What is compelling about RC belief?

[cazayoux]

In summary, then, the doctrine appears to me to lack internal consistency. I often hear my argument defended against on the basis that it is a mystery of faith.

What we as Catholics claim is that the substance changes, not the physical nature.
This is a spiritual truth, not a physical tranformation.
It is a strawman to say that transubstantiation can’t be true since there is no physical proof of this.

This discussion of truth is philisophical, and that does not mean untrue.

When we talk about the substance (SUB stance) of something, we are not talking about the surface of it.
The physical nature of WmJackP is that he is a person, but that does not come close to stating the substance of WmJackP, of who he is.

You are more than your physical attributes.
For example, let’s say you were in a sword fight and lost your arm. (yuck, i know, but work with me here )
You don’t look at the arm on the ground and say ‘That’s me’, you say ‘That’s my arm’.
You are more than your physical attributes.
Science tells us that the cells in your body are no more than 10 years old due to regeneration. Yet, you have memories older than this.
You are more than your physical attributes.

The existence of God is not a science question since science is limited to only the physical universe.
Only atheists seems to want to make God a science question.

We do not believe God is the biggest thing in the universe, we believe he is outside the universe itself. He isn’t just a part of existence, He is existence.
This is why the Jews called him ‘I Am’.

It is easy to strawman and knock the faith as taught to a child, but we are not children on this board. Our faith is not the simplistic view others think it to be. You must allow us some credit as thinkers.
Are there any faithful philosophers in history that you respect as great thinkers?

Cheers, brother!

 

[cazayoux]

But, this is now the 21st century. We have swapped alchemy for chemistry and other forms of science much more capable of describing matter than Plato ever could have.

It’s Christianity we can thank for our great advances in science. I’ll challenge you to do a search on ‘cleric scientists’. I know of a list of about 160 of them.
The explosion of scientific (pun intended) advancement was due to many priest-scientist.
The vatican science office is something you should investigate.

If you believe faith and science are opposed, you couldn’t be further from the truth.
We believe in faith and reason.

I, as a Catholic, am even allowed to believe in evolution, as long as I include God.
Alas, I do not believe evolution is scientifically proven. My issues with macro evolution are science-based, not philosophical. Variation within a species? No problem from me at all. Macro-evolution is a completely different thing. I’m not alone. Are you open to the reasoning of this thinking? If so, the science community would be proud. Science wants you to have an open eye and an open mind. This is why we see science change and develop so much.

I would ask a science question.
What is the difference between evidence and proof?

Cheers!

 

[cazayoux]

I believe it to be self evident that reality is full of wonder.

Also … a note of thanks to you WmJackP.

I haven’t been on Catholic Answers Forums in quite some time.
Because of you, I am so glad to have peeked back over this way.
Thank you for the great topic and your enquiring mind.

Welcome to the forums and enjoy the good discussion!
Cheers.

 

[ffg]

Why is it necessary to personalize this “rationality” be proclaiming that it is a personal God who is the rational force behind this wondrous reality?

God has revealed Himself to His creation. How else would we know?

I really cannot see how many of the dogmatic statements of Christianity withstand critical analysis.

Understanding comes with learning, and with the help of Grace.

Provide critical analysis on a rule and we can have a discussion.

Take care,

 

[cazayoux]

I believe it to be self evident that reality is full of wonder.

The more I think about your opening line, the more I like it.

“I” is itself a philisophical discussion.

self evident is defined as … evident in itself without proof or demonstration
You believe something that, for you, requires no proof. It is something you take on faith.

‘reality’? Now that’s a good philisophical discussion over a bottle of wine.

wonderful (full of wonder) … a very subjective description to say the least.

science has no measure for wonder, so can it truly exist?
To be filled with wonder about a belief (‘I believe’) that requires no proof for you.
That sounds fantastically existential.

Now we’re cookin’ with grease!

Cheers.

 

[WmJackP]

It’s Christianity we can thank for our great advances in science. I’ll challenge you to do a search on ‘cleric scientists’. I know of a list of about 160 of them.
The explosion of scientific (pun intended) advancement was due to many priest-scientist.
The vatican science office is something you should investigate.

If you believe faith and science are opposed, you couldn’t be further from the truth.
We believe in faith and reason.

