Aristotle's notion of substance

[Richca]

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.”

It appears to me that there has been some confusion in this thread between substantial forms and substance. Some posts have equated the two. The two are not equated in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. In Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, substantial forms are a principle of a substance and in material substances are a principle along with matter in the constitution of a substance.

The debate here seems to revolve around whether substantial forms are a real principle of a substance such as Aristotle and St Thomas hold, or whether substantial forms only play an explanatory role for a substance such as being only a concept in the mind, albeit an idea firstly in the mind of God. In the SEP article, the first interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms is coined incompatibilitist, while the second is coined compatibilist. Muze seems to think that modern science has disproved the reality of substantial forms and thus the doctrine of transubstantiation as well. This modern science that Muze writes about I think is only a rebirth of Democritus’ atomistic theory of 2300 - 2400 years ago.

Muze writes: “And that’s because modern science has displaced Aristotelian substance theory, showing that 100% of the behavior of any material object is observable and definable by science.” Huh? If the molecular structure or matter is the sole explanation of a substance such as a horse, what determines the molecular structure of the matter for it to be a horse and not a dog? The atoms and their movements? Then what determines the movements of the atoms? The subatomic particles? Well, what determines the movements of these? There is not even agreement today among scientists what should be the proper definition of matter. Is it matter particles or energy or both? Scientists say that only about 4% of the matter in the universe is known by us, the other 96% is unknown nor is it seen. They even say that material substances are made up mostly of empty space.

Muze seems to think that if you hold to a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms which he claims must be held because of modern science, then the Catholic Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation and St Thomas Aquinas’ explanation of it is in error. I do not see this.

Even if one holds that the only explanation or principle of a substance is its matter, Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation is that not only is the form of the substance of bread and wine converted to the body and blood of Christ but the matter of the bread and wine is converted to the body and blood of Christ too. The substance of the bread and wine is constituted not only of the substantial forms of bread and wine but of matter too. A material substance for Aristotle and Aquinas is constituted not only of substantial forms but of matter as well. Muze says that if you hold to a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms then there is nothing to convert in transubstantiation. Well, what about the matter of the bread and wine? This conversion of the matter of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by divine power is what takes place for St Thomas in the eucharist. By divine power do the accidents of the bread and wine remain as well without a subject.

As at least one of our popes have said, the eucharist is an extension of the incarnation and as St John says " And the Word became flesh."

 

[Muze]

How have scientists made Aristotle’s metaphysics obsolete? How could they? His Metaphysics is more dependent on his logic than his physics.

His metaphysics make claims about objects, their fundamental efficient cause and what determines their behavior. These are matters of science.

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.

Which says nothing about the fact that modern science has explained form the physical both their fundamental efficient cause and what determines how they behave.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It appears to me that there has been some confusion in this thread between substantial forms and substance. Some posts have equated the two. The two are not equated in Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy. In Aristotelian and Thomistic philosophy, substantial forms are a principle of a substance and in material substances are a principle along with matter in the constitution of a substance.

The debate here seems to revolve around whether substantial forms are a real principle of a substance such as Aristotle and St Thomas hold, or whether substantial forms only play an explanatory role for a substance such as being only a concept in the mind, albeit an idea firstly in the mind of God. In the SEP article, the first interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms is coined incompatibilitist, while the second is coined compatibilist. Muze seems to think that modern science has disproved the reality of substantial forms and thus the doctrine of transubstantiation as well. This modern science that Muze writes about I think is only a rebirth of Democritus’ atomistic theory of 2300 - 2400 years ago.

Muze writes: “And that’s because modern science has displaced Aristotelian substance theory, showing that 100% of the behavior of any material object is observable and definable by science.” Huh? If the molecular structure or matter is the sole explanation of a substance such as a horse, what determines the molecular structure of the matter for it to be a horse and not a dog? The atoms and their movements? Then what determines the movements of the atoms? The subatomic particles? Well, what determines the movements of these? There is not even agreement today among scientists what should be the proper definition of matter. Is it matter particles or energy or both? Scientists say that only about 4% of the matter in the universe is known by us, the other 96% is unknown nor is it seen. They even say that material substances are made up mostly of empty space.

