Why does it make sense to rely upon "faith"?

[sw85]

If you’re not able to justify it to me, then that is okay with me. I can do without the personal attacks, however.

I haven’t attacked you at all. I’ve said that the fact that you are an ex-Catholic does not necessarily mean you know what we’re talking about, which means your presupposition that your RE classes or whatever you took enables you to comment on Catholic theology is not necessarily a sound one. Nearly everyone is badly catechized. The only reason I’m not is because I took it on myself to educate myself about the relevant issues; my RCIA experience was pretty much a joke from start to finish.

I’m not saying I’m “not able to justify it” to you. I’m not trying to. For one thing, I don’t owe you anything; you can do your own homework. For another, the passage I cited from Feser’s blog a page back addresses at least some of your concerns. What I’m saying is that starting at transubstantiation is missing the point. You’re having trouble apprehending it because you’re jumping into the middle when you need to start from the beginning. You think you know the beginning (because, you reason, you’re an ex-Catholic and presumably had some kind of catechesis), but I’m telling you that your catechesis is almost certainly overtly, perniciously bad and so, in fact, you don’t know your beginning. Again, this isn’t a particularly uncharitable judgment on my part. Nearly everyone’s badly catechized, and this comes through in your misapprehensions about what “faith” is. Understanding what faith is a pretty basic consideration in catechesis, so if you don’t apprehend that, it’s a pretty good sign you’re missing some very important theological information here.

So what you’re doing is the equivalent of strolling into a graduate-level quantum mechanics course, opening a book, listening to a 30 minute lecture, and then declaring that it’s all nonsense. Look at all these big technical words! These dumb squiggles! What rank obscurantism – must be a bunch of pretty prose to cover up their vacuity! Of course, it’s not nonsense, I just haven’t done the leg work necessary to apprehend the finer points of quantum mechanics; I need to start at a 100-level physics course. Likewise, delving into extremely technical matters like transubstantiation, accidents and substances, sacramentology, etc., is premature and imprudent. You don’t start there. You start with theology 101. That means you need to understand what God is and why we think He exists. If you don’t have that knowledge, everything that follows is going to look like obscurantist squiggles, even though it’s really an inescapably accurate and fairly comprehensive description of reality.

I’ve given you a source for that: Edward Feser’s Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide. It’s on the academic side, but it’s not polemical, either. It assumes you have no background in philosophy so it defines every term it uses. This is important, since there are many important terms that need to be understood (e.g., accidents, substances, forms, essences, teleology, etc.). Again, this is properly basic knowledge. If you don’t have this knowledge you are in no position to declare anything that builds on it nonsensical.

 

[WillP]

WillP;9452598:

.

When have Catholic leaders asked for mass suicide?

I was referring cult leaders. The one that I recall is a group in South America. Was it Jonestown? Anyway, a few dacades ago. and of course, “true believers” (people acting on faith) periodically act out on some mischief. The horrific acts of the 9-11 bunch is another example of “faith” driven hysteria.

Yes, I also know it seems reasonable to you otherwise, I wouldn’t think you would hold such beliefs. My question simply is why? It makes no sense to me and I am wondering how it is that people of faith can hold beliefs which appear to defy reason.

 

[prodigalson2011]

davidv;9452913:

I was referring cult leaders. The one that I recall is a group in South America. Was it Jonestown? Anyway, a few dacades ago. and of course, “true believers” (people acting on faith) periodically act out on some mischief. The horrific acts of the 9-11 bunch is another example of “faith” driven hysteria.

Yes, I also know it seems reasonable to you otherwise, I wouldn’t think you would hold such beliefs. My question simply is why? It makes no sense to me and I am wondering how it is that people of faith can hold beliefs which appear to defy reason.

So it doesn’t defy reason to you that an orderly universe, hospitable to life by very narrow parameters, sprung into existence for no reason but some unconscious necessity? Further, you find it reasonable that life appeared on this planet nearly as soon as it was habitable? Scientists have done the math and the chances of life having begun on Earth as soon as it did with no outside intervention are practically zero. It’s for this reason that many respectable scientists have proposed that “extraterrestrial seeding” might be necessary to explain the beginning of life on Earth. The only trouble with that is that the odds of such an advanced civilization arising prior to the formation of life on Earth is equally improbable.

 

[WillP]

I haven’t attacked you at all. I’ve said that the fact that you are an ex-Catholic does not necessarily mean you know what we’re talking about, which means your presupposition that your RE classes or whatever you took enables you to comment on Catholic theology is not necessarily a sound one. Nearly everyone is badly catechized. The only reason I’m not is because I took it on myself to educate myself about the relevant issues; my RCIA experience was pretty much a joke from start to finish.

