Does physics contradict theological notion of "substance" and "accidents"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholic1seeks

Guest
WARNING: This may sound very ignorant, but I have to confess, my knowledge of philosophy and philosophical concepts is lacking.

Anyway, Catholic theology has taken advantage of the ancient concepts of “substance” and “accidents” — say, in the Eucharist, for example.

Is modern physics at odds with this philosophical classification? Has our knowledge of chemistry and atoms and subatomic particles and quantum physics challenged the idea of things having a “substance” or “essence” (if those terms are synonymous).

Thanks!
 
Science doesn’t provide us - can’t tell us - anything about the notion of substance or accidents.

These are philosophical and metaphysical concepts.
 
Is another way of saying this that science only describes accidents, but not substances?

Like is a hydrogen atom a substance or accident? Or neither?
 
Yes, you can have both physics and Aristotle’s metaphysics. I would argue that Aristotle was wrong and/or his metaphysics is unnecessary. But I don’t feel like writing a term paper and it’s off topic.
 
Perhaps so…it only applies to material matters, not to their substance, or their “classes”
 
But helpful to note:
Actually, the magisterium’s language isn’t that specific. Although the Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents has been used by Catholic theologians, the Council of Trent opted for a broader distinction of substance and species, which does not necessarily imply any particular theory about the nature of the relationship (whether “accidental” or otherwise) between what a thing is and its sensible attributes. All this necessarily pins down is that the eucharistic elements continue to manifest all the physical properties of bread and wine, but what they are has been completely changed.
Click to expand...
 
Edward_H said:
Science doesn’t provide us - can’t tell us - anything about the notion of substance or accidents.

These are philosophical and metaphysical concepts.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with this.

Another way of looking at it is that all of physics by necessity deals only with accidents, not substance, because it deals only with what is perceptible. Physics and chemistry deal with what is perceptible to the senses or by extension of the senses with scientific instruments. That, by definition, is accidents.
 
I would agree that physics has not disproven the notions of substance and accidents, not because of an incompleteness with physics, but simply because those concepts are unprovable and unfalsifiable.

Now let’s say there is a third notion which I will call “ligi” (that’s esperanto for the verb “bind”). I propose that all objects in the universe also have a ligi, which is what binds that object’s substance to its accidents. It too can not be perceived by physical means. It can’t be proven nor can it be disproven. It seemingly has no effect on an object’s physical properties, and you simply have to trust me if I tell you what a particular object’s ligi is. That sounds an awful lot like substance and accidents.

But why stop there? I could claim that each object has 5 notions/attributes, with only the accidents being perceptable. The fact that we can pile on all sorts of notions and they would have the same validity as substance and accidents doesn’t disprove substance and accidents, but it does greatly devalue their worth as a workable concept.
 
Then again, I’m not sure how much Catholic theology hangs on such a notion, in the first place. I only ever here it with regards to Transubstantiation. But then again, that belief is not based on substance/accidents (after all, Eastern Christians have the same belief but don’t use those terms).
 
Whatever one calls it, there is no getting around the fact that human beings do not know external objects directly, but only through sense perception.

Whatever we know of the outside world begins with sense perception, through our various senses. These sense perceptions are integrated in our brain and somehow we abstract that into ideation. (I would say the intellect–a faculty of the soul–does that part.)

But we never get the exterior object “into” our own brain, we only get the sense perceptions of it, which are not the thing in itself.
That’s just how humans know.

But sense perceptions are not erratic. They match up with reality, so that we can know reality. Sense perceptions can vary depending on the various filters we use for (name removed by moderator)ut. We might use an infrared filter, or a polarizing filter, or a particular sound range. Our ears can’t hear all frequencies. A bird or a fly does not experience the same sense perceptions, yet the external reality is the same.

So sense perception is generally reliable, except when we deliberately fool the senses. A 3D IMAX movie is designed to make our senses think we are seeing something other than a movie screen.

The only time I can think of when sense perceptions do not match the underlying reality is in the case of transubstantiation, and that is done only by the power of God working through the sacrament.
 
Yes, it has raised issues.

There are forms of change that Aristotle never imagined possible and which his system does not well explain. Though I am thinking more of matter and form.

But Chemistry and understanding of molecules and crystals has given Aristotle a body blow.

For example:
Is the addition of an extra neutron to a Hydrogen atom a substantial or accidental change?
Is heavy water still water?
Is ice still water?
Are graphite and diamonds the same substance - Aristotle would say no.
Is water a pure substance?

Aristotle holds that a living thing only has one form.
Yet science suggests this is not true. There seems to in fact be a hierarchy of forms.
EG the human body has living semi autonomous cells.
The body is composed of organic chemicals that still behave as independent organic chemicals despite being in the form of a body.
 
Last edited:
Edward_H said:
Science doesn’t provide us - can’t tell us - anything about the notion of substance or accidents.

These are philosophical and metaphysical concepts.
Click to expand...
Aristotle would have vehemently disagreed. His theory was a theory about the fundamental nature of things – of which things have causal properties. He would either find a way to square the theory with modern observations, or he would scrap it.
 
Plenty of contemporary theories exist which involve the whole being more than the sum of its parts. Some such theory must be true, for Catholic doctrine to be true.
 
It cannot, as physics is confined to the physical realm, while the Eucharist is in the spiritual, sacramental realm. Since the spiritual is immaterial, it complements physics, but neither proves nor disproves the other. This is why faith is required to believe that what Jesus gave us still looks, smells, tastes, feels like bread and wine - the accidents.

However, in a most mysterious manner, the substance has become His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. A rule of our faith is that material creation always and everywhere obeys and submits to the Creator. The human will, seeming to be an exception, is not, as it is immaterial. Only the human body responds to God’s call - from this life to the next.

On a slight tangent, this is how Mary remained virgin during and after the birth of Christ; how Jesus left the tomb without moving the stone, and how he entered the locked upper room. Creation yields to creator.
 
Last edited:
Today’s scientists categorically reject Aristotle, and not just all his moral teachings, not just his metaphysics, but the study of metaphysics itself. See “Vienna Circle”.
 
Edward_H said:
Today’s scientists categorically reject Aristotle, and not just all his moral teachings, not just his metaphysics, but the study of metaphysics itself. See “Vienna Circle”.
Click to expand...
First of all, this is a non sequitur. You said metaphysics isn’t science. I said substance/accident isn’t metaphysics. So then why say that “today’s scientists” reject Aristotle? That is neither here nor there.

But secondly, the Vienna Circle has no cache anymore, neither among philosophers or scientists.
 
No. I said today’s scientists don’t as a rule view metaphysics as a real science. That’s a fact.

What’s happened is an error of “empiricism” or “scientism” has crept into the mind of not just real scientists but the common public.

It basically asserts that unless someone with credentials does some thing called the scientific method then there will be no knowledge or truth gained.

This in effect, chops off most of us from being able to determine truth, making us more reliant) on those that do…to tell us what to believe or not!

It’s a complicated problem, but in effect this erroneous idea has created a fissure not just in society…creating modern day “gnostics” (those with the special knowledge), but interiorly - inside of you and me, causing us to doubt our own observations and insights, waiting for the received word of the “special scientist people”.

I say this as a fairly well trained/educated engineer with a now rusty ph.d.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top