Muze seems to think that if you hold to a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms which he claims must be held because of modern science, then the Catholic Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation and St Thomas Aquinas’ explanation of it is in error. I do not see this.

Even if one holds that the only explanation or principle of a substance is its matter, Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation is that not only is the form of the substance of bread and wine converted to the body and blood of Christ but the matter of the bread and wine is converted to the body and blood of Christ too. The substance of the bread and wine is constituted not only of the substantial forms of bread and wine but of matter too. A material substance for Aristotle and Aquinas is constituted not only of substantial forms but of matter as well. Muze says that if you hold to a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms then there is nothing to convert in transubstantiation. Well, what about the matter of the bread and wine? This conversion of the matter of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by divine power is what takes place for St Thomas in the eucharist. By divine power do the accidents of the bread and wine remain as well without a subject.

As at least one of our popes have said, the eucharist is an extension of the incarnation and as St John says " And the Word became flesh."

Very good. But I don’t think Muze was thinking of Substantial Forms. I believe I have been the only one on the thread to do so. But I didn’t draw it out like you becauses I was " dazzled " by " substance. " But of course you are correct. Linus2nd

 

[RobbyS]

His metaphysics make claims about objects, their fundamental efficient cause and what determines their behavior. These are matters of science.

Which says nothing about the fact that modern science has explained form the physical both their fundamental efficient cause and what determines how they behave.

As the name “Physics" implies, one compares Aristotle’s ideas with Galileo’s. Aristotle looked at actions in terms of his dialectic; Galileo was looking for a mathematic pattern, which more like a Platonist.

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

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

I realize I have the word “explanation” in that response (but only in reference to the point of Substance & Accidents), but if this is your response, then you have completely missed the statement I actually made. I will refresh you:

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

How you got “Substance = explanation” from this, I do not know; Substance is not an explanation. My definition, as you requested, was very clear about this.

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

Well in order to connect your view of science disproving metaphysics, there must be some published works on it. Surely you can find us some, no?

Note also that there is a section on ArXiV titled History and Philosophy of Physics that regularly discusses philosophy in the realm of science. So there is in fact evidence of scientists writing papers about incompatibilities with philosophy, so perhaps you could actually do as I requested!?

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.

The Orthodox use the word “Metousiosis” to describe the Great Mystery, which literally means “change of substance” and is the Greek word for “Transubstantiation.” They may call it something different, but it is indeed the same thing.

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.)

Can you explain to me how Substance theory is dead, but only for Transubstantiation and not for the Trinity? Seems like you are picking and choosing. If Substance theory is indeed dead, then so is the Trinity.

And, I see you need another reminder: ousia = substance; sumbebekos = accident. The Council of Nicea uses ousia to define the Trinitarian Relation, not sumbebekos. If they had both words and meanings to them, why use the “wrong” one? So, again, how can you rectify the Divinity of Christ if not through Substance theory?

 

[Muze]

Even if one holds that the only explanation or principle of a substance is its matter, Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation is that not only is the form of the substance of bread and wine converted to the body and blood of Christ but the matter of the bread and wine is converted to the body and blood of Christ too. The substance of the bread and wine is constituted not only of the substantial forms of bread and wine but of matter too. A material substance for Aristotle and Aquinas is constituted not only of substantial forms but of matter as well.

And this is part of what is incompatible, that there is some “matter” that is part of the substance. Again, modern science has shown that what we touch, feel, and experience is the object itself, that these claims of some unobservable substance are simply unnecessary, as all that the substance attempts to be happens in the atoms and molecules of the object.

Thus, in order for the bread and wine to become body and bread, we would have to experience the change in molecular structure for each, for there is nothing else to change.

Muze says that if you hold to a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms then there is nothing to convert in transubstantiation. Well, what about the matter of the bread and wine? This conversion of the matter of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by divine power is what takes place for St Thomas in the eucharist. By divine power do the accidents of the bread and wine remain as well without a subject.