I, as a Catholic, am even allowed to believe in evolution, as long as I include God.
Alas, I do not believe evolution is scientifically proven. My issues with macro evolution are science-based, not philosophical. Variation within a species? No problem from me at all. Macro-evolution is a completely different thing. I’m not alone. Are you open to the reasoning of this thinking? If so, the science community would be proud. Science wants you to have an open eye and an open mind. This is why we see science change and develop so much.

I would ask a science question.
What is the difference between evidence and proof?

Cheers!

Evidence is anything which tends to prove or disprove a proposition as true or false. Proof is evidence which has accreted to a point where we reach a level of certitude that a proposition is true or not. Hence, smoke is evidence of fire. Smoke plus additional evidence (for example, eye witness reporting) proves that there is most likely fire.

Faith and reason. If I have faith that it will rain, does that mean that I “know with certitude” that it will rain? If I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, is that the same as knowing that the sun will rise tomorrow? I think “faith” is more accurately an assumption based on experience with , in the first example, weather patterns as they have historically been recalled. That is much different than being able to systematically examine evidence and arrive at a level of certitude as to whether it will or will not rain. The problem with reliance upon faith is that it does not depend upon evidence, and, hence is not capable of proving a proposition.

 

[Aquinas21]

Your perception seems to be that there must be a personality behind the mask of nature which you call or want to be God and you invest this Person with all forms of supernatural powers such as omniscience and omnipotence and you build ritualistic practice around it and develop stories which quite frankly seem closely united with legendary style narratives. This seems very primitive and much like pagan forms of beliefs.

I would say yes, that’s approximately correct, and I also think that there are some good reasons (or a good foundation in human experience) for having some religious beliefs and practices, as indicated or illustrated by the Wikipedia links mentioned in post 14.

Let’s consider transubstantiation, specifically, the concept of what you call “the real presence”. … It must have a real meaning to say that something, for example, salt is something. Stated another way, when we say what something is, we must define it in a way which corresponds to reality. … Thus, if one claims that salt is alcohol under the molecular structure of salt, the statement is meaningless. In fact, the proposition cannot be understood as true and no rational argument can sustain the proposition within a critical context. … I am well aware of the Thomistic arguments which supply the intellectual backing for the doctrine. But, this is now the 21st century. We have swapped alchemy for chemistry and other forms of science much more capable of describing matter than Plato ever could have. Thus, if we are to accurately describe flesh and blood, and, to do so honestly and without allusion to magical thinking, then we must do so by some set of terms corresponding to reality. … In summary, then, the doctrine appears to me to lack internal consistency. I often hear my argument defended against on the basis that it is a mystery of faith. But, to make a proposition worthy of belief–even a mystery–it must possess internal consistency of logic. … I will welcome any response meeting my criticisms.

I have selected some of your statements that seem especially noteworthy. I think that there is more to reality than just empirical reality, so therefore a ‘real meaning’ can involve more than just empirical meaning. Why do I think this? Partly because it’s what I learned when I was studying philosophy and metaphysics, and also partly because human experience includes many ‘glimpses of a higher realm’ (not necessarily a strangely magical realm or a weirdly esoteric realm, but mainly just a spiritual domain with enduring values, etc.). People like Plato were not merely describing matter, they were also advocating the great ‘idealistic affirmation’, basically that Spirit is just as important as Matter (and ultimately more important), and Spirit is not reducible to Matter.

I think that advances in chemistry (or science generally) do not invalidate the main or central affirmations of metaphysics or idealism, and there are some scientists who agree with this perspective. So, I can agree with you that many theological doctrines do not satisfy empirical criticism, and they are not required to satisfy empirical criticism… Something similar could also be said for other intangible aspects of human life and experience, as for example in art or music. Are there only four dimensions in reality, or is there also a fifth dimension (a spiritual dimension as mentioned in post 14)? I vote for the latter. This is not exactly ‘meeting your criticisms’ as you have stated them, this is mainly just affirming that ‘there is more to it than that’ (to use an ordinary phrase). Cheers and have a nice day (or whatever).

 

[WmJackP]

Also … a note of thanks to you WmJackP.

