I didn't ask you to entertain the idea. I simply asked you to tell what you expect to happen if the doctrine is true? That's much like asking you what would you expect to happen if Newton's theory of gravitation is true? Can you answer one question? Then you should be able to answer the other too. So stop trembling, shaking, and deflecting, and answer the darn question in clear and no uncertain terms. — Agustino
There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay, funny feelings, and "The doctrine says so!", which I'm not willing to do. — Sapientia
True. Quoting a heretical non-saint like Tertullian doesn't help your case, especially as he doesn't reject the doctrine of the real presence in that quote. — Thorongil
Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things. — jamalrob
Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.
But that's irrelevant. In both cases. The fact that there are neural correlates for a qualitative experience does not eliminate the qualitative aspect of it, nor does it show that science can investigate the qualitative experience itself. That's for phenomenology to do.
If you go from non-horny to horny then this same girl that you're looking at becomes qualitatively different. She means something different for you, even though nothing, in her, physically changed. Something did physically change in you - the neural correlates - but they don't "contain" the qualitative meaning and inner understanding of the event. — Agustino
That's only your own faith. — Agustino
No, it's not. The doctrine makes no physical predictions, so it simply has nothing to do with science. — Agustino
Sure, that's exactly why I gave you 4 or so different reasons for believing it. — Agustino
Ghosts and celestial teapots are supposed to physically appear, to be observed around in the physical world. They are not qualitative phenomena, but quantitative ones. So how is there an analogy between transubstantiation and ghosts / celestial pots? — Agustino
Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion. He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. — Wikipedia
Yeah, a nonresponse to a nonquestion. If you can't be sufficiently accurate and specific in the questions that you ask, you'll keep asking a lot of bad questions. Then you'll be like yeah yeah yeah, replace this with that, or whatever, doesn't matter. — Agustino
This was too much for you:
Yes, actually, if you put it that way, in mystical experiences there are changes in the brain that are scientifically observable.
— Agustino
You must have been like :OOOOOOOOOOO - what will I say now? — Agustino
Which part? Are you suggesting that it is something other than a myth? That it is not taken up on faith? That it is falsifiable and unscientific? — Sapientia
But Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions. — Agustino
No other religion has such a figure, which has absolute central importance to the religion. — Agustino
You can imagine Islam without Muhammad, or Moses without Muhammad, or Buddhism without Buddha, or Hinduism without Krishna, etc. but you cannot imagine Christianity without...Christ. — Agustino
Which wars? — Agustino
Some historical events, such as the Resurrection, my current understanding of metaphysics, etc. — Agustino
Not heretical enough that the Catholic church doesn't want to claim his opinion for their purposes, though. — ProbablyTrue
No, that's completely whack. Islam without Muhammad? Buddhism without Buddha? — Sapientia
I don't have a dog in this doctrinal fight. — ProbablyTrue
The Catholic Chuch never argues for a literal interpretation of the Bible. — Akanthinos
Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. — jamalrob
Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things. — jamalrob
There's lots of evidence of transubstantiation, it's just not evidence you believe. Your begging the question a bit. You've assumed that scientific rules apply to a situation where they don't. Agustino says "Scientific evidence is not relevant." You say "Science proves you're wrong." — T Clark
You don't get to choose what is evidence or not. — T Clark
You only get to argue that the evidence provided is wrong or unreliable. — T Clark
"I don't accept your evidence that realism is wrong because it isn't consistent with realism." — T Clark
As I think Clarky tried to show earlier, the people who are dying of laughter from any suggestion of religious experience are probably same people who think quantum mechanics makes perfect, measurable, and logical sense. — Buxtebuddha
This is silliness. Transubstantiation is not an empirical state. It's symbolic, metaphorical, a necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world, within the context of religious ritual. In this respect, it's an a priori truth which isn't subject to any sort of argument about having evidence.
Asking for evidence here is like claiming that an assertion "The world is a stage" has some evidence which make it so. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Then Google is wrong? — Sapientia
Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. — Jamalrob
This is silliness. Transubstantiation is not an empirical state. It's symbolic, metaphorical, a necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world, within the context of religious ritual. In this respect, it's an a priori truth which isn't subject to any sort of argument about having evidence. — TheWillowOfDarkness
If I reject substantiation because it's bullshit, but I ignore the bullshitery of quantum mechanics and believe it anyway, that means two things (1) I'm logically inconsistent in my beliefs, and (2) transubstantiation is bullshit.
I mean I get the argument of "sure my beliefs are stupid, but so are yours," but is that really where you want to land on this? — Hanover
Really? How so? — Sapientia
I don't think quantum mechanics is bullshit. — T Clark
Mystical experiences emerge likely as a therapeutic attempt for those susceptible to pathological issues by enhancing a sense of self-worth, such as when experiencing depression or anxiety and where the brain also changes in order to reduce that disconnection or alienation; the acceptance of supernatural things like statues moving or weeping is a type of collective pathology that serves to normalise these individual experiences (think of things like Jerusalem syndrome). — TimeLine
"Religious experience is brain-based. This should be taken as an unexceptional claim. All human experience is brain-based, including scientific reasoning, mathematical deduction, moral judgement, and artistic creation, as well as religious states of mind. Determining the neural substrates of any of these states does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance" — TimeLine
QM emerged as a tool for scientific reasoning and mathematical deduction to describe and illustrate concepts as a step towards interpreting the universe and the amount of nonsense and pseudoscience that has emerged is verification that when all things are possible, nothing is impossible. But, the study of chemistry emerged from alchemy, ancient cosmology from Aristotle or Seleucus with their fantastic themes that the universe is cylindrical among others helped emerge the study of astronomy and eventually the development of astronomical tools that led to what we now know as science. — TimeLine
For me, religion was a tool to understand our moral and ethical dimensions, but the static nature of dogma has made it difficult for it to evolve and appreciate the original purpose, which was basically to understand how to be a good person. "Jihad" was supposed to be about fighting evil subjectively or within, but taking this literally as part of some collective pathology has led to rather devastating consequences. — TimeLine
I think we really disagree. Are you saying that the mystical experiences of billions of people are the result of psychopathology? If so, that surprises me. If not, please clarify. — T Clark
So, I agree, QM is often misused in a lazy and slapdash way. Do you think I was saying that QM's supposedly odd implications justify belief in supernatural phenomena? I wasn't. I was trying to say that just because something seems inconsistent with common sense, hard to believe, that doesn't mean it's wrong. — T Clark
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.