciousness and will” in explaining identity is very close to Thomas indeed. You are a closet Thomist and you don’t even know it yet.

At this point, I feel in conscience that I must “shake the dust from my feet” of this discussion with you, because I don’t think it is inspired by a genuine search for the truth. I am sure others will continue to engage with you. My own experience has taught me that those who fight most vigorously against the Church and the “hard sayings” like John 6:53 are very often at heart seeking a way in. St Paul set out to bring down the Church, and look what happened to him. Maybe you will be another St Paul! My sincere hope is that you remain here with us on these forums in the mutual search for the truth. Today is the feast day of St Justin Martyr, who gave his life for Christ around the year 165AD. He wrote, “It is not possible by either nature or by human reasoning on its own to know the reality of these things so great and so Divine. Such knowledge is only had as a gift.”

 

[Muze]

This is simply a tautology and tells us nothing.

Muze, I have to be totally honest with you in all charity: you are way out of your depth on this.

I think you see where this is going and decided that polite personal attack was a better route than having to arrive at a conclusion you don’t want to reach, especially given that I’ve asked a particular question at least twice, and you’ve deleted it from your response both times.

The article in question isn’t that hard to understand, especially with respect to the interpretations of Aristotle and whether they are compatible with modern science. Again, you discredit Howard by claiming that I don’t understand it, yet you won’t answer the pertinent question that Howard surfaces regarding whether substance theory is compatible or incompatible. That’s very telling.

And this comes about because I won’t walk in the predefined RCC path that all are supposed to walk, in spite of what facts exist.

So, shake your feet if you wish, I get it.

 

[levinas12]

We can choose Bacon or Hobbes or Descartes (and others) - but the theme is the same. Aristotle’s notion of substance was discarded because it did not facilitate the modern project of “controlling” nature.

What happened at this point in our intellectual history is interesting. A strange dualism arose between “motions of material particles” and “subjective” experience.

Much of this history is driven by a shift in the meaning of “substance”. For Aristotle, a substance is a common object of everyday life. But Locke, for instance, now sees substance as a hidden underlying “support” for the sense qualities which we directly experience. Substance is not directly experienced. This distance from the everyday world increases with Kant who turns the Lockean underlying “support” into a transcendental category that “we” impose on an inaccessible “noumenal” reality. In either scenario, modernity loses touch with Aristotle’s understanding of substance as an everyday object (horse, tree, a human being, etc).

Under this new paradigm, everything is reduced to the interaction of photons/atomic structures with the material parts of the human body (sense organs, nerves, brain, etc) - interactions which somehow produce what is called in cognitive science today, first-person experience.

But the modern paradigm cannot explain how this interaction takes place. On the one hand, there’s electrical activity in the brain. On the other hand, there’s intentionality and meaning.

That’s why it may be helpful to go back and give Aristotle a second look.

 

[RobbyS]

I think you see where this is going and decided that polite personal attack was a better route than having to arrive at a conclusion you don’t want to reach, especially given that I’ve asked a particular question at least twice, and you’ve deleted it from your response both times.

The article in question isn’t that hard to understand, especially with respect to the interpretations of Aristotle and whether they are compatible with modern science. Again, you discredit Howard by claiming that I don’t understand it, yet you won’t answer the pertinent question that Howard surfaces regarding whether substance theory is compatible or incompatible. That’s very telling.

And this comes about because I won’t walk in the predefined RCC path that all are supposed to walk, in spite of what facts exist.

So, shake your feet if you wish, I get it.

It is no personal attack for him to say that you misunderstand Aristotle’s philosophy.

 

[RobbyS]

We can choose Bacon or Hobbes or Descartes (and others) - but the theme is the same. Aristotle’s notion of substance was discarded because it did not facilitate the modern project of “controlling” nature.

What happened at this point in our intellectual history is interesting. A strange dualism arose between “motions of material particles” and “subjective” experience.

