Propositions

[zyzz]

We are inundated with all sorts of propositions. How do we find out if those propositions are true or false? Obviously these questions cannot be answered in a generic fashion, they need to be investigated within the realm they are part of.

1. When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences. Observe, hypothesize, measure and compare the prediction to the actual reality. The verification / falsification is the cornerstone of the process.
2. When the proposition is about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences, then we must examine if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. Here we also verify / falsify the proposition against the axioms. We do not “measure”, but use logic.

So far, so good.

But some people offer propositions about a “supernatural” realm. How can we know if those propositions are correct or not? What kind of epistemological process can they offer to separate the wheat from the chaff? What is the method of verification / falsification to be employed in this case?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

We are inundated with all sorts of propositions. How do we find out if those propositions are true or false? Obviously these questions cannot be answered in a generic fashion, they need to be investigated within the realm they are part of.

1. When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences. Observe, hypothesize, measure and compare the prediction to the actual reality. The verification / falsification is the cornerstone of the process.
2. When the proposition is about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences, then we must examine if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. Here we also verify / falsify the proposition against the axioms. We do not “measure”, but use logic.

So far, so good.

But some people offer propositions about a “supernatural” realm. How can we know if those propositions are correct or not? What kind of epistemological process can they offer to separate the wheat from the chaff? What is the method of verification / falsification to be employed in this case?

It is an strange question in a Catholic forum, even considering that it is the philosophy forum, don’t you think? Or, are you talking to “some people” who are not Catholic? Or perhaps you would like to ask: “Hey, catholic guys, why do you state propositions about the “supernatural”? How do you dare to do that!?”

Or perhaps you just arrived to this world, found this forum and wanted to ask your question…, I don’t know.

 

[fisherman_carl]

There are many logical proofs in Christian philosophy. For example, logical proofs of God’s existence, like St. Aquinas’ proof based on the self evident observation that there is change in the world. Then there are witness testimonials. There are historical documents. There are confirming miracles, and great Saints. As well as the witness of the Holy Spirit working in people’s lives.

You might want to try reading fr. Spitzer’s book, ‘New Proofs for the Existence of God’.

Here is a link to an Aristotelian proof of God. Scroll down to find the right video.
edwardfeser.com/mediaappearances.html

 

[zyzz]

It is an strange question in a Catholic forum, even considering that it is the philosophy forum, don’t you think?

Why would it be “strange”, especially on a philosophy forum? Epistemology is the cornerstone of philosophy. How can we decide if a proposition is true or false is the central question for all propositions. For problems considering the physical world we have the proper epistemology, the observe, hypothesize, test and verify (or falsify) method (the scientific method). For the abstract sciences we have logic to see if the proposition can be reduced to the axioms. Everything is crystal clear there.

I am simply asking what kind of epistemological method can one employ to find out which propositions about the supernatural are true and which ones are false. For example, the proposition “only humans have an immortal soul”, or “there are arch-angels and simple angels”, or “demons exist”?

Or, are you talking to “some people” who are not Catholic? Or perhaps you would like to ask: “Hey, catholic guys, why do you state propositions about the “supernatural”? How do you dare to do that!?”

Nope, I am asking anyone and everyone who professes the belief in some kind of “supernatural”.

 

[zyzz]

There are many logical proofs in Christian philosophy.

Logical proofs are only as valid as the underlying metaphysical assumptions.

For example, logical proofs of God’s existence, like St. Aquinas’ proof based on the self evident observation that there is change in the world.

Even if those “proofs” were logically sound (and they are NOT), they would never establish the existence of the Christian God… at best they would only point to some faceless, deistic entity.

Then there are witness testimonials. There are historical documents. There are confirming miracles, and great Saints. As well as the witness of the Holy Spirit working in people’s lives.

All of those require an a-priori acceptance of the religious claims. A proper epistemological method does not need a-priori acceptance. They are only acceptable for those who already subscribed to the particular religion.

Do you find the Muslim claim that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a winged horse acceptable? Or that the Book of Mormon was delivered on gold tablets? Use the same kind of skepticism for ALL religious claims.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But some people offer propositions about a “supernatural” realm. How can we know if those propositions are correct or not? What kind of epistemological process can they offer to separate the wheat from the chaff? What is the method of verification / falsification to be employed in this case?