I’m not saying I’m “not able to justify it” to you. I’m not trying to. For one thing, I don’t owe you anything; you can do your own homework. For another, the passage I cited from Feser’s blog a page back addresses at least some of your concerns. What I’m saying is that starting at transubstantiation is missing the point. You’re having trouble apprehending it because you’re jumping into the middle when you need to start from the beginning. You think you know the beginning (because, you reason, you’re an ex-Catholic and presumably had some kind of catechesis), but I’m telling you that your catechesis is almost certainly overtly, perniciously bad and so, in fact, you don’t know your beginning. Again, this isn’t a particularly uncharitable judgment on my part. Nearly everyone’s badly catechized, and this comes through in your misapprehensions about what “faith” is. Understanding what faith is a pretty basic consideration in catechesis, so if you don’t apprehend that, it’s a pretty good sign you’re missing some very important theological information here.

So what you’re doing is the equivalent of strolling into a graduate-level quantum mechanics course, opening a book, listening to a 30 minute lecture, and then declaring that it’s all nonsense. Look at all these big technical words! These dumb squiggles! What rank obscurantism – must be a bunch of pretty prose to cover up their vacuity! Of course, it’s not nonsense, I just haven’t done the leg work necessary to apprehend the finer points of quantum mechanics; I need to start at a 100-level physics course. Likewise, delving into extremely technical matters like transubstantiation, accidents and substances, sacramentology, etc., is premature and imprudent. You don’t start there. You start with theology 101. That means you need to understand what God is and why we think He exists. If you don’t have that knowledge, everything that follows is going to look like obscurantist squiggles, even though it’s really an inescapably accurate and fairly comprehensive description of reality.

I’ve given you a source for that: Edward Feser’s Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide. It’s on the academic side, but it’s not polemical, either. It assumes you have no background in philosophy so it defines every term it uses. This is important, since there are many important terms that need to be understood (e.g., accidents, substances, forms, essences, teleology, etc.). Again, this is properly basic knowledge. If you don’t have this knowledge you are in no position to declare anything that follows it nonsensical.

The heretics which you accused me of having failed to properly catechize me were Jesuits. I therefore have had sufficient exposure to the Summa Theologia and the philosphies which it espouses. I also understand your faith tradition’s concepts of God, the Trinity etc. I am simply relating to you that it does not make any sense to me notwithstanding all due deference to the insights of Anselm et alia. Hence, I will decline your invitation to refresh my recollection of Thomas’ basics, if its all the same to you.

My question remains, however,. You wouldn’t expect me to believe that the moon is made of green cheese even if I set up a beautifully constructed medieval syllagism yielding that as a product of deductive reasoning. Likewise, I am simply asking why does all of this make sense to you?

 

[prodigalson2011]

The heretics which you accused me of having failed to properly catechize me were Jesuits. I therefore have had sufficient exposure to the Summa Theologia and the philosphies which it espouses. I also understand your faith tradition’s concepts of God, the Trinity etc. I am simply relating to you that it does not make any sense to me notwithstanding all due deference to the insights of Anselm et alia. Hence, I will decline your invitation to refresh my recollection of Thomas’ basics, if its all the same to you.

My question remains, however,. You wouldn’t expect me to believe that the moon is made of green cheese even if I set up a beautifully constructed medieval syllagism yielding that as a product of deductive reasoning. Likewise, I am simply asking why does all of this make sense to you?

Aquinas is not the be all end all of Catholic teaching, and just because your teachers were Jesuits does not mean they were orthodox. There has been a huge trend in dissident theology over the past half century. Further, your gross misconception of transubstantiation suggests to me that you do not possess nearly as good an understanding of Thomistic philosophy as you claim. Did you, you would never have had to ask that question.

 

[WillP]

WillP;9453288:

So it doesn’t defy reason to you that an orderly universe, hospitable to life by very narrow parameters, sprung into existence for no reason but some unconscious necessity? Further, you find it reasonable that life appeared on this planet nearly as soon as it was habitable? Scientists have done the math and the chances of life having begun on Earth as soon as it did with no outside intervention are practically zero. It’s for this reason that many respectable scientists have proposed that “extraterrestrial seeding” might be necessary to explain the beginning of life on Earth. The only trouble with that is that the odds of such an advanced civilization arising prior to the formation of life on Earth is equally improbable.

Absolutely. I would be among the first to recognize these aspects of cosmology. These conditions cry out for an explanation---- no question. What I find so troubling though is that people of faith resolve the issue thus:

1. The universe seems finely tuned to support rational life;
2. Therefore, there is a personal God and
3. This personal God speaks to us through inspired writings and
4. this personal God can be appealed to by prayer and has a set of rules by which he expects us to live (we know this by means of inspired writings).
5. Do not consider, entertain or hold alternative explanations under penalty of damnation and resist all inquirey to the contrary. When science attempts to propose any alternative hyposthsis, then condemn it by resort to the Summa Theologia.