Much of this history is driven by a shift in the meaning of “substance”. For Aristotle, a substance is a common object of everyday life. But Locke, for instance, now sees substance as a hidden underlying “support” for the sense qualities which we directly experience. Substance is not directly experienced. This distance from the everyday world increases with Kant who turns the Lockean underlying “support” into a transcendental category that “we” impose on an inaccessible “noumenal” reality. In either scenario, modernity loses touch with Aristotle’s understanding of substance as an everyday object (horse, tree, a human being, etc).

Under this new paradigm, everything is reduced to the interaction of photons/atomic structures with the material parts of the human body (sense organs, nerves, brain, etc) - interactions which somehow produce what is called in cognitive science today, first-person experience.

But the modern paradigm cannot explain how this interaction takes place. On the one hand, there’s electrical activity in the brain. On the other hand, there’s intentionality and meaning.

That’s why it may be helpful to go back and give Aristotle a second look.

Richard Feynmann, my favorite 20th Century physicist, said in a book he wrote, which just fingering through, and he said that things cannot be reduced to a set of differential equations. To overstate, atoms, as we know them are like D.Es. More so than the little cannon balls that Lucretius imagined.

 

[Muze]

It is no personal attack for him to say that you misunderstand Aristotle’s philosophy.

So, when he says:

You’ve latched onto a combination of words “incompatabilist” and “science” in Howard Robinson’s article, and drawn a conclusion that misses the whole point of the article.

and yet the article says:

There are two interpretations of what Aristotle meant by this, one of which seems compatible with modern science and the other not.

Combined with the fact that he has deleted my question that points directly to whether Aquinas is with Aristotle as to whether substance is the fundamental efficient cause and determines the behavior of the subject clearly points in another direction, and makes this a personal attack to get out of answering the question.

 

[hicetnunc]

Combined with the fact that he has deleted my question that points directly to whether Aquinas is with Aristotle as to whether substance is the fundamental efficient cause and determines the behavior of the subject clearly points in another direction, and makes this a personal attack to get out of answering the question.

My sincere apologies if I hurt your feelings Muze. It was not my intention at all. My post was not a personal attack on you, but a critique of your philosophy. Nor is my intention to force you to accept Catholic teaching! We must each follow our consciences as best we can. If you want me to explain in more detail why I think you misread the article, please feel free to PM me and we can walk through it together in a more focussed way.

Peace my friend.

 

[RobbyS]

I knew that Aquinas would have rejected that, which makes St. Thomas’ use of Aristotelian substance theory quirky, since their fundamental understanding of matter is very different.

I’d be interested to hear how you think this allegorization affects Thomas’ use of substance theory.

I’m not sure I’m clear on what you think the differences are between Aquinas and Aristotle with respect to their definitions of substance and whether Aquinas has substance as a fundamental efficient cause and whether the subject depends on the substance for how it behaves.

To put the matter simply, Aristotle was a naturalist and Thomas was not.

 

[Muze]

To put the matter simply, Aristotle was a naturalist and Thomas was not.

Which is fine, but St. Thomas was still making claims about the nature of physical things. If you’re going to claim that Christ’s body and blood are spiritually present in the bread, I’m going to have to refer you to your priest to see whether Trent spiritualizes the Eucharist, because I’m fairly sure he’s going to tell you that the body and blood are physical, not spiritual, and that the conversion of substance has to do with the natural state of the bread/wine, not their spiritual state.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Which is fine, but St. Thomas was still making claims about the nature of physical things. If you’re going to claim that Christ’s body and blood are spiritually present in the bread, I’m going to have to refer you to your priest to see whether Trent spiritualizes the Eucharist, because I’m fairly sure he’s going to tell you that the body and blood are physical, not spiritual, and that the conversion of substance has to do with the natural state of the bread/wine, not their spiritual state.

He would be wrong. The Accidents of the bread & wine do not change, the Substance does. Hence it being called Transubstantiation and not Transaccidentiation.

 

[Muze]

He would be wrong. The Accidents of the bread & wine do not change, the Substance does. Hence it being called Transubstantiation and not Transaccidentiation.

Then you’ll have to define ‘substance’ for yourself, as Aristotle clearly believed that the “substance” was the fundamental efficient cause of the subject AND that the substance determined how the subject behaved, both of which modern science has proven comes from the molecular structure and not from some unseen “substance.”