Zyzz, you’ve hit the nail on the head. There is no way to verify or falsify claims with supernatural elements. If I state that a certain chemical is inhibiting a certain chemical interaction, I remove the chemical in question and test again. If I think something is a psychological factor in bringing about certain reaction, I study those persons with or without that something and see if there is a difference. When either a supernatural piece or a supernatural results is stated. there is no way to remove that piece or result and view the difference. We can’t see the difference between a transubstantiated and nontransubstantiated host.

One big example is the claimed existence of the human soul. On another apologetics board a poster gave a chart trying to explain how the soul interacted with the body. There is no way to remove the soul and show the same person acting differently. It’s untestable. On top of that there is no methodology to explain how something with supernatural elements work. I asked the poster who gave the soul chart if he could show that the soul didn’t interact with the human body using the moon as a conduit. If we can’t show how something works, we can’t show how something doesn’t work.

Now this doesn’t mean that these claims aren’t true. As you said they are not falsifiable, but it’s true that anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Why would it be “strange”, especially on a philosophy forum? Epistemology is the cornerstone of philosophy. How can we decide if a proposition is true or false is the central question for all propositions. For problems considering the physical world we have the proper epistemology, the observe, hypothesize, test and verify (or falsify) method (the scientific method). For the abstract sciences we have logic to see if the proposition can be reduced to the axioms. Everything is crystal clear there.

I am simply asking what kind of epistemological method can one employ to find out which propositions about the supernatural are true and which ones are false. For example, the proposition “only humans have an immortal soul”, or “there are arch-angels and simple angels”, or “demons exist”?

Nope, I am asking anyone and everyone who professes the belief in some kind of “supernatural”.

As Mike says, I think you have hit the nail on the head! I don’t think anyone else has written nor pronounced similar words to yours in the whole history of human kind. You should ask an editor to publish them, zyzz! I like your “Epistemology is the cornerstone of philosophy”. I suspect this is one of the important propositions that you have demonstrated with a crystal clear logic. Why don’t you share your brilliant demonstration with us?

 

[John_Martin]

There is a difference between spiritual and supernatural.
Supernatural is “above nature”, or “beyond nature”.
Spiritual is simply “not material”, not available to material scientific method of experimentation. It is still “natural” that human persons are composites of material bodies and immaterial souls animating the composite. This is not supernatural. It is a logical conclusion of the observation of the phenomena of the material thoughts, words, and movements of human material bodies that all the thoughts, words, and movements are just that: “movements” by a mover. And that mover is concluded to be the soul.

Modern psychology and philosophy would like to say it is the material “unconscious mind”, but that is just a variation of “soul” among those who refuse to allow anything greater or anything “other” than material being as having any being. Yet they have not found (and will never find in the material nervous system) any material mechanism that “is the unconscious mind”. Why? Because material is always “moved”, always being moved, therefore always and only in transition in the now. It cannot “operate in a state of being” which transcends time. And this is necessary for a being that moves material from what it was through the now of time toward what the goal is. The soul can operate this way (and does), But, again, it is “seeing the tracks of this operation” by seeing the thoughts and words and physical acts that happen in time which leads to the conclusion of the spiritual reality of the soul. We will never measure it or see it in operation.

Now, the supernatural - that is different. Since it is above nature, it is beyond any knowing or logic, unless that which is above nature come down to nature in our mode of knowing (meaning material presentation to our senses for processing this knowing). And that is called “revelation”, and it came to be in the prophets and completely in Jesus, where God himself presented himself in such a material presentation, which we could evaluate and know, and decide to join him). If you assent to him, then his delivery of truth becomes good and desirable to you as the measure of truth and goodness. It is correct because it is from him whom you trust as the deliverer of what is beyond you. Since he sent his Church, you also believe the Church as the deliverer of what is from him. You do not believe those separated from this One you trust to give you truth about what is beyond you, because they are not from him.

 

[zyzz]

There is a difference between spiritual and supernatural.
Supernatural is “above nature”, or “beyond nature”.

Is there something “subnatural”? And what is simply “unnatural”? What is “natural”? If something is “made”, then it is an artifact, and not natural. Since God is said to have created the world out of “nothing”, then everything is “fashioned” and therefore “unnatural”. It would be nice to agree on the different meanings of these words.

Spiritual is simply “not material”, not available to material scientific method of experimentation. It is still “natural” that human persons are composites of material bodies and immaterial souls animating the composite. This is not supernatural. It is a logical conclusion of the observation of the phenomena of the material thoughts, words, and movements of human material bodies that all the thoughts, words, and movements are just that: “movements” by a mover. And that mover is concluded to be the soul.