As for my own personal hypothesis on the “finely tuned universe” conumdrum, and, if your interested, here it is: What if the cosmos is rational without it being the personification of a diety? Why is that not as reasonable as your belief. I do not think it necessarily follows that rationality must be embodied in a “mind” or “person” Mathematics is not a person although the Greeks once believed that “wisdom (sophia) was a goddess. I submit that it may indeed be the case that we reside in a rational universe. What is not so reasonable is that the “rationality” of the universe is 'a mind” and also not so reasonable is that it (the rational univese) requires worship, repentence, observance of laws or commandments or any of the “stuff of religion”

 

[WillP]

Aquinas is not the be all end all of Catholic teaching, and just because your teachers were Jesuits does not mean they were orthodox. There has been a huge trend in dissident theology over the past half century. Further, your gross misconception of transubstantiation suggests to me that you do not possess nearly as good an understanding of Thomistic philosophy as you claim. Did you, you would never have had to ask that question.

I understand, and, it is quite alright. If the topic is so emotionally laden, then perhaps it is just as well that we not discuss it further.

 

[sw85]

The heretics which you accused me of having failed to properly catechize me were Jesuits.

Do you mean you went to a Catholic school at some point in your life where you had maybe one or two theology classes?

At any rate, Jesuits are not only not exempt from bad catechesis, they are sometimes deliberate propagators of it. Rahner was a Jesuit, for instance. Not terribly long ago, the Pope sanctioned them for their heterodoxy.

Relatedly, I’m sure you’ve heard the old joke about the Jesuit, the Franciscan, and the young man who wanted to know if it was licit to pray the rosary for a BMW.

So, yes, I’m quite sure the Jesuits did a number on you. Your inability to apprehend transubstantiation, misunderstanding of faith, etc., are evidence of this.

I therefore have had sufficient exposure to the Summa Theologia and the philosphies which it espouses. I also understand your faith tradition’s concepts of God, the Trinity etc. I am simply relating to you that it does not make any sense to me notwithstanding all due deference to the insights of Anselm et alia.

I have some doubt about that. If you did study it, you clearly either did not benefit from it or have forgotten it. Again, your earlier misapprehension of the Catholic understanding of faith is pretty damning in this regard, as it’s a pretty basic consideration.

If you are in fact familiar with the philosophical tradition of the Church then you would have no problem apprehending transubstantiation. But you do. Since your objection isn’t over a particular detail you disagree with, but rather that you don’t understand it at all, that’s evidence to me that you in fact lack the philosophical grounding necessary to apprehend it. Which is evidence that you need to equip yourself with the relevant understanding.

Now, I’m not qualified to give you that understanding because (a) I have a job and things to do, (b) I’m not a professor of philosophy, therefore (c) I can’t drop what I’m doing and type up a lengthy defense of like 2,400 years of natural theology every time someone comes in here asking for information they can’t be bothered to look up themselves. If you *really *want to understand the issue, revisit theology and philosophy. Feser’s book is a good place to start. I don’t believe he goes into transubstantiation directly, but he lays the groundwork with those necessary philosophical concepts (e.g., substances, accidents).

My question remains, however,. You wouldn’t expect me to believe that the moon is made of green cheese even if I set up a beautifully constructed medieval syllagism yielding that as a product of deductive reasoning. Likewise, I am simply asking why does all of this make sense to you?

Whether or not belief in transubstantiation is equivalent to belief that the moon is made of cheese is precisely what’s under discussion here. You’re claiming that equivalency isn’t helpful because I’m denying it forcefully. And I’m denying it specifically on the grounds that you’re only making this equivalency out of a position of (self-confessed!) ignorance and not of understanding.

You don’t get to claim that things you clearly don’t understand are bogus. That’s my point. So repeating that it’s bogus isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Why all this makes sense to me is because I have a sufficient understanding of the basic concepts. And also because it’s not that big of a leap once you accept the existence of the triune Christian God. He brought the entire world into being. Manifesting Himself in a bit of bread is nothing by comparison.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I understand, and, it is quite alright. If the topic is so emotionally laden, then perhaps it is just as well that we not discuss it further.

Emotionally laden? lol Where did you get that idea? I was just pointing out some pretty well accepted facts. A) Dissidence among clergy and theologians has been acknowledged by the Church as a virtual epidemic in recent decades and B) Aquinas extensively covers the doctrine of transubstantiation and leaves no doubt as to whether there is any physically detectable change in the bread and wine. If you were really as well versed in Aquinas’ philosophy as you claim, you would have known that. I’ve been calmly typing all this with a smile on my face; your misunderstandings produce no emotional reaction in me other than a sympathetic desire to correct them. I think someone’s just looking for an out.