Perhaps you could give us a 1 sentence definition of this “substance.” Is it “spiritual” then?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Which is fine, but St. Thomas was still making claims about the nature of physical things. If you’re going to claim that Christ’s body and blood are spiritually present in the bread, I’m going to have to refer you to your priest to see whether Trent spiritualizes the Eucharist, because I’m fairly sure he’s going to tell you that the body and blood are physical, not spiritual, and that the conversion of substance has to do with the natural state of the bread/wine, not their spiritual state.

Really, this won’t do. You are not qualified to say what Trent teaches. The Church itself is the authority on that. Your difficulty continues to be that you won’t accept what the Church is acutally teaching. You don’t have to believe it yourself but at least give the Church the credit of knowing what it intended and continues to intend to teach. To appeal to the " authority " of a particular parish priest is begging the question, since no priest anywhere is authorized to teach something contrary to what the Church teaches. This was the problem with Martin Luther and all the reformers, they thought that their personal opinions thrumped the teaching authority of the Church.

Trent teaches and the Church continues to teach that the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ. The mode of Christ’s presence in the species ( the accidents of bread and wine) is the same as the presence of His Glorified body right now at the Right hand of the Father, which is the same as His presence on earth after His Resurrection, that is His body was Glorified, that is it was not subject to the physicality of earthly matter. In this since his physical body was " spiritualized, " not in the sense of a soul but changed in a way that allowed and allows a physical body to exist in the realm of spiritual beings.

And as far as the physical bread and wine are concerned, they no longer exist at all, they have been changed into the " physical " but Glorified ( " spiritualized," that is freed from the restraints of matter and time of material beings of this world but not in the sense of a spiritual soul but compatible to the mode of existence spiritual beings in a spiritual realm). Whereas the accidents only remain but not in any subject.

I have offered you the opportunity to explain this Miracle in your own terms but so far you have not accepted. So I repeat the offer stated as follows:

" So pretend you were the Pope during the Council of Trent. Write down the words you would use to define this Miracle so that it conveys an explanation of the Miracle of Transubstantiation that Catholics are supposed to believe. Let’s see how well you can do?
And I will give you a grade from " A " to " F. " But remember, your explanation cannot change the meaning the teaching that the Church meant and continues to intend to teach, that is that the bread and wine have been changed into the physical, but Glorified body and blood of Christ, while only the accidents of the bread and wine remain visibly but without a subject in which to inhere. " ( I have changed the wording of the challange since I stated it poorly in the original statement and that may have confused you.).
.

 

[Muze]

Wow… That sounds like a denial of a physical, bodily resurrection. If Jesus’ resurrected “body” was “not subject to the physicality of earthly matter”, then you do not have a resurrection at all.

Indeed, Jesus’ whole point to the apostles and especially Thomas that this WAS his body, it still had the holes and wounds from his crucifixion. If Christ isn’t deceiving the apostles, then his body must be physical and subject to the physicality of earthly matter. You seem to have slipped into Docetism, where Jesus only appears to have the “physicality of earthly matter.”

Indeed, if you believe our resurrection is like Christ’s then you deny our physical,bodily resurrection, as well, in which case I point you to 1 Corinthians 15 for correction.

But the fact is that St. Thomas uses Aristotle, and Trent uses St. Thomas. It is all substance theory, and isn’t compatible with modern science.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Wow… That sounds like a denial of a physical, bodily resurrection. If Jesus’ resurrected “body” was “not subject to the physicality of earthly matter”, then you do not have a resurrection at all.

On the contrary, after His Resurrection His body was not subject to the limitations of the physical universe. Indeed, His body was in its Glorified state. Didn’t he walk through doors, wasn’t his physical appearance so altered that neither Mary nor his Apostles ( on several occasions ) recognized him whom they had seen alive only a few days before, didn’t his Disciples see him rise into the clouds on Mt. Tabor? Your Theology is remiss. His Resurrected body could appear as he pleased it to. It could be either visible or not, it could walk through closed doors or not, it could appear at distant places instantly at will.
And thus he can be physically present in the Eucharist, but invisible, and according to the demands of the Sacrament.