The concept of the soul as “animating principle” has been discarded by the biologists a long time ago as useless and which explains nothing. But you are welcome to create a device which you can point to a “being”, and its display screen will show: “has immortal soul”, “has non-immortal soul” or “has no soul”. I wonder what it will show when you point it to a virus, which can be considered either alive or not alive, depending of what one considers “alive”.

The best definition of “alive” is this: “Something is alive if it manages to maintain its homeostasis in a changing environment”.

Now, the supernatural - that is different. Since it is above nature, it is beyond any knowing or logic, unless that which is above nature come down to nature in our mode of knowing (meaning material presentation to our senses for processing this knowing).

If something is “beyond” knowing and beyond logic, then you cannot say anything about it. Neither good, nor bad, nor neutral. You cannot even say: “it exists”.

But again, you are encouraged to show how can one differentiate between consecrated and not-consecrated host?

 

[John_Martin]

But again, you are encouraged to show how can one differentiate between consecrated and not-consecrated host?

It is very simple, so that a child could tell you -
One is in the tabernacle or monstrance or in your mouth when the Priest says, “The body of Christ”, to which you say, “Amen”, after which you go to drink the blood.
The other is in a cupboard in the sacristy or being carried to the altar for the moment of its transubstantiation into the body of Christ.

The rest of your objections are quite unworthy of comment, showing that you are much too young and unschooled and unmannered to listen to, let alone understand, much of anything.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

It is very simple, so that a child could tell you -
One is in the tabernacle or monstrance or in your mouth when the Priest says, “The body of Christ”, to which you say, “Amen”, after which you go to drink the blood.
The other is in a cupboard in the sacristy or being carried to the altar for the moment of its transubstantiation into the body of Christ.

When zyzz asked how one could differentiate between the two, it’s clear he meant from a neutral position. In fact, you didn’t explain how in any way, shape, or form. You merely stated that there is a difference between those hosts that had been blessed and those not yet blessed.

Think of it this way. Let’s say that during mass the priest blesses the hosts to be given to the parishoners. A new attendant walks in with unblessed hosts not realizing that he’s in the wrong place at the wrong time. He runs into the priest and the blessed and unblessed hosts fall to the ground. Is there any way to differentiate between the two sets?

Also your statement merely takes it as a given that if the priest blesses the host that it is consecrated. If a person who believes in Wicca blesses an object as a positive to the wearer, would you allow for the same assumptions that if the Wiccan blesses an object it is now different than before it is blessed? No, of course not. From an objective standpoint you would want the Wiccan to demonstrate proof that the blessing made a change. It’s the same thing here with the hosts. Zyzz is asking if there is an objective way to differentiate between non-consecrated and consecrated.

 

[zyzz]

Zyzz is asking if there is an objective way to differentiate between non-consecrated and consecrated.

You are right, but probably wasting time.

The rest of your objections are quite unworthy of comment, showing that you are much too young and unschooled and unmannered to listen to, let alone understand, much of anything.

Wow! Do I have your permission to use your words? … Oops, hold on. Come to think of it, I don’t need your permission. Your words are public domain, uttered on an open forum.

Let’s see: “unworthy”, “too young”, “unchooled”, “unmannered”… "unworthy to listen to… quite a collection of “charitable” words. I hope the moderators will chime in.

 

[John_Martin]

To Mike: Yes, there is an objective way to differentiate the bread from the body of Christ. That requires observation - sit in Mass, listen for the Priest to speak the words, “This is my body…” Then keep your eyes on that body, don’t let it (or the container containing it) out of your sight. Any host that is not in that container or in the presence of the priest or Eucharistic minister is not the body of the sacrifice of the Mass.

You also show how little you know of things catholic - were host and the body of Christ to fall to the ground mingled, no Catholic would try to separate them, but would simply eat every last wafer. Wheat is good for the body, and the body of Christ is good for the soul of the one having faith. What you see a Catholic treat with honor and worship is the body of Christ. What you see a sacristan stuff on a shelf is the bread of the host. The reverence of the Catholic will tell you every time which is which. They know what you do not know. But if you know them, you will also know which is which.

I have shown from both Form and Temporal Location (Position) the distinguishing marks of the two bodies, the body of bread and the body of Christ. The form, with the words of Christ (“this is my body”) which is divine definition of being, therefore the form of what is in front of your eyes. The temporal location, since only the body of Christ is located temporally and positionally in a recognizable location (on the paten raised to the Father in offering, in the tabernacle, in the monstrance). Shape doesn’t really matter, since we speak of substance.