 

[JDaniel]

I was referring cult leaders. The one that I recall is a group in South America. Was it Jonestown? Anyway, a few dacades ago. and of course, “true believers” (people acting on faith) periodically act out on some mischief. The horrific acts of the 9-11 bunch is another example of “faith” driven hysteria.

Will:

Yes, a few decades ago, there was an atrocity known as, “Jonestown.” The problem is, its very easy to put a label on something. The Jonestown atrocity did occur, but what may not have occurred is that “faith” was the agent. More than likely, it was twisted logic. From the history provided by a few survivors, the nine hundred folks were pretty much incarcerated. They had no weapons, while certain confidants of pastor Jim, did.

(If you would read some of the history of the event, which you can find on the internet, and find the movie for TV made several decades ago, you’ll discover that “faith” had nothing to do with those deaths. Faith brought them to Guyana, but “faith” did not bring them to the doorstep of death.

Likewise, the vast majority of Muslims will attest to you that the perpetrators of 9-11 were not people of “faith.” As children, the perpetrators were starved of food and indoctrinated by one book. This, too, is a twisting of a mind that is only accidentally related to a faith in God and/or a Prophet.

It just so happened that the former group were mostly from Christian backgrounds, and the second group were Islamics-by-birth. All were murdered. Their deaths can only be called “suicides” in the widest sense of that word.

Yes, I also know it seems reasonable to you otherwise, I wouldn’t think you would hold such beliefs. My question simply is why? It makes no sense to me and I am wondering how it is that people of faith can hold beliefs which appear to defy reason.

It seems to me that you are missing massive amounts of Catholicism, Christianity, Islamism, physics, and science. Hopefully, you’re young enough to catch up on all of that. No personal disparagement intended.

God bless,
jd

 

[prodigalson2011]

prodigalson2011;9453325:

Absolutely. I would be among the first to recognize these aspects of cosmology. These conditions cry out for an explanation---- no question. What I find so troubling though is that people of faith resolve the issue thus:

1. The universe seems finely tuned to support rational life;
2. Therefore, there is a personal God and
3. This personal God speaks to us through inspired writings and
4. this personal God can be appealed to by prayer and has a set of rules by which he expects us to live (we know this by means of inspired writings).
5. Do not consider, entertain or hold alternative explanations under penalty of damnation and resist all inquirey to the contrary. When science attempts to propose any alternative hyposthsis, then condemn it by resort to the Summa Theologia.

As for my own personal hypothesis on the “finely tuned universe” conumdrum, and, if your interested, here it is: What if the cosmos is rational without it being the personification of a diety? Why is that not as reasonable as your belief. I do not think it necessarily follows that rationality must be embodied in a “mind” or “person” Mathematics is not a person although the Greeks once believed that “wisdom (sophia) was a goddess. I submit that it may indeed be the case that we reside in a rational universe. What is not so reasonable is that the “rationality” of the universe is 'a mind” and also not so reasonable is that it (the rational univese) requires worship, repentence, observance of laws or commandments or any of the “stuff of religion”

You should stop making assumptions about why people believe what they do. In my case, reading the work of people such as the physicist Gerald Schroeder or the research of Frederick Larson and those involved with the study of the Shroud of Turin has had as much to do with my accepting of Judeo-Christian tradition as the Catechism or Aquinas. There is a literal plethora of resources pertaining to matters of the historicity, unity and scientific foresight of Judeo-Christian theology. Rabbinic scholars living several centuries before Christ, for example, explained that when interpreted properly, Genesis describes a universe that began from an incomprehensibly small point containing all the matter of the unvierse and then gradually expanded and coalesced into an orderly structure. Sound familar? The parallels between Judaic and modern cosmology don’t stop there, though. They also described all life as having descended from the same source and, even more telling, they claimed that humanity came from an animal that was almost completely identical to modern man in physiology and psychology. The key was that in the original text, each letter of the Torah contained pockets of information that had to be interpreted by experts. For this reason, altering the position or structure of a single character of the Torah was forbidden, as each character contained highly pertinent information to the meaning of the text. For example, the very first character in Genesis has been, for millenia, understood to indicate a beginning of time, space and matter. I could go on.

My problem with your contention is that rationality implies a mind or a plan. If you accept that the universe must be rational, why is it so hard to accept that it might have a rational, conscious and purposeful source? I suspect the last sentence of your post gives us a hint as to at least part of the difficulty: you clearly don’t like what it entails!

 

[WillP]

Do you mean you went to a Catholic school at some point in your life where you had maybe one or two theology classes?

At any rate, Jesuits are not only not exempt from bad catechesis, they are sometimes deliberate propagators of it. Rahner was a Jesuit, for instance. Not terribly long ago, the Pope sanctioned them for their heterodoxy.

Relatedly, I’m sure you’ve heard the old joke about the Jesuit, the Franciscan, and the young man who wanted to know if it was licit to pray the rosary for a BMW.