Indeed, Jesus’ whole point to the apostles and especially Thomas that this WAS his body, it still had the holes and wounds from his crucifixion. If Christ isn’t deceiving the apostles, then his body must be physical and subject to the physicality of earthly matter. You seem to have slipped into Docetism, where Jesus only appears to have the “physicality of earthly matter.”

Indeed, but see my comment above. He could command his appearance to be as he wanted it to appear. That is the power of his Glorified state. Your second point does not follow. This is not Docetism. I have not denied Christ’s physicality but maintained that his physicality had been Glorified and had new powers enabling him to appear in whatever condition he chose, depending upon the truth he wanted to convey at the moment.

[QUOTEIndeed, if you believe our resurrection is like Christ’s then you deny our physical,bodily resurrection, as well, in which case I point you to 1 Corinthians 15 for correction.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t see how this proves you allegations?

But the fact is that St. Thomas uses Aristotle, and Trent uses St. Thomas. It is all substance theory, and isn’t compatible with modern science.

Again, you are beating a dead horse here. Modern science has no corner on truth. Each discipline has the right to use terms in a manner it chooses to define them. So there is no conflict. No discipline has the right to demand that other disciplines accept its own definitions of terms employed commonly. Each has the right to form its own definitions of commonly employed terms.

You still have ignored my challenge. Linus2nd

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Then you’ll have to define ‘substance’ for yourself, as Aristotle clearly believed that the “substance” was the fundamental efficient cause of the subject AND that the substance determined how the subject behaved, both of which modern science has proven comes from the molecular structure and not from some unseen “substance.”

Perhaps you could give us a 1 sentence definition of this “substance.” Is it “spiritual” then?

In a single sentence: Substance is that whose nature it is to exist not in some subject or as a part of anything else, but what exists in itself. It is neither spiritual nor physical, it is metaphysical. It is a part of an explanation of the fundamental reality of the world (the other part being accidents, which you continue to conflate with substance).

Now that we have that, can you please respond to my three requests that I have previously asked (and you previously ignored or brushed off)
(1) Show me a peer-reviewed scientific journal that disproves the existence of substance.
(2) Explain to me how Trent “should have” defined the Real Presence
(3) Explain to me how Nicea “should have” defined the Trinitarian Relationship

 

[Muze]

On the contrary, after His Resurrection His body was not subject to the limitations of the physical universe.

The text points to just the opposite, as Jesus presented his wounds to Thomas, and ate some fish in front of them to prove just this.

Indeed, His body was in its Glorified state. Didn’t he walk through doors,

Philip was taken upon baptizing the Ethiopian Eunich. Yet, he didn’t have a glorified body. This is a miracle of the Holy Spirit, not a statement about the state of Jesus’ body.

wasn’t his physical appearance so altered that neither Mary

She thought He was dead, so she wasn’t expecting to see him. Nothing there about His appearance actually being altered.

nor his Apostles ( on several occasions ) recognized him whom they had seen alive only a few days before

The only instance I am aware of where Jesus wasn’t recognized, the text says that their eyes were blinded.

, didn’t his Disciples see him rise into the clouds on Mt. Tabor?

Again, that’s not a statement about the nature of Jesus’ body. Nothing in the text suggests that Jesus was anything other than in the physical body He died in, and what it does say about Him is that He intended to prove that HE was in fact in that same body, both by wounds and by eating.

Your Theology is remiss.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

His Resurrected body could appear as he pleased it to.

Again, not supported in the text.

It could be either visible or not, it could walk through closed doors or not, it could appear at distant places instantly at will.

Again, so could Philip in a regular body. This isn’t a statement about Jesus’ body. Unless you want to say that Philip’s body was glorified.

And thus he can be physically present in the Eucharist, but invisible, and according to the demands of the Sacrament.

Well, since you’ve clearly misinterpreted the text, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

Indeed, but see my comment above. He could command his appearance to be as he wanted it to appear. That is the power of his Glorified state.

That’s the power of the Holy Spirit, as we see in Philip’s case.

