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

[Prodigal_Son]

No. I said today’s scientists don’t as a rule view metaphysics as a real science. That’s a fact.

Metaphysics isn’t science. And the notion of substance/accident was meant to be science, not metaphysics. Indeed, many Aristotle scholars think talking about “Aristotelian metaphysics” makes no sense at all. It was ALL science, to him.

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!

But Aristotle would agree with the scientists that ordinary, untrained people usually have nothing helpful to say about what the correct science is. Scientists have studied and analyzed, and their views are far more likely to be correct. (Of course, Aristotle didn’t live in a world where science was so politicized, which is worth remembering).

 

[Edward_H]

You’re wrong on many points.

Aristotle’s point was exactly the opposite of what you’re pretending his position was. He believed the ordinary person was capable of coming to the truth and pursuing the good. That was one of the major themes of his Nicomachean Ethics.

 

[Mintaka]

Your question is like asking if physics contradicts the concepts of “love,” “logic,” or “art.”

Different conceptual frameworks can all accurately describe different things, or different aspects of the same things, without contradicting each other.

In fact, a mature human being should be able to access and use many different conceptual frameworks, and to use them to understand the world.

Physics will not tell you anything about the dog-ness of all dogs, or of a particular dog. Biology might, but a veterinarian would focus on different aspects of dogness than a dog pack biologist would. A dog trainer would use information from both to do totally different things. A dog trainer who is a choreographer and dancer would do even more diffferent things.

An artist would use information on dog anatomy to attempt to show dog-ness – but it wouldn’t be the same thing as a photo or an anatomical diagram.

A philosopher would be interested in how dog-ness relates to human-ness, plant-ness, and god-ness.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Except that, even though you can’t “prove” or “falsify” the claims empirically, there’s still value that can be gained from the discussion. One seeks to discover whether the explanation given is internally consistent, whether its explicative value is useful, and whether it provides a framework that is useful in describing metaphysical concepts.

The fact that other frameworks – fanciful and/or Goldbergian – can be proposed doesn’t impinge on the value of other, more reasonable frameworks.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Different conceptual frameworks can all accurately describe different things, or different aspects of the same things, without contradicting each other.

I agree. Indeed, I think that modern physics and Aristotelian substance (slightly modified, perhaps) may both be accurate ways of describing the world.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Aristotle’s point was exactly the opposite of what you’re pretending his position was. He believed the ordinary person was capable of coming to the truth and pursuing the good. That was one of the major themes of his Nicomachean Ethics.

The ordinary person is capable of coming to the truth about science, sure – by being educated! This needn’t involve schools, but it must involve at the very least becoming a scientist (observing, classifying, doing experiments, etc.).

As for the ordinary person being capable of pursuing the good, when did I deny that?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Except that, even though you can’t “prove” or “falsify” the claims empirically, there’s still value that can be gained from the discussion. One seeks to discover whether the explanation given is internally consistent, whether its explicative value is useful, and whether it provides a framework that is useful in describing metaphysical concepts.

My proposal including the concept of “ligi” is internally consistent. A proposal that explains that all gravity comes from submicroscopic elves is internally consistent. The substance/accidents isn’t something I would consider useful. Sure it can be used in describing a single metaphysical concept, transubstantiation; but transubstantiation is another example of a concept that has a value equal to completely made-up concepts.

Transubstantiation utilizes substance/accidents and substance/accidents gives a framework for transubstantiation. It’s circular in the most empty way. Neither one rises above two things I could make up that support each other.

The fact that other frameworks – fanciful and/or Goldbergian – can be proposed doesn’t impinge on the value of other, more reasonable frameworks.

I would call a framework based on removing all assumptions and based on knowledge and understanding as valuable. Of our two concepts I would say substance/accidents is far more fanciful. I agree that scientific understanding of objects doesn’t impinge on the value of substance/accidents, since the latter had no value to begin with

I know I’m going to get a few groans when I bring up his name, but Christopher Hitchens was right when he said “That which can be proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”

 

[Gorgias]

My proposal including the concept of “ligi” is internally consistent. A proposal that explains that all gravity comes from submicroscopic elves is internally consistent.

Yes, but are you claiming that they have useful explicative value?

The substance/accidents isn’t something I would consider useful.

It also accounts for something that science is completely incapable of discussing: ensoulment. It gives us a metaphysical framework for discussing body/soul unity.

So, there’s more there than “transubstantiation.”

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Yes, but are you claiming that they have useful explicative value?

Sure! Why do items fall to earth at the same rate? Elves. Why does the Earth revolve around the sun? Elves.

It also accounts for something that science is completely incapable of discussing: ensoulment. It gives us a metaphysical framework for discussing body/soul unity.

So, there’s more there than “transubstantiation.”

But that’s assuming the existence of a soul. It’s adding beyond what we know to be true, which then requires conjuring up an explanation from whole cloth to explain the concept that was made up from whole cloth. It’s easier (and far more reasonable) to say we have no evidence of a soul or substance vs. accidents, and put it aside until we have real understanding.

You ever play Hot Lava as a kid? You know where you can’t touch the floor, or if it’s a tiled floor then you can only touch certain tiles? That’s what transubstantiation is. It’s a game where you pretend that the floor has the accidents of the floor but the substance of lave, yet touching the floor means touching a floor. It’s as cold as the floor, as hard as the floor, as non-volcanic as the floor.

 

[Richca]

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?

Substance/accident is a fundamental division of being or what is. Thus, we have Aristotle’s 10 categories of being, namely, the substance and 9 accidents. I believe that most if not all the elemental atoms on the modern periodic table can exist by themselves in nature ( some are man-made but even these may be substances as even bread is called a substance). They are substances but substances with accidents (the accidents are the sense phenomena the natural sciences study; the substance in contrast to the accidents is beyond sense observation and only known by the intellect. The substance/accident distinction is a part of metaphysics). The ancients believed there were only 4 simple elemental substances, namely, earth, water, air, and fire out of which mixed bodies such as minerals, plants, and animals were made out of. Modern science has found the simple elemental substances to be those found on the periodic table.

 

[Gorgias]

But that’s assuming the existence of a soul. It’s adding beyond what we know to be true, which then requires conjuring up an explanation from whole cloth to explain the concept that was made up from whole cloth. It’s easier (and far more reasonable) to say we have no evidence of a soul or substance vs. accidents, and put it aside until we have real understanding.

The problem with that approach is that it presumes we’ll find empirical evidence for something that is not physical… which is just a somewhat insincere way of saying, “sorry… never gonna listen to you.”

You ever play Hot Lava as a kid? You know where you can’t touch the floor, or if it’s a tiled floor then you can only touch certain tiles? That’s what transubstantiation is.

Cute analogy, but not even close. In your example, you’re asserting empirically-measurable qualities that aren’t there. Transubstantiation does no such thing. Proceeding from a spiritual reality that we believe in, we express a metaphysical explanation for how it might be. If you want transubstantiation to explain how to measure ‘substance’, then you’re barking up the wrong tree…