The only “matter” that exists is the atoms that make up the molecules that combine to form the bread and wine. Again, see any chemistry or physics textbook for a modern science discussion of matter.

As at least one of our popes have said, the eucharist is an extension of the incarnation and as St John says " And the Word became flesh."

Sounds like the Pope doesn’t get what John was saying there.

 

[davidv]

And this is part of what is incompatible, that there is some “matter” that is part of the substance. Again, modern science has shown that what we touch, feel, and experience is the object itself, that these claims of some unobservable substance are simply unnecessary, as all that the substance attempts to be happens in the atoms and molecules of the object.

Only if one ignors the non-material reality.

Thus, in order for the bread and wine to become body and bread, we would have to experience the change in molecular structure for each, for there is nothing else to change.

Please demonstrate why this must be so.

We know with the certainty of faith the the bread is not longer bread, eventhough the atoms and molecules as still those of bread.

The only “matter” that exists is the atoms that make up the molecules that combine to form the bread and wine. Again, see any chemistry or physics textbook for a modern science discussion of matter.

How do you know this. Science cannot study the non-material.

Sounds like the Pope doesn’t get what John was saying there.

Sounds like you should refrain from disparaging Catholic clergy (a forum rule infraction).

 

[Muze]

I realize I have the word “explanation” in that response (but only in reference to the point of Substance & Accidents), but if this is your response, then you have completely missed the statement I actually made. I will refresh you:

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

How you got “Substance = explanation” from this, I do not know; Substance is not an explanation. My definition, as you requested, was very clear about this.

You’ve claimed that it exists, and that it exists in itself. Well “what exists in itself” isn’t very descriptive.

OTOH, when you said, “It is a part of an explanation of the fundamental reality of the world…” That’s actually saying something about substance. An explanation of an object exists in itself, as well, in that it is a concept that describes the object.

So, if you throw out the descriptive part, that it is part of an explanation, then all you’ve said is that it exists, using a lot of words.

Well in order to connect your view of science disproving metaphysics, there must be some published works on it. Surely you can find us some, no?

Why mus there be? I mean, I’ve cited an article posted in Stanford University’s philosophy department’s website written by someone who is actually a philosopher there. It is most likely that developments in modern science have simply caused philosophers to relegate Aristotelian philosophy to the history of philosophy textbook, and moved on. It isn’t as though substance theory has been a big deal during the era of modern science. Hume and others have made their critiques clear, and they’re fairly persuasive.

Note also that there is a section on ArXiV titled History and Philosophy of Physics that regularly discusses philosophy in the realm of science. So there is in fact evidence of scientists writing papers about incompatibilities with philosophy, so perhaps you could actually do as I requested!?

Why don’t you go do it for yourself. It would certainly be educational for you. But I can tell you that not everything one can name under the sun has been written in a peer reviewed journal.

The Orthodox use the word “Metousiosis” to describe the Great Mystery, which literally means “change of substance” and is the Greek word for “Transubstantiation.” They may call it something different, but it is indeed the same thing.

Well, it is the same word, but whether it refers to Aristotelian philosophy is another matter entirely.

Can you explain to me how Substance theory is dead, but only for Transubstantiation and not for the Trinity? Seems like you are picking and choosing. If Substance theory is indeed dead, then so is the Trinity.

I didn’t say it was or wasn’t dead for the trinity. But the trinity doesn’t make any claims about the physical world, so there isn’t an issue of incompatibility with modern science. Indeed, the compatible view of substantial forms being explanatory is very much in line with its use in Nicea, if it is, in fact, using substance theory.

And, I see you need another reminder: ousia = substance; sumbebekos = accident. The Council of Nicea uses ousia to define the Trinitarian Relation, not sumbebekos. If they had both words and meanings to them, why use the “wrong” one? So, again, how can you rectify the Divinity of Christ if not through Substance theory?

And I see YOU need another reminder that not all Greek uses of “substance” (ousia) refer to Aristotelian philosophy. You seem to think that Aristotle invented the word and that’s exclusively how it’s used.

