What more do want to know, specifically, about my views? — Sapientia

Are they materialist?

I believe that almost everything is made out of a material called matter, including bread and wine. — Sapientia

What is not included in "almost"?

But, alternatively, do you really need me to clarify for you what materialism means? Come on, I'm the philosophical dilettante here, not you. As to the relevance of the criticism of materialism, revert back to Thorongil's OP for the context of materialism. — Noble Dust

Yes, that would be helpful. I don't self-identify as a materialist and I don't spend much time reading about or discussing it.

Whether I'm a materialist or not, I'm an atheist, and I'm not religious, so I don't believe in the magical transformation which Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are expected to believe in as a central tenet of their religion.

Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst."
(John 6:35)

“...The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe”
(John 6:63-64).

That verse is not about the Eucharist, and within the context of these two verses is clearly symbolic/spiritual.

What is not included in "almost"? — Noble Dust

Anything I'm not sure about. What's a thought made of? I can't answer that kind of question as easily as others.

so I don't believe in the magical transformation which Eastern Orthodox Christians and Catholics are expected to believe in as a central tenet of their religion. — Sapientia

Interesting. So, as someone who is not a materialist, what is your criticism of transubstantiation?

That verse is not about the Eucharist, and within the context of these two verses is clearly symbolic/spiritual. — ProbablyTrue

And did I ever imply they were physical :s ?

I
If you're saying that transubstantiation is not physical in some sense, where the bread and wine actually become Jesus' flesh and blood, then what is the claim? And wouldn't that put you at odds with the above verse you just quoted where you implied that Jesus made the claim that they had to literally eat his flesh and blood?

Here's a quote from Catholic.com in an article called Transubstantiation for Beginners:

"The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so."

Do you disagree with this?

If you're saying that transubstantiation is not physical in some sense, where the bread and wine actually become Jesus' flesh and blood, then what is the claim? — ProbablyTrue

They do, but they don't physically become the flesh and blood of Jesus.

So they do REALLY become the flesh and blood of Jesus. But that's not a physical becoming.

Do you disagree with this? — ProbablyTrue

"The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so." — ProbablyTrue

Now I agree with it.

So they do REALLY become the flesh and blood of Jesus. But that's not a physical becoming. — Agustino

So they become the flesh and blood, but not in any perceptible or substantial meaning of the word "become". A better name would be Transunsubtatiation.

So they become the flesh and blood, but not in any perceptible or substantial meaning of the word "become" — ProbablyTrue

Yes, in an absolutely substantial manner, just not a physical one (in terms of their appearance).

Yet it's clearly implied. I'll let T Clark correct me if I'm mistaken. — Noble Dust

Geez, give me a link would you. Do you expect me to remember what I wrote hours ago? I assume you mean this:

Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly. — T Clark

Now what's the question? Is it "What does this say about materialism?" I don't think is says anything about materialism. "Is this statement consistent with materialism?" Every metaphysical statement is consistent with materialism. Except when it's not. Ha! I was trying to sound mysterious. Ignore "Except when it's not."

You can see what my views are in relation to transubstantiation by reading the preceding discussion. — Sapientia

Your views show a lack of empathy and an understanding of human psychology and the procedures of reason. Oh, yes, and also of the nature of reality.

See @Noble Dust, I told you that you were smoking crack :B

He may have been married back in Old Testament times. He was cranky, vindictive, and mean. They must have broken up after she found out Mary was having his kid. That's why Christian doctrine is so much nicer after Jesus was born. — T Clark

Edit - Quoting error. Here's what I was trying to respond to

↪T Clark See Noble Dust, I told you that you were smoking crack — Agustino

This is probably the only time you have taken one of my posts seriously. Seems a bit self-serving to me.

Interesting. So, as someone who is not a materialist, what is your criticism of transubstantiation? — Noble Dust

Seriously? Read the discussion, please. I don't feel like starting over from scratch with someone else.

I guess I'll take the word of a East Orthodox over that of the Petit Catéchisme à l'usage du Diocèse de Genève. :-}

I remind you that I've already provided my personal reasons for believing the doctrine here:

I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.

So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them. — Agustino

1. Christianity isn't that unique. It has features in common with Judaism and Islam, in particular.

2. Yes, people have funny feelings. I have acknowledged this and provided my own explanation.

3. No, it isn't. It's the complete opposite. It's controversial, and there have been wars over how it ought to be interpreted.

4. Such as...?

Yep, some of them no doubt are. — Agustino

It's not just that some of them are no doubt wrong, but that there's not enough of an evidential basis to believe that any of them are right.

Some of them aren't intelligent, others are extremely intelligent. There are both kinds of people. Or do you mean to suggest that only stupid people have mystical experiences or claim to have had them? — Agustino

Yes, there are both kinds of people, as I acknowledged. The intelligent ones are too emotional, so they end up in denial and believe what they want to believe. It's not so much a lack of intellect for these type of people, but an excess of emotion.