So, yes, I’m quite sure the Jesuits did a number on you. Your inability to apprehend transubstantiation, misunderstanding of faith, etc., are evidence of this.

I have some doubt about that. If you did study it, you clearly either did not benefit from it or have forgotten it. Again, your earlier misapprehension of the Catholic understanding of faith is pretty damning in this regard, as it’s a pretty basic consideration.

If you are in fact familiar with the philosophical tradition of the Church then you would have no problem apprehending transubstantiation. But you do. Since your objection isn’t over a particular detail you disagree with, but rather that you don’t understand it at all, that’s evidence to me that you in fact lack the philosophical grounding necessary to apprehend it. Which is evidence that you need to equip yourself with the relevant understanding.

Now, I’m not qualified to give you that understanding because (a) I have a job and things to do, (b) I’m not a professor of philosophy, therefore (c) I can’t drop what I’m doing and type up a lengthy defense of like 2,400 years of natural theology every time someone comes in here asking for information they can’t be bothered to look up themselves. If you *really *want to understand the issue, revisit theology and philosophy. Feser’s book is a good place to start. I don’t believe he goes into transubstantiation directly, but he lays the groundwork with those necessary philosophical concepts (e.g., substances, accidents).

Whether or not belief in transubstantiation is equivalent to belief that the moon is made of cheese is precisely what’s under discussion here. You’re claiming that equivalency isn’t helpful because I’m denying it forcefully. And I’m denying it specifically on the grounds that you’re only making this equivalency out of a position of (self-confessed!) ignorance and not of understanding.

You don’t get to claim that things you clearly don’t understand are bogus. That’s my point. So repeating that it’s bogus isn’t going to get us anywhere.

Why all this makes sense to me is because I have a sufficient understanding of the basic concepts. And also because it’s not that big of a leap once you accept the existence of the triune Christian God. He brought the entire world into being. Manifesting Himself in a bit of bread is nothing by comparison.

Forgiveme if I don’t rush to the defense of my RC upbringing except to observe that I had a toal of 8 years with the Jebbies (hi-school and university) Before that Catholic gradeschool not to mention all the black and white reruns of “Going my Way” for a lot of years.

Altogether, i hope I put my faith in things that make sense. I generally discount quackery, as I would hope you do too.
Therefore, I am simply curious asto why that is. I am not being confrontational with you. In fact I assume you are just as bright and reasonable as I am. Hence, if I can’t see this set of beliefs, then I am wondering why. It isn’t so simple as you posit, however, namely that I fail to understand it and reject it out of hand for that reason.

I don’t understand relativity either but I believe it is reliable as a cognet explanation of an aspect of reality because it has been subjected to peer review, rigerous scientific scrutiny, and,found to accurately predict conditions tested.

However, if you find our discussion beneath you, then certainly we can discontinue our dialog. As a matter of fact, I get the impression that this is so elementary that one just ought to accept it and if he fails to accept it as true then the fault is either a grave moral failing or intellectual deficit. Otherwise, however, I will continue to expect that you welcome the opportunity to defend these beliefs which I find opaque to acceptance.

PS I don’t believe I heard the joke about the Jebbies and the BMW.

 

[WillP]

Emotionally laden? lol Where did you get that idea? I was just pointing out some pretty well accepted facts. A) Dissidence among clergy and theologians has been acknowledged by the Church as a virtual epidemic in recent decades and B) Aquinas extensively covers the doctrine of transubstantiation and leaves no doubt as to whether there is any physically detectable change in the bread and wine. If you were really as well versed in Aquinas’ philosophy as you claim, you would have known that. I’ve been calmly typing all this with a smile on my face; your misunderstandings produce no emotional reaction in me other than a sympathetic desire to correct them. I think someone’s just looking for an out.

Among the insults cast was the reference to many fine young scholastics, priests, nuns, and parish lay as " ignorant heretics". You also left the unmistaken impression that I couldn’t know very much. i guess that means, I too (like my instructors) am ignorant.

I would call that emotionally charged. It certainly doesn’t make me want to re-join the church. In fact, I don’t think I care to have any further discussion with you.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Among the insults cast was the reference to many fine young scholastics, priests, nuns, and parish lay as " ignorant heretics". You also left the unmistaken impression that I couldn’t know very much. i guess that means, I too (like my instructors) am ignorant.

I would call that emotionally charged. It certainly doesn’t make me want to re-join the church. In fact, I don’t think I care to have any further discussion with you.

That wasn’t me. That was sw85. Double check before you make accusations.

 

[Touchstone]

Will:

I believe that “matter” is real. I believe that it’s definition really indicates what it is. I believe that it has “weight” and takes up (a) “place.” I.e., I believe that it has “mass,” somewhere in the infinitude of space and that which is beyond space. Therefore, it is easy for me to believe in matter.