The divinity of Christ is “rectified” through Scripture. Apparently you’ve forgotten the source of all doctrine. The explanation of the trinity is given through the use of the word “ousia” but not necessarily substance theory, although, as explained above, even if that’s the case, the compatible interpretation of substantial form is acceptable, where as its use in Trent does not allow this interpretation.

And, once again, you argue from bad consequences. If substance theory was used for Nicea and somehow modern science has made substance theory such that the doctrine of the trinity is affected by the fall of substance theory, then we’d have to find a better way to explain the trinity. It CERTAINLY isn’t a reason to bury our heads in the sand and say that substance theory is truth when it conflicts with the facts of modern science. It would be transformative to the RCC and EO, in that they’d have to admit making an error in forming the doctrine of the trinity, but, again, truth is more important than your reputation.

 

[Muze]

Only if one ignors the non-material reality.

But we aren’t talking about non-material reality. We’re talking about “bread” and “wine” and “body” and “blood”. These are all materials and part of material reality. Before you go making the body and blood “spiritual”, suggest talking to your priest.

Please demonstrate why this must be so.

See modern science. Pick up a modern science textbook on physics or chemistry and read about matter and energy.

We know with the certainty of faith the the bread is not longer bread, eventhough the atoms and molecules as still those of bread.

Well, you’re imposing the realm of the theological on the world of science. I can believe that gravity doesn’t affect me all I want, but that faith doesn’t change the nature of the material world.

How do you know this. Science cannot study the non-material.

But we’re talking about the material world. Again “bread/wine/body/blood” are all material.

Sounds like you should refrain from disparaging Catholic clergy (a forum rule infraction).

I wasn’t disparaging the clergy, only his claims about this passage.

 

[davidv]

But we aren’t talking about non-material reality. We’re talking about “bread” and “wine” and “body” and “blood”. These are all materials and part of material reality. Before you go making the body and blood “spiritual”, suggest talking to your priest.

Please demonstrate that the presence for Jesus’ body and blood, under the appearance of bread and wine is material.

See modern science. Pick up a modern science textbook on physics or chemistry and read about matter and energy.

Doesn’t help. Science has no jursidiction to declare anything about the reality of the Holy Eucharist.

Well, you’re imposing the realm of the theological on the world of science.

Really? How?

I can believe that gravity doesn’t affect me all I want, but that faith doesn’t change the nature of the material world.

Is God capable of changing the nature of the material world? This is the what transubstantion means. The Holy Spirit tranforms the bread offered on the altar to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

But we’re talking about the material world. Again “bread/wine/body/blood” are all material.

No, we are not talking about the material world. You may be. By doing so you disqualify youself from pronounce on the reality of the Eucharist, which not just material.

I wasn’t disparaging the clergy, only his claims about this passage.

Good, because that statement had that tone to it

 

[Alberti_Devoveo]

You’ve claimed that it exists, and that it exists in itself. Well “what exists in itself” isn’t very descriptive.

I agree that Substance is a vague notion at best (probably why you keep mixing up Accidents and Substances). It does not exist by itself, much as accidents do not exist by itself.

OTOH, when you said, “It is a part of an explanation of the fundamental reality of the world…” That’s actually saying something about substance. An explanation of an object exists in itself, as well, in that it is a concept that describes the object.

What I said is that Accidents and Substance together explain the fundamental nature of reality. Reality is not an object, but objects are a part of reality. Please do not conflate these two as you have done with Substance and Accidents numerous times.

So, if you throw out the descriptive part, that it is part of an explanation, then all you’ve said is that it exists, using a lot of words.

No, I did not use circular logic here. I said that Substance is that whose nature exists in itself.

Why mus there be? I mean, I’ve cited an article posted in Stanford University’s philosophy department’s website written by someone who is actually a philosopher there. It is most likely that developments in modern science have simply caused philosophers to relegate Aristotelian philosophy to the history of philosophy textbook, and moved on. It isn’t as though substance theory has been a big deal during the era of modern science. Hume and others have made their critiques clear, and they’re fairly persuasive.

Well you keep harping that Modern Science has shown it to be dead, so I would assume that there must be at least something that shows that science has disproved a metaphysical claim.