Enough for you as well; talk of witches has no merit of serious dialog

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

To Mike: Yes, there is an objective way to differentiate the bread from the body of Christ. That requires observation - sit in Mass, listen for the Priest to speak the words, “This is my body…” Then keep your eyes on that body, don’t let it (or the container containing it) out of your sight. Any host that is not in that container or in the presence of the priest or Eucharistic minister is not the body of the sacrifice of the Mass.

I think you’re missing the point. You are focusing on the what, and the question is about the how, specifically how one can know objectively. Obviously if the observer sees a priest perform the ritual to consecrate a host and follows it along, never blinking or turning away, they can say with certainty that this host had undergone the consecration ritual.

What zyzz is asking (and I guess I am too) is if a person were to examine two hosts, one that had been consecrated and one that had not, but had not seen the ritual would that person be able to examine the hosts and determine which is which? This is what’s known as a blind test, where an alteration has been done on some fraction of a whole group and by examination determine what difference (if any) has occurred. It’s all modern medicine is tested.

If I go to a wine tasting competition and add a small amount of Hawaiian Punch to one of the entries, the judges will (through taste examination) note the difference.

A consecrated host shows no change – even under a microscope. In a blind test there would be no difference. We want to know how one can show which one had undergone the consecration ritual without having seen the ritual.

You also show how little you know of things catholic - were host and the body of Christ to fall to the ground mingled, no Catholic would try to separate them, but would simply eat every last wafer. Wheat is good for the body, and the body of Christ is good for the soul of the one having faith. What you see a Catholic treat with honor and worship is the body of Christ. What you see a sacristan stuff on a shelf is the bread of the host. The reverence of the Catholic will tell you every time which is which. They know what you do not know. But if you know them, you will also know which is which.

You seem to be getting caught up in the scenario and avoiding the heart of the matter. Whatever scenario you can come up with where a consecrated host and a non-consecrated host are side-by-side and a person does not know which one had undergone the consecration, what objective way can they be told apart? If they can’t be told apart without witnessing the ritual then just say so. It’s what the Church says (read on what they say about “accidents”).

I have shown from both Form and Temporal Location (Position) the distinguishing marks of the two bodies, the body of bread and the body of Christ. The form, with the words of Christ (“this is my body”) which is divine definition of being, therefore the form of what is in front of your eyes. The temporal location, since only the body of Christ is located temporally and positionally in a recognizable location (on the paten raised to the Father in offering, in the tabernacle, in the monstrance). Shape doesn’t really matter, since we speak of substance.

It’s not about keeping an eye on the host that has undergone the ritual but showing that the ritual has made a discernable change in the host that can be verified and not merely asserted.

Enough for you as well; talk of witches has no merit of serious dialog

It’s an analogy and, quite frankly, a very straightforward one. Person A performs a ritual on object X. Person B did not see this ritual. What can person B do to show that object X is different between the time before the ritual and after it? If someone can show no difference after a Wiccan ritual so can someone do the same after a Catholic ritual.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I remembered that in another thread I posted something that’s relevant to the topic at hand. There is a supernatural claim made by Christians that isn’t purely supernatural in nature (i.e. there is interaction with the physical world that is observable) and it hasn’t, as far as I know, been burdened with a multitude of excuses (e.g. Matthew 21:21-22).

It’s two of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, specifically the gifts of tongues and interpretation of tongues. There have been studies specifically on tongues but none that I know of on interpretation of tongues.

A double blind test could easily be performed. First get several people who claim to have the gift of tongues and record them. Make sure there is no interaction between these people whatsoever. Second get several people who claim to have the gift of interpretation of tongues. Have them listen to the recordings. Make sure there is no interaction between this group of people, and especially make sure there is no interaction between the first and second groups.

If the people have the gifts that they claim then the interpretations the second group gives for the first person in the first group should be similar. What they give for the second person in the first group should be similar, and so on.

It may be presumptuous of me, but I suspect such a test would not have a great deal of takers.

 

[John_Martin]

I think you’re missing the point. You are focusing on the what, and the question is about the how, specifically how one can know objectively. Obviously if the observer sees a priest perform the ritual to consecrate a host and follows it along, never blinking or turning away, they can say with certainty that this host had undergone the consecration ritual.