But then, something curious confronts my intellect: atoms have no mass.

Well that is indeed curious. This must be an esoteric implication of Thomism, or something, because it ain’t physics. Atoms have mass.

But, how could that be? Electrons are “point particles.”

Electrons have mass, at least in the secular understanding of physics. An electron was approx. 9.1095 x 10^-31 kg.

Also, you’re confused about point particles, it appears. Electrons are not point particles. They have mass, and volume. Electrons and other elementary particles are sometimes called “point particles” as a way of differentiating them from compound particles which are composites, and have internal structure. An electronic has no “subparts”, no internal structure, so it is often referred to as a “point particle”, because it can be effectively treated, in terms of needed calculations, as “like a point”. But the “point” is an abstraction; the actual particle has mass and non-zero volume. For the purposes of many calculations, though, it’s it is sufficient to simply represent the particle as a non-extended “point” located at the center of the physical particle is meant to represent.

What does it mean to be a “point?” It means that it has no dimensions, and no dimensionality either.

Yeah, but this is a conceptual abstraction, useful for maths with acceptable precision. It’ looks like you’ve confused the math variable for the actual object, which has dimensions, mass, and volume.

Further, inside an atom, between the outermost parameter of its electron shell, and the outermost surface of its nucleus, wherein the electron is free to oscillate where ever it will, is what? Air?

Unlikely, since “air” is material that is made of these atoms we are talking about. It’s “space” – dimensional extension.

And, even further, its nucleus is composed of neutrons and protons, which consist of what? “Point particles?” Dimensionless points? Which themselves are more than likely separated by some invisible substrate. Of what does it consist? More air?

OK, I think you maybe are just pulling our leg now, reading this. If so, touché. If not, please have a look any number of intros to physics for a refresher on the models that have been developed.

From geometry, if I were to take one million point particles and (was able to) stack them up, one on top of another, would I get “tallness?” If I were to take a million points and lay them on a table, could I form a “line” of them?

Yes, certainly, if you are talking about real, physical particles. Stacking them up would be quite tricky, but if you could do it, you would have a "stack that is as tall as the packing proximity of the particles. That’s tricky two, because depending on the particle, and the state of the particle, different answers will obtain as to whether two particles can occupy the same space at the same time. The Pauli exclusion principle, for example, demands that two electrons sharing the same atomic orbital must have opposite spins.

All that notwithstanding, particles – real world particles – have size.

All matter consists of atoms. All atoms consist of point particles. All point particles have no dimensionality.

Oops. We believe in matter because “point particles” – the real thing, not math variables we use in shorthand calculations – are dimensional. They are spatially extended, of non-zero size. We believe in the dimensionality matter because it is demonstrably and measurably dimensional.

Yet, we believe in matter.

OK, something to agree with here!

We ascribe all sorts of properties to matter, don’t we? Weight, magnitude, hardness, softness, mass, radioactive decay, the ability to form molecules with other atoms, etc., ad infinitum, it would seem.

Yes, which works supremely well as a matter of reduction. Those things that have weight are made of fundamental components (particles) that really, actually do have mass, dimension, charge, etc.

Imagine all of the things that “matter” is capable of - as it confronts our senses. If I wish to survive, I must rely, it would seem, on my senses. I must attribute reality to the objects of my senses. And more, I must get agreement from what I think are fellow men. I must hope that what I perceive to be food is, in fact, food! Or drink, or clothing, or a fellow man, etc.

Only Neo gets to fight with configurations of space and kill them, at least in the movies.

Question: what are the fundamental differences between the Host bread and Christ’s real presence?

God bless,
jd

I have no idea what “Christ’s real presence” means in operational terms. It remains, after many, many requests, wholly underspecified. Form what people can provide, we have no independent means to detect or validate such a thing, and must be accepted, if it is accepted, just because…

-TS

 

[prodigalson2011]

That wasn’t me. That was sw85. Double check before you make accusations.

P.S. Ya know, I was just thinking… while I think you’re overreacting to sw85’s comments to begin with, I think you should take a look in the mirror before you talk about people being emotionally charged and insulting. Reflect on some of the things you’ve been saying in this very thread about Catholics. Emperor’s new clothes, etc., etc. You haven’t exactly been respectful yourself and I would suggest that everyone else here has shown you more courtesy than you have them.

WillP:

I grew up catholic so I was exposed to the same level of teaching except, in my case, I was something like the boy in the story concerning the Emperor’s new clothes.

Translation: You’re all too stupid to realize how ridiculous your beliefs are. Fortunately for me, I’m smarter than you.

WillP:

1. Do not consider, entertain or hold alternative explanations under penalty of damnation and resist all inquirey to the contrary. When science attempts to propose any alternative hyposthsis, then condemn it by resort to the Summa Theologia.

Translation: You’re all a bunch of closed minded, medieval fruitcakes.