Why don’t you go do it for yourself. It would certainly be educational for you. But I can tell you that not everything one can name under the sun has been written in a peer reviewed journal.

The burden of proof lies with you, not me.

Well, it is the same word, but whether it refers to Aristotelian philosophy is another matter entirely.

Oh, so what then does metousiosis mean then, if not for the Aristotelian meaning?

I didn’t say it was or wasn’t dead for the trinity. But the trinity doesn’t make any claims about the physical world, so there isn’t an issue of incompatibility with modern science. Indeed, the compatible view of substantial forms being explanatory is very much in line with its use in Nicea, if it is, in fact, using substance theory.

So basically what you are saying is that Substance theory is only dead if you try to change the nature of an objects Substance? But otherwise it is okay? That is not a good position to hold.

And I see YOU need another reminder that not all Greek uses of “substance” (ousia) refer to Aristotelian philosophy. You seem to think that Aristotle invented the word and that’s exclusively how it’s used.

You mentioned this before, I had responded to that with: what then did they mean?

The divinity of Christ is “rectified” through Scripture. Apparently you’ve forgotten the source of all doctrine. The explanation of the trinity is given through the use of the word “ousia” but not necessarily substance theory, although, as explained above, even if that’s the case, the compatible interpretation of substantial form is acceptable, where as its use in Trent does not allow this interpretation.

Again, what does ‘ousia’ mean in this context.

And, once again, you argue from bad consequences. If substance theory was used for Nicea and somehow modern science has made substance theory such that the doctrine of the trinity is affected by the fall of substance theory, then we’d have to find a better way to explain the trinity. It CERTAINLY isn’t a reason to bury our heads in the sand and say that substance theory is truth when it conflicts with the facts of modern science. It would be transformative to the RCC and EO, in that they’d have to admit making an error in forming the doctrine of the trinity, but, again, truth is more important than your reputation.

Arguing from bad consequences is fine, Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism. (source is Wikipedia).

Without evidence of your claim that Substance theory is claim (you have yet to produce anything outside of saying “open a science book” and “it’s dead, it’s shown to be dead, there’s proof”–where is this proof?), then there is no problem with the RCC and EO definitions of Transubstantiation/Metousiosis and the Trinity.

 

[Richca]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richca
Even if one holds that the only explanation or principle of a substance is its matter, Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation is that not only is the form of the substance of bread and wine converted to the body and blood of Christ but the matter of the bread and wine is converted to the body and blood of Christ too. The substance of the bread and wine is constituted not only of the substantial forms of bread and wine but of matter too. A material substance for Aristotle and Aquinas is constituted not only of substantial forms but of matter as well.

QUOTE=Muze;10829373And this is part of what is incompatible, that there is some “matter” that is part of the substance. Again, modern science has shown that what we touch, feel, and experience is the object itself, that these claims of some unobservable substance are simply unnecessary, as all that the substance attempts to be happens in the atoms and molecules of the object.

That modern science tells us that material things are composed of atoms and molecules does not, in my eyes, disprove the natural philosphy of Aristotle or Aquinas. Both, Aristotle and Aquinas were aware of an atomistic view of reality such as put forth by Democritus a long time ago and they apparently did not think that this view of reality and of the physical universe was a sufficient explanation of reality. The elements for Aristotle and Aquinas have real being but they are at the lowest order of being. You may claim that a horse is composed of the elements, atoms and molecules but that does not make it less a horse. A horse has real being and not just the parts that make it up.

.

= Muze] Thus, in order for the bread and wine to become body and bread, we would have to experience the change in molecular structure for each, for there is nothing else to change.

Normally in substantial changes the accidents change as well. Transubstantiation is a miracle outside the order of nature and can be accomplished by divine power just as God created everything from nothing.

Quote: from Richca
Muze says that if you hold to a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms then there is nothing to convert in transubstantiation. Well, what about the matter of the bread and wine? This conversion of the matter of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by divine power is what takes place for St Thomas in the eucharist. By divine power do the accidents of the bread and wine remain as well without a subject.