What zyzz is asking (and I guess I am too) is if a person were to examine two hosts, one that had been consecrated and one that had not, but had not seen the ritual would that person be able to examine the hosts and determine which is which? This is what’s known as a blind test, where an alteration has been done on some fraction of a whole group and by examination determine what difference (if any) has occurred. It’s all modern medicine is tested.

If I go to a wine tasting competition and add a small amount of Hawaiian Punch to one of the entries, the judges will (through taste examination) note the difference.

A consecrated host shows no change – even under a microscope. In a blind test there would be no difference. We want to know how one can show which one had undergone the consecration ritual without having seen the ritual.

You seem to be getting caught up in the scenario and avoiding the heart of the matter. Whatever scenario you can come up with where a consecrated host and a non-consecrated host are side-by-side and a person does not know which one had undergone the consecration, what objective way can they be told apart? If they can’t be told apart without witnessing the ritual then just say so. It’s what the Church says (read on what they say about “accidents”).

It’s not about keeping an eye on the host that has undergone the ritual but showing that the ritual has made a discernable change in the host that can be verified and not merely asserted.

It’s an analogy and, quite frankly, a very straightforward one. Person A performs a ritual on object X. Person B did not see this ritual. What can person B do to show that object X is different between the time before the ritual and after it? If someone can show no difference after a Wiccan ritual so can someone do the same after a Catholic ritual.

I think you have missed the point - we really don’t care that you cannot tell the difference by looking at them, nor do we try to tell the difference (as if, like you, to play games of imagining to be great scientists).
We know what we are eating, whose flesh we are consuming, whose blood we are drinking, and who gives it to us to eat and drink.
You are looking in at this, wondering and perhaps giggling in your youth at its apparent strangeness and trying to “show us” by a very crude material scientific method, that what you sense is all there is.

Every day the Sacrament is brought to those who have not been present at the Mass, for private communion, of the sick and dying persons. It is handed to them, and they know it is the body of Christ. You do not know, but they know. You are on the outside so you cannot know. Once you are converted, once you desire to also be part of Christ, you will know. But for right now, I really do not care that you cannot perceive the body of Christ versus a piece of bread. I do only care that the Catholic receiving it can perceive Christ’s body as he chews on His Flesh.

If you really want to become a philosopher, may I suggest you actually become a student of one (and only one to begin), reading his works (not just reading about him nor just listening to someone else talk about him) and examining the workings of your own being through his descriptions. I would suggest Aristotle, who is good about definitions, because with any later teacher you would still have to go back to Aristotle to find the root of many ideas. Believe in Aristotle as your “true teacher” and see yourself through him.
Then, after you say, “I understand”, only then go on to others and try the same. You will see the mistakes in others and the truth in others because you will have already come to know many things clearly that cannot be denied. Aristotle is comparatively easy reading compared to some, and most, if not all, of his extant works are available in English online, and some in Greek if you have learned that yet (which I have occasionally found helpful). Be a student rather than joking under the bleachers at the high school football game with slackers who try to appear adult. Begin with Aristotle’s Categories - and believe in him until you have learned all he has to show you about yourself and the world.

 

[MPat]

We are inundated with all sorts of propositions. How do we find out if those propositions are true or false? Obviously these questions cannot be answered in a generic fashion, they need to be investigated within the realm they are part of.

1. When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences. Observe, hypothesize, measure and compare the prediction to the actual reality. The verification / falsification is the cornerstone of the process.
2. When the proposition is about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences, then we must examine if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. Here we also verify / falsify the proposition against the axioms. We do not “measure”, but use logic.

So far, so good.

But some people offer propositions about a “supernatural” realm. How can we know if those propositions are correct or not? What kind of epistemological process can they offer to separate the wheat from the chaff? What is the method of verification / falsification to be employed in this case?

Before one tries to find out that, perhaps it would be best to ask similar questions about other claims made in this very post. For example, how do you know that:

1. When the proposition is about the objective, physical reality, we must employ the one and only method, the physical sciences. Observe, hypothesize, measure and compare the prediction to the actual reality. The verification / falsification is the cornerstone of the process.
2. When the proposition is about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences, then we must examine if the proposition is a logical corollary of the axioms. Here we also verify / falsify the proposition against the axioms. We do not “measure”, but use logic.

Are those claims themselves “about the objective, physical reality”? Then, by those very claims, there had to be some experiments. So, what experiments have been performed?

Or are those claims “about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences”? Then, by those very claims, there had to be some axioms. What were those axioms?