In the grand scheme, Tertullian's opinion is just one of many so even this doesn't amount to much. I doubt we'll solve a major theological schism here in the ShoutBox. — ProbablyTrue

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.

this has nothing to do with materialism. You can be a hardcore materialist and still believe in transubstantiation. — Agustino

This makes no sense. A materialist is someone who believes that only matter and physical forces exist, which rules out the existence of God, angels, demons, souls, substantial forms, Platonic Ideas, etc. Transubstantiation requires the existence of God at the very least. Therefore, one cannot be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation.

You're confusing understanding and agreement. The failure is all yours. It is because I see it for what it is that I reject it, as I reject magical thinking in general. — Sapientia

You've simply made my point for me here. Yes, you reject what you put into the category of "magical thinking." You have reasons for doing so. Those reasons require defending in order to reject transubstantiation.

So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd.

Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation. — ProbablyTrue

Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, or expecting people to buy that it's reasonable and not a matter of blind faith. I also agree that there's special pleading involved, on account of it being religious, and being of this particular religion. If I were a Christian, I would definitely not be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant.

1. Christianity isn't that unique. It has features in common with Judaism and Islam, in particular. — Sapientia

But Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions. No other religion has such a figure, which has absolute central importance to the religion. 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.

3. No, it isn't. It's the complete opposite. It's controversial, and there have been wars over how it ought to be interpreted. — Sapientia

Which wars? :B

4. Such as...? — Sapientia

Some historical events, such as the Resurrection, my current understanding of metaphysics, etc.

It's not so much a lack of intellect for these type of people, but an excess of emotion. — Sapientia

>:O - yeah if we could all be knights of pure reason like you Sappy :P

Yes, we - that is, Agustino and I - probably won't agree. For a start, I don't even accept that it's a mystery. I think that it's a faux mystery. I think that much of religion relies on faux mysteries. It is often said that God works in mysterious ways. It's also quite convenient. If it was falsifiable, it probably would have been falsified by now, like the literal interpretation of the Genesis creation myth and other passages of the Bible.

This makes no sense. A materialist is someone who believes that only matter and physical forces exist, which rules out the existence of God, angels, demons, souls, substantial forms, Platonic Ideas, etc. Transubstantiation requires the existence of God at the very least. Therefore, one cannot be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation. — Thorongil

Yeah, so what if they believe only matter and physical forces exist? Do colors exist for the materialist? Yep. So the materialist also acknowledges the existence of qualities, however he does not think that these are ultimately real. You can absolutely be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation because the latter is qualitative.

Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, and that there's special pleading involved. If I were a Christian, I would definitely not be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant. — Sapientia

The Catholic Chuch never argues for a literal interpretation of the Bible. The whole idea of hermeneutics was developped by Catholicism as a field to discuss the relative values of biblical interpretations.

There are many mysteries to a Catholic that will never find a rational explanation. These are not taken to express a subjective truth about our connection to God. This is because they aren't presented as such in the holy texts. The Holy Trinity is not presented either in the Bible as a mystical objective fact, it's just that there are precise passages that discuss the unicity of God in the Ancient Testament, and that this would conflict with the New Testament claims that both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are divine too.

A bit like how God only became King of the Universe after he decided to incarnate himself in Jesus Christ (Doctrine of the Royalty of Jesus Christ).

Yes, I agree with the absurdity of expecting people to believe in a literal interpretation, or expecting people to buy that it's reasonable and not a matter of blind faith. I also agree that there's special pleading involved, on account of it being religious, and being of this particular religion. If I were a Christian, I would definitely not be a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I would be a Protestant. — Sapientia

Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things.

Transubstantiation is no harder to believe than that light is a wave and particle at the same time. That there are a practically infinite number of parallel universes that can never be seen. That the world consists of mathematics. That objective reality exists when there is no way, even in theory, to know it directly. — T Clark

If you proportion belief to the available evidence, then no, they're not comparable. There's a lot of evidence for particle-wave duality. 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.

If you proportion belief to the available evidence, then no, they're not comparable. There's a lot of evidence for particle-wave duality. There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay and funny feelings, which I'm not willing to do. — Sapientia

Just hearsay, no funny feelings.
Anyway, any decent Catholic imho should admit that he believes certain things on very strenuous premisses. That's going to be a part of the existential malaise that is essential to Catholicism.

If you proportion belief to the available evidence, then no, they're not comparable. There's a lot of evidence for particle-wave duality. There's not a lot of evidence for transubstantiation, unless you lower the bar and allow for hearsay and funny feelings, which I'm not willing to do. — Sapientia

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."

Just hearsay, no funny feelings. — Akanthinos

You can take that up with Agustino, then, as he cited mystical experiences as evidence, which I interpret as funny feelings.

You're still not making any sense. You can't believe in something that requires the existence of God if, as per one's materialism, you don't believe God exists.

It's like believing in dragon fire without believing in the existence of dragons. The dragons must exist in order for there to be such a thing as the fire they breathe.

I have taken it up with him. The Catechism is clear on the issue. ;) C'est la vie!