= [Muze] The only “matter” that exists is the atoms that make up the molecules that combine to form the bread and wine. Again, see any chemistry or physics textbook for a modern science discussion of matter.

Apparently, God can withdraw the matter from atoms and still have them look and appear to be atoms if one was bold enough to examine a consecrated host under a microscope and beheld the elements of bread and wine. The elements are themselves substances with corresponding accidents though Aquinas would not call the elements in the bread or wine substances. Modern science did not create matter, God did.

 

[RobbyS]

Scientifically speaking, it’s unfalsifiable and useless.

Well, if you are going to invoke Popper, then you need to say more than this.

 

[RobbyS]

And this is part of what is incompatible, that there is some “matter” that is part of the substance. Again, modern science has shown that what we touch, feel, and experience is the object itself, that these claims of some unobservable substance are simply unnecessary, as all that the substance attempts to be happens in the atoms and molecules of the object.

Thus, in order for the bread and wine to become body and bread, we would have to experience the change in molecular structure for each, for there is nothing else to change.

The only “matter” that exists is the atoms that make up the molecules that combine to form the bread and wine. Again, see any chemistry or physics textbook for a modern science discussion of matter.

Sounds like the Pope doesn’t get what John was saying there.

Aren’t you confusing matter with mass? And if we personally are looking at what we directly observe “matter”is only what appears to the senses.

 

[RobbyS]

You’ve claimed that it exists, and that it exists in itself. Well “what exists in itself” isn’t very descriptive.

OTOH, when you said, “It is a part of an explanation of the fundamental reality of the world…” That’s actually saying something about substance. An explanation of an object exists in itself, as well, in that it is a concept that describes the object.

So, if you throw out the descriptive part, that it is part of an explanation, then all you’ve said is that it exists, using a lot of words.

Why mus there be? I mean, I’ve cited an article posted in Stanford University’s philosophy department’s website written by someone who is actually a philosopher there. It is most likely that developments in modern science have simply caused philosophers to relegate Aristotelian philosophy to the history of philosophy textbook, and moved on. It isn’t as though substance theory has been a big deal during the era of modern science. Hume and others have made their critiques clear, and they’re fairly persuasive.

Why don’t you go do it for yourself. It would certainly be educational for you. But I can tell you that not everything one can name under the sun has been written in a peer reviewed journal.

Well, it is the same word, but whether it refers to Aristotelian philosophy is another matter entirely.

I didn’t say it was or wasn’t dead for the trinity. But the trinity doesn’t make any claims about the physical world, so there isn’t an issue of incompatibility with modern science. Indeed, the compatible view of substantial forms being explanatory is very much in line with its use in Nicea, if it is, in fact, using substance theory.

And I see YOU need another reminder that not all Greek uses of “substance” (ousia) refer to Aristotelian philosophy. You seem to think that Aristotle invented the word and that’s exclusively how it’s used.

The divinity of Christ is “rectified” through Scripture. Apparently you’ve forgotten the source of all doctrine. The explanation of the trinity is given through the use of the word “ousia” but not necessarily substance theory, although, as explained above, even if that’s the case, the compatible interpretation of substantial form is acceptable, where as its use in Trent does not allow this interpretation.

And, once again, you argue from bad consequences. If substance theory was used for Nicea and somehow modern science has made substance theory such that the doctrine of the trinity is affected by the fall of substance theory, then we’d have to find a better way to explain the trinity. It CERTAINLY isn’t a reason to bury our heads in the sand and say that substance theory is truth when it conflicts with the facts of modern science. It would be transformative to the RCC and EO, in that they’d have to admit making an error in forming the doctrine of the trinity, but, again, truth is more important than your reputation.

Given that The New Testament comes down to us in Greek, we ought to assume that the Greek term for “substance” was known to them. Since the time of Alexander, Jews had been influenced by Greek culture, Many, many were Greek speakers, and Paul, for one, showed a familiarity with philosophy when he showed up in Athens. It seems likely that Our Lord himself was bilingual. Luke and John both write good Greek. So why insist the Scripture exists in a sort of bubble separate from the Greek world?