“true believers” (people acting on faith) periodically act out on some mischief.

Translation: none required.

WillP:

It seems silly, and, in fact, may even be dangerous.

Calling one of the most central beliefs of many people’s lives, which is neither a danger nor an impediment to you, “silly” is just disrespectful.

Just something to think about before you go getting mad at people. Consider the fact that you might be inciting people’s seemingly “rude” comments.

 

[johnnyjones]

I may never understand faith.

 

[Elizium23]

You characterize faith as blind suspension of disbelief and ignorant obedience to authority. It is not that the topic is emotionally charged, it is the fact that you have come to a forum of faithful Catholics with your skepticism and laid it all out that you are intellectually superior because you don’t believe in all this Christian hooey. You haven’t really produced any logical arguments for your case, just some weak analogies and poor examples that we have shot down in flames already.

Faith in God comes from a very real place of prophecy, tradition and authority. The Jews became aware of God thousands of years ago, they wrote cautionary tales about the disobedience of our First Parents, the flood of Noah, and the promise to Abraham. As Jews, we lived by the Law of Moses for thousands of years after our deliverance from Egypt. (Yes, I say “we” because Christianity carries on an unbroken tradition of Abrahamic monotheism.) Residency in Israel brought us cultic Temple worship, prophets and kings, and eventually, exile and dissolution. Then in a little backwater of the Roman empire, Mary said “yes” and salvation history continued. We know that Judaism is true because of miracles, prophecy, and covenants. God showed Himself to the Jews and reminded us that He is ever-faithful. Jesus came to fulfill all prophecies and to fulfill the Law. He had a public ministry in which he turned the established order on its head, He fulfilled prophecies, He performed miracles to myriad witnesses, He spoke with authority and Truth.

Later, He was crucified as the final Passover lamb, Who takes away the sin of the world. And we believe he rose from the dead. Why do we believe this? Have we shut our eyes to evidence to the contrary, do we appeal to science or experience that say nobody else has risen from the dead? No, we are sure beyond a doubt that Jesus did what He promised He would do. He fulfilled prophecy, He proved he was God come down to Earth, He showed himself to the Apostles - especially a disbelieving one! Believing in the Resurrection is easy if you open your eyes to the evidence and you understand the context. It’s as easy as Transubstantiation. There were doubters of Transubstantiation in Jesus’s time, just read John 6, it is a hard thing to believe, but since we know Jesus is God, we know He wasn’t lying, and He wasn’t crazy. He simply told the honest truth about his New Covenant.

And salvation history continues. I obviously haven’t told you anything you didn’t already know, given your Jesuit education. But I hope I have framed it appropriately to dispel your notions of blind faith or obedience. Those who obeyed Jim Jones were deceived. He led them into sin. Jesus never leads you into sin. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church; she will never lead us into sin either. There is nothing foolish or blind about faith in God. Quite the reverse, really.

 

[tonyrey]

You characterize faith as blind suspension of disbelief and ignorant obedience to authority. It is not that the topic is emotionally charged, it is the fact that you have come to a forum of faithful Catholics with your skepticism and laid it all out that you are intellectually superior because you don’t believe in all this Christian hooey. You haven’t really produced any logical arguments for your case, just some weak analogies and poor examples that we have shot down in flames already.

Faith in God comes from a very real place of prophecy, tradition and authority. The Jews became aware of God thousands of years ago, they wrote cautionary tales about the disobedience of our First Parents, the flood of Noah, and the promise to Abraham. As Jews, we lived by the Law of Moses for thousands of years after our deliverance from Egypt. (Yes, I say “we” because Christianity carries on an unbroken tradition of Abrahamic monotheism.) Residency in Israel brought us cultic Temple worship, prophets and kings, and eventually, exile and dissolution. Then in a little backwater of the Roman empire, Mary said “yes” and salvation history continued. We know that Judaism is true because of miracles, prophecy, and covenants. God showed Himself to the Jews and reminded us that He is ever-faithful. Jesus came to fulfill all prophecies and to fulfill the Law. He had a public ministry in which he turned the established order on its head, He fulfilled prophecies, He performed miracles to myriad witnesses, He spoke with authority and Truth.

Later, He was crucified as the final Passover lamb, Who takes away the sin of the world. And we believe he rose from the dead. Why do we believe this? Have we shut our eyes to evidence to the contrary, do we appeal to science or experience that say nobody else has risen from the dead? No, we are sure beyond a doubt that Jesus did what He promised He would do. He fulfilled prophecy, He proved he was God come down to Earth, He showed himself to the Apostles - especially a disbelieving one! Believing in the Resurrection is easy if you open your eyes to the evidence and you understand the context. It’s as easy as Transubstantiation. There were doubters of Transubstantiation in Jesus’s time, just read John 6, it is a hard thing to believe, but since we know Jesus is God, we know He wasn’t lying, and He wasn’t crazy. He simply told the honest truth about his New Covenant.