Or is there a third possibility? Then, perhaps, we should see it before discussing anything else?

Or are those claims not true themselves? That, in fact, would mean that further discussion is rather pointless…

 

[zyzz]

Are those claims themselves “about the objective, physical reality”? Then, by those very claims, there had to be some experiments. So, what experiments have been performed?

Or are those claims “about one of the axiomatic, abstract sciences”? Then, by those very claims, there had to be some axioms. What were those axioms?

Live and learn, I guess. I never met anyone, atheist or believer who had a problem with the physical sciences and the abstract sciences and their epistemological methods.

Or is there a third possibility? Then, perhaps, we should see it before discussing anything else?

What would it be?

Just for the fun of it, I will present a “THIRD epistemological” method. When one encounters a yes/no type of problem, flip a coin. If the result is “heads” decide that the answer is “yes”, when the result is “trails”, decide that the answer is “no”. In about 50 percent of the cases your result will be correct. Is that an “epistemological” method you are suggesting?

 

[JuanFlorencio]

Live and learn, I guess. I never met anyone, atheist or believer who had a problem with the physical sciences and the abstract sciences and their epistemological methods.

Just for the fun of it, I will present a “THIRD epistemological” method. When one encounters a yes/no type of problem, flip a coin. If the result is “heads” decide that the answer is “yes”, when the result is “trails”, decide that the answer is “no”. In about 50 percent of the cases your result will be correct. Is that an “epistemological” method you are suggesting?

There is always a first time, boy! Is that your cleverest response? It seems that you don’t even understand the question.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I think you have missed the point - we really don’t care that you cannot tell the difference by looking at them, nor do we try to tell the difference (as if, like you, to play games of imagining to be great scientists).

The question is who is the “we” in your statements. It’s certainly not all of Christendom, as there plenty of Christians who dispute there is a difference between a consecrated and non-consecrated host, as well as those Christians who say a change does occur but differently than what Catholics say (i.e consubstantiation vs. transubstantiation). It’s certainly not all of Catholocism, because while Catholics believe that such a change occurs there are plenty that also want to not only understand it but defend it.

Zyzz started off with a basic yet powerful question: Is there a way to test supernatural claims? Your initial response to him (then later to me) didn’t answer the question, and now you’re saying “we” don’t care if those claims can’t be tested.

If you and some others are not interested in such testing or don’t see worth in such testing, that’s fine. But it does bring us back around to a comment that you made earlier:

talk of witches has no merit of serious dialog

When trying to determine if something is true (in this case that a consecrated host differs from an unconsecrated host) sometimes the best thing to do is come up with a similar scenario and check for similarities in difference. I was going to say that this is Critical Thinking 101, but the “101” indicates a college level course and this is something that comes well before that.

I understand that you see great worth in the consecration that is done at mass, and I also understand that you see no worth at all in Wicca and their ceremonies. The thing is when we want to compare things in a rational manner we temporarily put aside any possible biases and assumptions discuss things in a neutral manner. From that neutral perspective where I don’t assume the worth of either ceremony I see no difference between a priest consecrating a host and a Wiccan blessing a crystal or some such object. There is no way to show any change in either object after the two ceremonies. Now that does not mean that we’ve shown either not to be true. It’s possible both are true, neither are true, or one is true. The key point is in the two words from the original post: We can neither verify or falsify any change after either ceremony.

If you’d prefer not to make a comparison to witches, is there a non-Christian religion that you feel would be more serious for such a dialog?

We know what we are eating, whose flesh we are consuming, whose blood we are drinking, and who gives it to us to eat and drink.
You are looking in at this, wondering and perhaps giggling in your youth at its apparent strangeness and trying to “show us” by a very crude material scientific method, that what you sense is all there is.

I’m 42, so this isn’t me “giggling in {my} youth”. I also come from a Catholic family (as my Irish dad and Italian mom married in '66 in Newark, NJ that was practically a given ) so it’s not a strangeness. I’m aware of the beliefs involved.

Every day the Sacrament is brought to those who have not been present at the Mass, for private communion, of the sick and dying persons. It is handed to them, and they know it is the body of Christ. You do not know, but they know. You are on the outside so you cannot know. Once you are converted, once you desire to also be part of Christ, you will know. But for right now, I really do not care that you cannot perceive the body of Christ versus a piece of bread. I do only care that the Catholic receiving it can perceive Christ’s body as he chews on His Flesh.

If you replace instance of the word know with assume, then I would agree.

{part 1 of 2}