 

[RobbyS]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richca
Even if one holds that the only explanation or principle of a substance is its matter, Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation is that not only is the form of the substance of bread and wine converted to the body and blood of Christ but the matter of the bread and wine is converted to the body and blood of Christ too. The substance of the bread and wine is constituted not only of the substantial forms of bread and wine but of matter too. A material substance for Aristotle and Aquinas is constituted not only of substantial forms but of matter as well.

That modern science tells us that material things are composed of atoms and molecules does not, in my eyes, disprove the natural philosphy of Aristotle or Aquinas. Both, Aristotle and Aquinas were aware of an atomistic view of reality such as put forth by Democritus a long time ago and they apparently did not think that this view of reality and of the physical universe was a sufficient explanation of reality. The elements for Aristotle and Aquinas have real being but they are at the lowest order of being. You may claim that a horse is composed of the elements, atoms and molecules but that does not make it less a horse. A horse has real being and not just the parts that make it up.

.

Normally in substantial changes the accidents change as well. Transubstantiation is a miracle outside the order of nature and can be accomplished by divine power just as God created everything from nothing.

Quote: from Richca
Muze says that if you hold to a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle’s substantial forms then there is nothing to convert in transubstantiation. Well, what about the matter of the bread and wine? This conversion of the matter of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ by divine power is what takes place for St Thomas in the eucharist. By divine power do the accidents of the bread and wine remain as well without a subject.

Apparently, God can withdraw the matter from atoms and still have them look and appear to be atoms if one was bold enough to examine a consecrated host under a microscope and beheld the elements of bread and wine. The elements are themselves substances with corresponding accidents though Aquinas would not call the elements in the bread or wine substances. Modern science did not create matter, God did.

When we read “Metaphysics, we must try to remember that Aristotle saw the word through “commonsense.” There is nothing common sensical about atomic theory. To study it is to pass through the looking glass, as Alice did, where things as we know them do not exist.

 

[Muze]

As the name “Physics" implies, one compares Aristotle’s ideas with Galileo’s. Aristotle looked at actions in terms of his dialectic; Galileo was looking for a mathematic pattern, which more like a Platonist.

Looks like Plato was right.

 

[Muze]

Please demonstrate that the presence for Jesus’ body and blood, under the appearance of bread and wine is material.

I haven’t made the claim that I know. What I’ve said is that Trent’s use of substance theory is incompatible with modern science. However it occurs, it isn’t via conversion of the Aristotelian substance theory.

Doesn’t help. Science has no jursidiction to declare anything about the reality of the Holy Eucharist.

No? The Bread and Wine aren’t physical materials?

Really? How?

By making theological claims about the physical world.

Is God capable of changing the nature of the material world? This is the what transubstantion means. The Holy Spirit tranforms the bread offered on the altar to the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.

That may be so. But Aristotle’s substance theory doesn’t explain it, and thus Trent’s formula for transubstantiation is in error.

No, we are not talking about the material world. You may be. By doing so you disqualify youself from pronounce on the reality of the Eucharist, which not just material.

That’s fine. Then the RCC will simply have to reformulate it’s doctrine on transubstantiation, as using Aristotelian substance theory doesn’t work.

 

[Muze]

I agree that Substance is a vague notion at best (probably why you keep mixing up Accidents and Substances). It does not exist by itself, much as accidents do not exist by itself.

You keep making this claim and never backing it up.

Please do not conflate these two as you have done with Substance and Accidents numerous times.

I haven’t conflated anything. What I’ve done is pointed out that in order for something to undergo a “conversion” it must have an existence beyond being a concept that explains. Modern science has shown that no such existence is necessary, as the explanation of the object is found wholly in the physical material of the object.

No, I did not use circular logic here.

Which is more of a tautology than anything. “What makes this itself is in itself.” Well, yeah.