I haven’t been on Catholic Answers Forums in quite some time.
Because of you, I am so glad to have peeked back over this way.
Thank you for the great topic and your enquiring mind.

Welcome to the forums and enjoy the good discussion!
Cheers.

Thanks. I enjoy stipulating discussions and don’t mind at all being challenged. It is a pleasure to have such conversations with folks who are not defensive and who rationally argue their points.

 

[ffg]

Sorry about the last there. I get caught when thinking of the OP, replying to an OP, then realizing after, oops, this is a much longer discussion already.

Keep up the good posting.

 

[WmJackP]

The more I think about your opening line, the more I like it.

“I” is itself a philisophical discussion.

self evident is defined as … evident in itself without proof or demonstration
You believe something that, for you, requires no proof. It is something you take on faith.

‘reality’? Now that’s a good philisophical discussion over a bottle of wine.

wonderful (full of wonder) … a very subjective description to say the least.

science has no measure for wonder, so can it truly exist?
To be filled with wonder about a belief (‘I believe’) that requires no proof for you.
That sounds fantastically existential.

Now we’re cookin’ with grease!

Cheers.

Yes, of course, I realize that we live our lives, think and behave as though we are individual units of humanity, i.e. selves. But does that make it so? Could be like fish living in a fishbowl who view the world in some distorted form because of the concave nature of their window to the world.

 

[DCNBILL]

Yes, of course, I realize that we live our lives, think and behave as though we are individual units of humanity, i.e. selves. But does that make it so? Could be like fish living in a fishbowl who view the world in some distorted form because of the concave nature of their window to the world.

If one were not a “self” what would be your view on what one was?

 

[Richca]

Thanks. I certainly appreciate the courtesy evident in your response. Let’s consider transubstantiation, specifically, the concept of what you call “the real presence”.

It must have a real meaning to say that something, for example, salt is something. Stated another way, when we say what something is, we must define it in a way which corresponds to reality. For example, we can legitimately say that salt is one atom of sodium and one atom of chloride. The statement is legitimate because it corresponds to the realty that in chemistry these two element combine to make salt. It means something else to say that alcohol is a combination of atoms described as C2H6O.

Thus, if one claims that salt is alcohol under the molecular structure of salt, the statement is meaningless. In fact, the proposition cannot be understood as true and no rational argument can sustain the proposition within a critical context. Yet, it is a form of such equating that is done when the doctrine of transubstantiation is taught to Catholic school children.

At this point, please allow me to disclose that I grew up RC. I was educated in Jesuit schools through undergrad. Consequently, I am well aware of the Thomistic arguments which supply the intellectual backing for the doctrine. But, this is now the 21st century. We have swapped alchemy for chemistry and other forms of science much more capable of describing matter than Plato ever could have. Thus, if we are to accurately describe flesh and blood, and, to do so honestly and without allusion to magical thinking, then we must do so by some set of terms corresponding to reality. Particularly, if it is not just any flesh and blood, but, in fact the specific flesh and blood united by DNA to a specific person.

In summary, then, the doctrine appears to me to lack internal consistency. I often hear my argument defended against on the basis that it is a mystery of faith. But, to make a proposition worthy of belief–even a mystery–it must possess internal consistency of logic. If bread and wine has a molecular structure in order to be bread and wine, then clearly, anything without that same molecular structure is something other than bread or wine.

I will welcome any response meeting my criticisms.

hello wmjack,
St Thomas Aquinas explained what takes place in the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation using Aristotelian philosophy and there is no inconsistency of logic here once one understands what is meant by the philosophic terms of substance and accident. The molecular structure of bread and wine is an accident of the substance of bread and wine. For the molecular structure of bread, for instance, is the extension of the matter of the substance of bread into three dimensional space and into parts. In Aristotelian philosophy, quantity or extension, is the first accident of a substance and it has to do with the matter of a substance. Material substances are observable because the matter which is a constituent part of a material substance is extended into three dimensional space and into parts.
But extension or quantity is not matter as Rene Descartes claimed. Quantity is an accidental form of a material substance. What underlies extension is matter. In the miracle of the eucharist, God withdraws the matter from the substances of the bread and wine but the accidents of the bread and wine remain, namely, extension, shape or figure, weight, taste, smell, and any other accidents that are observable. For all the accidents or properties associated with matter follow upon quantity or extension, the first accident of a material substance. The accidents which remain after transubstantiation are without matter and without a substance to inhere in. Substance of itself, including material substances which are composed of matter and form, is indivisable not after the manner of a point but after the manner of that which is outside the order of dimension.