Your second point does not follow. This is not Docetism. I have not denied Christ’s physicality but maintained that his physicality had been Glorified and had new powers enabling him to appear in whatever condition he chose, depending upon the truth he wanted to convey at the moment.

Sorry, but you said that his body was “not subject to the physicality of earthly matter.” That means that it isn’t physical. There simply isn’t any other way to interpret that statement. If Jesus isn’t physical, then we’re headed for Docetism. Or denying bodily resurrection.

And, as shown, Philip did the same thing in a regular body. That’s the power of the Holy Spirit, not a different body.

I don’t see how this proves you allegations?

Returning in a different body than He died in isn’t resurrection. If his body isn’t subject to the physicality of earthly matter, then it isn’t His body. No resurrection means no hope. Again, see 1 Corinthians 15.

Again, you are beating a dead horse here. Modern science has no corner on truth.

But it does on facts.

Each discipline has the right to use terms in a manner it chooses to define them.
So there is no conflict. No discipline has the right to demand that other disciplines accept its own definitions of terms employed commonly. Each has the right to form its own definitions of commonly employed terms.

Except when a discipline starts making claims about another discipline. The nature of bread and wine is clearly within the scientific realm of facts, not truth. And modern science has shown that the nature of bread and wine, its fundamental efficient cause, how it behaves is wholly the subject of science.

Thus, just as when theology makes scientific claims, it is subject to science, so when philosophy makes scientific claims, it is subject to science, as well.

You still have ignored my challenge. Linus2nd

I don’t have a formulation for you. As stated before, that would be something for the theologians of the church to get together and figure out. It is quite possible that the EO use of mystery in this case is most appropriate. Possibly the Lutheran consubstantiation. Again, I haven’t looked into their language on this.

But, again, you are pointed towards an argument from bad consequences. Just because Trent’s formula would be exposed as in error isn’t a reason to reject truth or facts.

 

[Muze]

In a single sentence: Substance is that whose nature it is to exist not in some subject or as a part of anything else, but what exists in itself. It is neither spiritual nor physical, it is metaphysical. It is a part of an explanation of the fundamental reality of the world (the other part being accidents, which you continue to conflate with substance).

So, tell me how you make an explanation undergo a conversion.

Now that we have that, can you please respond to my three requests that I have previously asked (and you previously ignored or brushed off)
(1) Show me a peer-reviewed scientific journal that disproves the existence of substance.

Scientists don’t write papers when their discoveries make historical philosophies obsolete, so your request is nonsensical.

(2) Explain to me how Trent “should have” defined the Real Presence

No clue. That’s something for the theologians of the church to explore and explain. Maybe the EO formula of mystery is the best bet.

(3) Explain to me how Nicea “should have” defined the Trinitarian Relationship

Just as it did. There isn’t any issue with explaining the trinity as they did, since Nicea can use the interpretation of Aristotle that is compatible with modern science, if, in fact, they are using Aristotelian substance theory. (Which I remain convinced they did not.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The text points to just the opposite, as Jesus presented his wounds to Thomas, and ate some fish in front of them to prove just this.

Philip was taken upon baptizing the Ethiopian Eunich. Yet, he didn’t have a glorified body. This is a miracle of the Holy Spirit, not a statement about the state of Jesus’ body.

She thought He was dead, so she wasn’t expecting to see him. Nothing there about His appearance actually being altered.

The only instance I am aware of where Jesus wasn’t recognized, the text says that their eyes were blinded.

Again, that’s not a statement about the nature of Jesus’ body. Nothing in the text suggests that Jesus was anything other than in the physical body He died in, and what it does say about Him is that He intended to prove that HE was in fact in that same body, both by wounds and by eating.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Again, not supported in the text.

Again, so could Philip in a regular body. This isn’t a statement about Jesus’ body. Unless you want to say that Philip’s body was glorified.

Well, since you’ve clearly misinterpreted the text, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

That’s the power of the Holy Spirit, as we see in Philip’s case.

Sorry, but you said that his body was “not subject to the physicality of earthly matter.” That means that it isn’t physical. There simply isn’t any other way to interpret that statement. If Jesus isn’t physical, then we’re headed for Docetism. Or denying bodily resurrection.