I would assume that there must be at least something that shows that science has disproved a metaphysical claim.

link

The stronger, incompatibilitist interpretation is that Aristotle did not believe that the behaviour of complex entities followed from the laws that govern their parts or their matter. (Gotthelf 1987, Robinson 1983) By contrast, the behaviour of the matter is influenced by what it is the matter of. The nature of the matter places restrictions on what the enmattered thing can do—an animal can only be made from living tissue, not of stone or fire—but exactly how that matter behaves depends on the substantial form present in it. The substantial form plays, therefore, an essential role, not merely in certain kinds of scientific explanation, but by being a fundamental efficient cause in its own right.

The burden of proof lies with you, not me.

Well, I’ve provided evidence that demonstrates my claim.

So basically what you are saying is that Substance theory is only dead if you try to change the nature of an objects Substance?

Dude… Read the article. There is an interpretation of Aristotle that is compatible with modern science but not with transubstantiation. As long as you aren’t trying to act upon the “substantial form”, that form can simply be explanatory and nothing else.

First the compatibilist one.
…
There are interpreters of Aristotle who think that this kind of irreducibility is all that Aristotle means—or needs to mean—by postulating an explanatory role for substantial form. His theory is at least neutral on the question of whether there is a closed system at the level of basic physics. (Nussbaum 1978, 1984)

Arguing from bad consequences is fine,

utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Argument from Consequences: The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt… Fallacy.

Therefore, an argument based on appeal to consequences is valid in long-term decision making (which discusses possibilities that do not exist yet in the present) and abstract ethics, and in fact such arguments are the cornerstones of many moral theories, particularly related to consequentialism. (source is Wikipedia).

We aren’t making any long term decisions, nor are we consequentialists. At least I’m not. Are you?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

(Does the phrase “the ends justify the means” mean anything here?)

Without evidence of your claim that Substance theory is claim (you have yet to produce anything outside of saying “open a science book” and “it’s dead, it’s shown to be dead, there’s proof”–where is this proof?), then there is no problem with the RCC and EO definitions of Transubstantiation/Metousiosis and the Trinity.

I realize it can be tough to look at one conclusion (the stronger interpretation of substantial form is incompatible with modern science), and see how it affects other areas (like Trent using the stronger interpretation of substantial form to formulate the doctrine of transubstantiation), but at least make an effort.

link

 

[Muze]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richca
Even if one holds that the only explanation or principle of a substance is its matter, Aquinas’ doctrine of transubstantiation is that not only is the form of the substance of bread and wine converted to the body and blood of Christ but the matter of the bread and wine is converted to the body and blood of Christ too. The substance of the bread and wine is constituted not only of the substantial forms of bread and wine but of matter too. A material substance for Aristotle and Aquinas is constituted not only of substantial forms but of matter as well.

And modern science has shown that we get to observe this matter. There is no “unseen” matter.

That modern science tells us that material things are composed of atoms and molecules does not, in my eyes, disprove the natural philosphy of Aristotle or Aquinas.

But the fact that these molecules define all that Aristotle claimed was explained by the substantial form does disprove their natural philosophy.

Both, Aristotle and Aquinas were aware of an atomistic view of reality such as put forth by Democritus a long time ago and they apparently did not think that this view of reality and of the physical universe was a sufficient explanation of reality.

Aristotle rejected atomist theories.

The elements for Aristotle and Aquinas have real being but they are at the lowest order of being. You may claim that a horse is composed of the elements, atoms and molecules but that does not make it less a horse. A horse has real being and not just the parts that make it up.

No, the horse is comprised of the parts that make it up and nothing more. If modern science has said anything, that much is clear. To claim that there is actually something more to a horse that the molecules that comprise is is to reject moderns science.

Normally in substantial changes the accidents change as well. Transubstantiation is a miracle outside the order of nature and can be accomplished by divine power just as God created everything from nothing.

And that’s fine, but that’s not what Trent claims.

Apparently, God can withdraw the matter from atoms and still have them look and appear to be atoms if one was bold enough to examine a consecrated host under a microscope and beheld the elements of bread and wine. The elements are themselves substances with corresponding accidents though Aquinas would not call the elements in the bread or wine substances. Modern science did not create matter, God did.

Again, this isn’t what Trent claims. If this is the case, then let the RCC declare its correction to Trent.