And salvation history continues. I obviously haven’t told you anything you didn’t already know, given your Jesuit education. But I hope I have framed it appropriately to dispel your notions of blind faith or obedience. Those who obeyed Jim Jones were deceived. He led them into sin. Jesus never leads you into sin. Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church; she will never lead us into sin either. There is nothing foolish or blind about faith in God. Quite the reverse, really.

The only thing that is foolish and blind is faith in the blind Goddess: Chance!

 

[JDaniel]

Well that is indeed curious. This must be an esoteric implication of Thomism, or something, because it ain’t physics. Atoms have mass.

Touchstone:

I’ll believe it when - and only when - I see it!

Electrons have mass, at least in the secular understanding of physics. An electron was approx. 9.1095 x 10^-31 kg.

I’m having trouble conceiving of something smaller.

Also, you’re confused about point particles, it appears. Electrons are not point particles. They have mass, and volume. Electrons and other elementary particles are sometimes called “point particles” as a way of differentiating them from compound particles which are composites, and have internal structure. An electronic has no “subparts”, no internal structure, so it is often referred to as a “point particle”, because it can be effectively treated, in terms of needed calculations, as “like a point”. But the “point” is an abstraction; the actual particle has mass and non-zero volume. For the purposes of many calculations, though, it’s it is sufficient to simply represent the particle as a non-extended “point” located at the center of the physical particle is meant to represent.

I like the following description, though I disagree with part of it:

"Well for one thing a point particle is an idealised abstraction. That is to say we say things are point particles to make the maths easier. We can define the size of particles a number of different ways according to how we are measuring or interpreting it.

But to explain point particles (bearing in mind the above). Most of the rigidity of matter is down to the forces between atoms and molecules. If you can imagine a point that has a property that it cannot be moved towards or away from it neighbour. That is, without large enough forces being applied to change how they are linked together. If you make a big grid of these point particles then push it against another grid like it you will find that they can touch but never be pushed through each other as that would entail particles coming too close to each other. That is kind of like matter.

Molecules are very much 3D, as are atoms. They can be thought of as 3D arrangements of point particles that have forces acting between the points to give the illusion of volume. Remember that this is just a model to make the maths easy. Point particle models these days are mostly (except for approximate models like the ideal gas law) relating to particles we current[ly] think of as fundamental. So electrons, quarks, neutrinos and so on are point particles but protons and neutrons are most definitely not (being made up of 3 quarks)." - Shaula, established member of the Bad Astronomy and Universe Forum (Respectfully commandeered.)

Yeah, but this is a conceptual abstraction, useful for maths with acceptable precision. It’ looks like you’ve confused the math variable for the actual object, which has dimensions, mass, and volume.

I think Shaula would disagree particularly with the basis on which you are arguing.

Unlikely, since “air” is material that is made of these atoms we are talking about. It’s “space” – dimensional extension.

Do you think that the molecules and atoms of air are absolutely contiguous? What about the protons and neutrons within a nucleus? Or, are they separated by something? And, don’t say “dimensional extension,” unless by that term you mean a “medium,” even if it’s nothingness.

OK, I think you maybe are just pulling our leg now, reading this. If so, touché. If not, please have a look any number of intros to physics for a refresher on the models that have been developed.

I’m not pulling any legs and no thanks, on the intros!

Yes, certainly, if you are talking about real, physical particles. Stacking them up would be quite tricky, but if you could do it, you would have a "stack that is as tall as the packing proximity of the particles. That’s tricky two, because depending on the particle, and the state of the particle, different answers will obtain as to whether two particles can occupy the same space at the same time. The Pauli exclusion principle, for example, demands that two electrons sharing the same atomic orbital must have opposite spins.

Among other things.

All that notwithstanding, particles – real world particles – have size.

I think almost everyone on that Bad Astronomy forum would disagree with you.

Oops. We believe in matter because “point particles” – the real thing, not math variables we use in shorthand calculations – are dimensional. They are spatially extended, of non-zero size. We believe in the dimensionality matter because it is demonstrably and measurably dimensional.

I believe in “matter” because I’ve bought into the illusion of matter at an early age. It’s helped me get almost through this distractional test.

Yes, which works supremely well as a matter of reduction. Those things that have weight are made of fundamental components (particles) that really, actually do have mass, dimension, charge, etc.

You would no doubt like me to agree?

I have no idea what “Christ’s real presence” means in operational terms. It remains, after many, many requests, wholly underspecified. Form what people can provide, we have no independent means to detect or validate such a thing, and must be accepted, if it is accepted, just because…

Why must the Host be desecrated in order to prove that the illusions of bread and wine are Jesus? Catholics don’t need to do that.

God bless,
jd