The miracle of the eucharist is beyond anything we naturally observe in the universe. It is not possible for science to prove or disprove it by scientific experiment. We must simply humble ourselves and be in awe at what God can do with nature as He is it’s Author and Creator.

Richca

 

[Richca]

In the miracle of the eucharist, God withdraws the matter from the substances of the bread and wine but the accidents of the bread and wine remain, namely, extension, shape or figure, weight, taste, smell, and any other accidents that are observable.

I should add here that “In the miracle of the eucharist, Christ withdraws the matter from the substances of the bread and wine and converts it to the matter of his own body and blood, but the accidents of the bread and wine remain…”

 

[polytropos]

I believe it to be self evident that reality is full of wonder. The cosmos appears to be wondrously rational and consistently invoked awe in such intellectual giants as Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and (while you may be surprised) also Richard Dawkins. The study of chemistry, mathematics, earth sciences and even less science based fields like economics, sociology and history, all of these areas of study and reflective reasoning sustain a recognition that the universe is rational.

However, while I suspect that most apologists of the RC faith will fully support what I’ve just said, here is where I am certain that we depart. Why is it necessary to personalize this “rationality” be proclaiming that it is a personal God who is the rational force behind this wondrous reality? Is it not so much simpler (indeed, Occam’s razor-ish) to simply marvel at a rational reality?

I do agree that reality is intelligible. But take statements like Bertrand Russell’s on cosmological arguments. He said something to the effect that it is more parsimonious to assume that the existence of the universe is a brute fact. But brute facts are not intelligible; they have no explanation. If they are genuinely and truly brute facts, then they are not worth studying anymore, since there is nothing more to learn. (If one thinks that a brute fact is worth studying more, then one tacitly believes that it isn’t a brute fact.)

So the two options don’t seem to be quite equal; one argues that the universe is by its nature intelligible, and the other argues that the universe is proximately intelligent, but at some point hits a wall (and that the proximate intelligibility of the universe arises somehow out of its fundamental unintelligibility).

If you take someone like Einstein, who believed generally that “God” was “the laws of nature,” I simply must disagree that the laws of nature have explanatory power in the sense required. Laws are abstractions of the way the world works. They do not cause the world to work. Things behave according to laws; laws don’t act on them and cause them to behave as they do. This is a point that I think most people realized, but people nonetheless speak of laws as though they are explanations of the way that things are. They aren’t, and can’t be.

 

[po18guy]

An ant hill is a complex and appears to be an “intelligently” designed structure, does it not? If so, then one should hope to find a “chief architect ant” in charge of each designed complex; but, of course we don’t. Rather, I think what is seen in nature is not top down intelligent design but bottom up design. This is what is called an emergent property. It is one aspect of evolution.

Accidental or unavoidable symbiosis? But, who designed this process? Over billions of years, our problems would have been solved, if such a concept were reality - let alone workable. What about the observable and measurable effects of entropy?

Here’s some food for thought:

catholicworldreport.com/Item/2718/justice_mercy_and_the_drama_of_redemption.aspx#.Uo7_Kij5h5g

 

[Richca]

An ant hill is a complex and appears to be an “intelligently” designed structure, does it not? If so, then one should hope to find a “chief architect ant” in charge of each designed complex; but, of course we don’t. Rather, I think what is seen in nature is not top down intelligent design but bottom up design. This is what is called an emergent property. It is one aspect of evolution.

Your perception seems to be that there must be a personality behind the mask of nature which you call or want to be God and you invest this Person with all forms of supernatural powers such as omniscience and omnipotence and you build ritualistic practice around it and develop stories which quite frankly seem closely united with legendary style narratives. This seems very primitive and much like pagan forms of beliefs.

Your very example of an ant hill as an intelligently designed structure is an argument for intelligent design. For if there is no chief architect ant in charge of each designed complex yet the finished product of an ant hill is an intelligently designed structure, then it follows that the ants are directed to the creation of an ant hill by an intelligent being as an arrow flys to its mark by the archer. This is top down intelligent design.