And, as shown, Philip did the same thing in a regular body. That’s the power of the Holy Spirit, not a different body.

Returning in a different body than He died in isn’t resurrection. If his body isn’t subject to the physicality of earthly matter, then it isn’t His body. No resurrection means no hope. Again, see 1 Corinthians 15.

But it does on facts.

Except when a discipline starts making claims about another discipline. The nature of bread and wine is clearly within the scientific realm of facts, not truth. And modern science has shown that the nature of bread and wine, its fundamental efficient cause, how it behaves is wholly the subject of science.

Thus, just as when theology makes scientific claims, it is subject to science, so when philosophy makes scientific claims, it is subject to science, as well.

I don’t have a formulation for you. As stated before, that would be something for the theologians of the church to get together and figure out. It is quite possible that the EO use of mystery in this case is most appropriate. Possibly the Lutheran consubstantiation. Again, I haven’t looked into their language on this.

But, again, you are pointed towards an argument from bad consequences. Just because Trent’s formula would be exposed as in error isn’t a reason to reject truth or facts.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

The text points to just the opposite, as Jesus presented his wounds to Thomas, and ate some fish in front of them to prove just this.

Philip was taken upon baptizing the Ethiopian Eunich. Yet, he didn’t have a glorified body. This is a miracle of the Holy Spirit, not a statement about the state of Jesus’ body.

She thought He was dead, so she wasn’t expecting to see him. Nothing there about His appearance actually being altered.

The only instance I am aware of where Jesus wasn’t recognized, the text says that their eyes were blinded.

Again, that’s not a statement about the nature of Jesus’ body. Nothing in the text suggests that Jesus was anything other than in the physical body He died in, and what it does say about Him is that He intended to prove that HE was in fact in that same body, both by wounds and by eating.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Again, not supported in the text.

Again, so could Philip in a regular body. This isn’t a statement about Jesus’ body. Unless you want to say that Philip’s body was glorified.

Well, since you’ve clearly misinterpreted the text, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

That’s the power of the Holy Spirit, as we see in Philip’s case.

Sorry, but you said that his body was “not subject to the physicality of earthly matter.” That means that it isn’t physical. There simply isn’t any other way to interpret that statement. If Jesus isn’t physical, then we’re headed for Docetism. Or denying bodily resurrection.

And, as shown, Philip did the same thing in a regular body. That’s the power of the Holy Spirit, not a different body.

Returning in a different body than He died in isn’t resurrection. If his body isn’t subject to the physicality of earthly matter, then it isn’t His body. No resurrection means no hope. Again, see 1 Corinthians 15.

But it does on facts.

Except when a discipline starts making claims about another discipline. The nature of bread and wine is clearly within the scientific realm of facts, not truth. And modern science has shown that the nature of bread and wine, its fundamental efficient cause, how it behaves is wholly the subject of science.

Thus, just as when theology makes scientific claims, it is subject to science, so when philosophy makes scientific claims, it is subject to science, as well.

I don’t have a formulation for you. As stated before, that would be something for the theologians of the church to get together and figure out. It is quite possible that the EO use of mystery in this case is most appropriate. Possibly the Lutheran consubstantiation. Again, I haven’t looked into their language on this.

But, again, you are pointed towards an argument from bad consequences. Just because Trent’s formula would be exposed as in error isn’t a reason to reject truth or facts.

I think I have already addressed all these points. So anyone following these posts in the wide, wide world can judge for themselves. Linus2nd

 

[RobbyS]

So, tell me how you make an explanation undergo a conversion.

Scientists don’t write papers when their discoveries make historical philosophies obsolete, so your request is nonsensical.

How have scientists made Aristotle’s metaphysics obsolete? How could they? His Metaphysics is more dependent on his logic than his physics. and certainly scientists still use his logic. What has changed is that modern

** philosophy**
has challenged Greek essentialism as somehow incompatible with science. But philosophy itself is generally aside by scientists, which is to say they don’t’ found their research on philosophical principles, or if they do they are not conscious they have. Thomas Nagel has got himself in dutch by asserting that neo-darwinism is founded on a naive naturalism which just leaves the whole theory just hanging out there.