Transubstantiation from Objectivist epistemology

[ribozyme]

“A is A” (the axiom of identity) has been chanted iteratively by Objectivists and it is an integral part of their metaphysical view. I have been reading “This is John Galt Speaking” (I do not have Atlas Shrugged nor do I plan to read it) and I wonder if transubstantiation could be reconciled with the axiom of identity?

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors—the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.

"Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Isn’t transubstantiation trying to state that “A is not A” and “bread is not bread”?

As for myself, I most certainly do not adhere to Objectivism as I prefer Popper empiricism as my epistemology as it emphasizes the fallibility and incompleteness of our own knowledge.

 

[GJx86]

Isn’t transubstantiation trying to state that “A is not A” and “bread is not bread”?

No, it just says that “Something with all the accidents, all the sensible properties, of A is not necessarily substantially A.”

A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time…

We would say that something with the accidents of a leaf cannot simultaneously have the accidents of a stone, and something with the quality of redness cannot simultaneously have the quality of greenness. But we would also say that these perceptible qualities don’t tell us anything about the underlying substance in which those qualities inhere – so it is not impossible for something to be a stone in substance but a leaf in accidents, or for something to be the Body and Blood of Christ in substance but bread or wine in accidents.

Of course, we usually define substances in terms of their accidents because it’s convenient for us to do so from a practical perspective, but that doesn’t mean we can immediately infer that all objects with a set of accidents are also a particular substance, or that a particular substance always manifests itself with the same set of accidents.

 

[Newbie2]

Methinks that mixing physical, metaphysical and theological epistomologies doesn’t work very well on this topic.

 

[erroniusmonk]

Methinks that mixing physical, metaphysical and theological epistomologies doesn’t work very well on this topic.

Why not? All truth is God’s truth. If an epistemology is sound, it encompasses theology; if it isn’t sound, it doesn’t encompass anything.

As for the axiom of identity vis-a-vis transubstantiation, there is no problem. The bread and wine disappear and our Lord is present to us under the appearances of bread and wine. Bread is identical to bread. The Lord is identical to himself. The axiom is not violated, because the Church does not teach that the Lord is identical to bread or wine, only that He is present under their appearances, which is a different state of affairs entirely.

Peace!

 

[JudieK]

My non-philosophical take on this is that in nature, A = A, and that rule holds almost all of the time. But God can do whatever He wants, and in very special circumstances, He can perform a miracle (that we take on faith) and make Himself supernaturally present under the appearance of Bread and Wine. This is so special that we call it a sacrament. AND, it is so hard to wrap our minds around that we call it a mystery. I don’t think we should try to define it with laws, because God is above those laws and can suspend them if He chooses. It seems that during the Protestant reformation, that A = A argument was used to “desacramentalize” the eucharist.

 

[erroniusmonk]

My non-philosophical take on this is that in nature, A = A, and that rule holds almost all of the time. But God can do whatever He wants, and in very special circumstances, He can perform a miracle (that we take on faith) and make Himself supernaturally present under the appearance of Bread and Wine. This is so special that we call it a sacrament. AND, it is so hard to wrap our minds around that we call it a mystery. I don’t think we should try to define it with laws, because God is above those laws and can suspend them if He chooses. It seems that during the Protestant reformation, that A = A argument was used to “desacramentalize” the eucharist.

Hi Judie K. We don’t have to worry about an “A=A argument” “desacramentalizing” anything, and here is why.

It is not a rule “that holds most of the time.” It is not even a rule. It is merely a fundamental feature about being. It is not something that God created, like a “law” or something that is sustained by His will, but is a logical necessity given that He exists: it is grounded in Him as Being itself and the fount of all other beings.

Any argument against the Holy Eucharist based on this axiom does not understand what transubstantiation means. The bread and wine disappear and Jesus Himself is present. The host isn’t both bread and our Lord!

Blessings

 

[Thing]

Isn’t transubstantiation trying to state that “A is not A” and “bread is not bread”?

‘Transubstantiation’ is not a human idea. Its a term humanity uses to describe some thing which has already occured. It is how a past event is described, not a formula for humanity to cause an event themselves.
To talk about ‘being’ and ‘existance’ and transubstantiation together you’d need to accept a common connection between them. i.e. The power which causes ‘being’ from nothing in the first place is the same power which changes the substance of any material it chooses to create.

Perhaps in Lutherism there may be some issue with what you are saying, as Christ said, THIS [holding up the bread] is My body, but Lutherans believe it is *both *His body and bread, - which is more akin to what your argument is saying. It being both A is A and A is not A.

[Catholic] Transubstantiation is’nt trying to state that “A is not A” or “bread is not bread” it is a simple statement of fact, No bread is not bread, - that the ‘power’ which gives ‘existance’ and ‘being’ has ‘said’ it has effected this change in this material. And if I believe in ‘being’ and ‘existance’ then I believe equally in this power which called them into being, and its power to alter them.
And if I don’t believe in the ‘power’ which can do this then I don’t know why I am talking about theology.

 

[Pax]

No, it just says that “Something with all the accidents, all the sensible properties, of A is not necessarily substantially A.”

We would say that something with the accidents of a leaf cannot simultaneously have the accidents of a stone, and something with the quality of redness cannot simultaneously have the quality of greenness. But we would also say that these perceptible qualities don’t tell us anything about the underlying substance in which those qualities inhere – so it is not impossible for something to be a stone in substance but a leaf in accidents, or for something to be the Body and Blood of Christ in substance but bread or wine in accidents.

Of course, we usually define substances in terms of their accidents because it’s convenient for us to do so from a practical perspective, but that doesn’t mean we can immediately infer that all objects with a set of accidents are also a particular substance, or that a particular substance always manifests itself with the same set of accidents.

I like this answer and I think it properly addresses the question. We can easily be fooled by the accidents that appear before us. Speaking of the accidents of stones and leaves immediately brings to mind the holographic image of such things. The holographic images seem real enough until we find out that the image is nothing more than light. The substance is not there. Defining substance by the accidents is thus proven to be something quite illusory. (pun intended)

 

[JudieK]

These arguments boggle the mind. We know that the eucharist is not like a hologram of bread and wine, because you can get ill from both if you happen to have an allergy to what makes up bread or wine, or have some other disease related to these things. No one is allergic to Jesus! Sometimes I feel like we are in that fairy tale “The Emporer’s New Clothes!” Don’t get me wrong- I DO believe wholeheartedly that the eucharist IS the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus! But I think this mystery defies any logical explanation about it. Can’t we call it a miracle and be done with it? Why must if fit into a mathematical or logical equation?

 

[GJx86]

I think this mystery defies any logical explanation about it. Can’t we call it a miracle and be done with it? Why must it fit into a mathematical or logical equation?

The Church gave us the technical data that we have (the term “transubstantiation,” the commentary on substance and accidents, and so forth) pastorally, in response to Eucharistic controversies that started in the 11th century A.D.

The “how” of the Eucharist is mysterious and miraculous and does defy rational explanation. But in order to keep people from Berengarius’ errors, the Church had to explain how it was that the bread and wine could be replaced by the Body and Blood of Our Lord and still look and taste and feel like bread and wine afterwards. Only then did it come up with these philosophical underpinnings. As you can see from the OP, philosophy is advanced enough in the 21st century that we still need to be able to reconcile what our senses tell us with what the Church has taught us.

The way I see it is that if someone’s faith in the mystery of the Eucharist is weakened (or prevented) by their senses, and the Church has given us a way to reconcile what they sense with what we know about the sacrament, then we have a powerful tool for bringing people closer to God and His Church.