That intelligent design in nature is top down in reference to things of nature without intelligence can be seen by analogy in the creation of artifacts by intelligent human beings. For it would be absurd to say that the creation of a house, for example, is a bottom up design as if a builder begins building a house without knowing what he is building or that the parts of a house arrange themselves in an orderly fashion and by accident the finished product is a house. No, a builder or architect first conceives the plan of the house in his mind and draws up this plan on blueprints. Then the builder begins forming the house in matter and all the parts of the house are arranged in an orderly fashion by the builder according to the plan of the house.

In the same manner, the things of nature that are without intelligence but are arranged in an orderly fasion and act almost invariably in the same way for some end are directed to their ends by an intelligent being which we call God.

Richca

 

[Richca]

I do agree that reality is intelligible. But take statements like Bertrand Russell’s on cosmological arguments. He said something to the effect that it is more parsimonious to assume that the existence of the universe is a brute fact. But brute facts are not intelligible; they have no explanation. If they are genuinely and truly brute facts, then they are not worth studying anymore, since there is nothing more to learn. (If one thinks that a brute fact is worth studying more, then one tacitly believes that it isn’t a brute fact.)

So the two options don’t seem to be quite equal; one argues that the universe is by its nature intelligible, and the other argues that the universe is proximately intelligent, but at some point hits a wall (and that the proximate intelligibility of the universe arises somehow out of its fundamental unintelligibility).

If you take someone like Einstein, who believed generally that “God” was “the laws of nature,” I simply must disagree that the laws of nature have explanatory power in the sense required. Laws are abstractions of the way the world works. They do not cause the world to work. Things behave according to laws; laws don’t act on them and cause them to behave as they do. This is a point that I think most people realized, but people nonetheless speak of laws as though they are explanations of the way that things are. They aren’t, and can’t be.

Hi polytropos,
I disagree with your analysis that laws are mere abstactions.
If laws are abstractions of the way the world works, then laws must be abstracted from things. For a concept such as “the laws of nature” is either true or false in that it either corresponds to reality or not. For example, if a lion acts according to the laws of nature, this means nothing less than that a lion acts according to the principles of its own nature. Now to act or behave according to a principle is the same thing as acting or behaving according to a law. All things act or behave according to the principles or laws that God impressed on the nature of each thing.

Richca

 

[Wildgraywolf]

The cosmos appears to be wondrously rational

The cosmos - the universe can’t be rational it simply is. It isn’t logical to assign intellectual abilities to inanimate nonliving matter.

 

[mgoforth]

…Why is it necessary to personalize this “rationality” be proclaiming that it is a personal God who is the rational force behind this wondrous reality?..

It was God Himself who did the personalizing actually. As other posters have responded, God took the initiative of making contact with humanity and explaining certain aspects of reality and Himself to us. He doesn’t explain it all because we can’t understand it all. We are finite and He is infinite…so He can’t fit into our minds.

If you need proof of God’s existence I would direct you to Jesus Christ and the Apostles. I actually just wrote a reply today that I’ll cut and paste here if you don’t mind.

Luckily, God has directly intervened in the world in a way that can be tested. He intervened by entering the world physically in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus and the effects that his life had on the world are enough to prove the existence of God beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. It is widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him as a true historical person as well.

1. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.

1. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever changed their story in the slightest.

1. It is highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie.

1. It is highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.

1. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.

1. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.

1. Therefore, God exists.

 

[polytropos]

Hi polytropos,
I disagree with your analysis that laws are mere abstactions.
If laws are abstractions of the way the world works, then laws must be abstracted from things. For a concept such as “the laws of nature” is either true or false in that it either corresponds to reality or not. For example, if a lion acts according to the laws of nature, this means nothing less than that a lion acts according to the principles of its own nature. Now to act or behave according to a principle is the same thing as acting or behaving according to a law. All things act or behave according to the principles or laws that God impressed on the nature of each thing.

Richca

Maybe I wasn’t clear, because I agree with you. But the fact that things behave according to laws does not make the laws themselves sufficient explanations for the behavior.