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

Why? It's not relevant. It's just a trap so that you can jump on an earlier misunderstanding. If the doctrine rules out scientific evidence, and we're assuming that the doctrine is true, then obviously I wouldn't expect scientific evidence. Ah ha! You caught me! Except you didn't, because I already explained that that would be begging the question. I'm not trying to argue that it's wrong internally, based on its own presuppositions. I wouldn't expect it to happen at all, because it is without precedent to the best of my knowledge. It would be miraculous. Hearsay is not enough to change my opinion. So you had a funny feeling. Okay. So what? So the doctrine says so. Okay. So what? Therefore transubstantiation!?

Both Jesus and the wafer never were anything other than ordinary crackers.

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

You don't get to choose what is evidence or not. You only get to argue that the evidence provided is wrong or unreliable. Again, you're begging the question. "I don't accept your evidence that realism is wrong because it isn't consistent with realism."

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

Ah yes, the old heretic. Not heretical enough that the Catholic church doesn't want to claim his opinion for their purposes, though. I tried to explain that quotation, but if you don't see it there's nothing else I can say.

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

I'd rather be saddled with the history of Protestantism than Catholicism. Those beautiful buildings were paid for by indulgences.

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

Whatevs. I'm not even going to discuss this red herring.

That's only your own faith. — 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 scientific?

Can you demonstrate any of that to be the case?

No, it's not. The doctrine makes no physical predictions, so it simply has nothing to do with science. — Agustino

It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific.

Sure, that's exactly why I gave you 4 or so different reasons for believing it. — Agustino

Yes, they're terrible, and I have addressed each one.

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

There's an analogy in terms of evidence and unfalsifiability. I could say that I've seen a ghost. That it was a mystical experience. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost. And, being of the spiritual realm, it would leave no physical trace behind.

As for the celestial teapot:

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

Handwave. It was indeed a nonquestion, but that doesn't justify your nonresponse. It was an analysis of where you're going wrong in response to my criticism. You'd do well to heed it, rather than dismiss it on such a trivial basis.

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

Something irrelevant that I've never denied. Good one. What exactly do you think that you can conclude from that?

Can you do any better?

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

I don't understand why you even participate in this or other similar discussions. I can't remember you ever responding in a way that shows you have given the other's comment serious consideration. All you really ever say is "nu unh." You never step out of your so-called realist box and it doesn't seem like you can understand that arguing for realism using realism is philosophically invalid. As they say about string theory, you're not even wrong.

I don't understand why you even participate in this or other similar discussions. I can't remember you ever responding in a way that... blah blah — T Clark

Yeah, good to know. Thanks for your input. Your opinion means a lot to me.

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. — Thorongil

That's what I've been doing.

That's what I've been doing. — Sapientia

If you say so.

It's tiresome when about every discussion on religious ideas here is met with ridicule, mockery, and strawmen from one side. 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.

But Jesus Christ is unique to Christianity and unique amongst the religions. — Agustino

Not true. He's considered a prophet in religions other than Christianity.

No other religion has such a figure, which has absolute central importance to the religion. — Agustino

Muhammad.

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

No, that's completely whack. Islam without Muhammad? Buddhism without Buddha? Are you for real? Look up the Sudanese teddy bear blasphemy case and then tell me that.

Which wars? — Agustino

Really? Look up the European wars of religion. How to interpret the Eucharist was part of that.

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

The Resurrection is not a historical event! >:O

It's a myth, like Medusa, the Minotaur, St. George and the dragon, and so on.

Not heretical enough that the Catholic church doesn't want to claim his opinion for their purposes, though. — ProbablyTrue

Or you.

No, that's completely whack. Islam without Muhammad? Buddhism without Buddha? — Sapientia

I can imagine Buddhism without the historical Siddhartha Gautama. Many later Mahayana schools don't seem to depend on the historicity of him. Islam without Muhammad might be a more difficult case to imagine, but it's certainly possible, since the Quran is the core of Islam and is a book that has existed from eternity. Muhammad is just a messenger.

I don't have a dog in this doctrinal fight. — ProbablyTrue

I don't either, actually. I'm neither a Catholic nor a Christian. Within Christianity, however, Catholicism makes the most sense to me and attracts me the most.

The Catholic Chuch never argues for a literal interpretation of the Bible. — Akanthinos

Then Google is wrong?

Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. — jamalrob

Really? How so? I thought that it was the other way around.

Personally I'd be a Catholic. Better buildings, among other things. — jamalrob

I'd be a Puritan, because I think I'd enjoy smashing the windows of those beautiful buildings.

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're", not "Your".

You've not assessed the situation rightly. Firstly, if you had have read my comment properly, then you would have seen that I qualified my claim that there isn't a lot of evidence. But your reply ignores that qualification, as if I didn't make it. You're actually almost echoing my own point back to me as if it is a criticism. And secondly, I actually agree that science isn't relevant, in a sense. After all, I've acknowledged that the claim in question is unscientific. That doesn't do it any credit. If not science, then what? Reason? Hardly. Faith, more like.

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.

You don't get to choose what is evidence or not. — T Clark

Yes I do, in the sense that some evidence is much weaker than others, which is the sense in which I meant what I said. That's why I said that it's not real evidence, as in, it's so weak as to be effectively discounted. Think of a court of law as a point of comparison. Some evidence is inadmissible. Some evidence falls far short, such that winning a case becomes highly unlikely. Some evidence is like a smoking gun or being caught red handed.

You only get to argue that the evidence provided is wrong or unreliable. — T Clark

I've done just that. You've not been interpreting me charitably. Perhaps you should look back over the discussion. For example, there have been points where Agustino seems to have been fallaciously appealing to authority ("But the doctrine says so!") and fallaciously appealing to the masses ("Lots of people have mystical experiences!") and appealing to anecdotal evidence (weak, unreliable, unfalsifiable).

"I don't accept your evidence that realism is wrong because it isn't consistent with realism." — T Clark

Straw man and uncharitable.

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

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?

If you say so. — Thorongil

I do.

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

A necessary logical expression given by particular states of the world? An a priori truth? What are you talking about? Can you explain yourself?

And, from what I've read about Catholicism and the Eastern Orthodox Church, they do not consider it to be symbolic or metaphorical, but literal. (That is one of the distinctions between the two aforementioned and Protestantism). Accordingly, it is therefore not analogous to, "The world is a stage".

I mean it's taken to be a meaning of the bread and wine in question, rather than to be literally what the states in question are-- just as we might say how the world "really is a stage" because people appear to others, even though it's not a stage at all.

Catholics don't think they are eating Jesus' fingers and putting a substance of blood in their mouth, no matter how much any of them say it's "literal." Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim.

The Catholic Chuch never argues for a literal interpretation of the Bible.
— Akanthinos

Then Google is wrong? — Sapientia

Where did Google buy it's vocational school certificate in Theology?

Biblical literalism is associated more with Protestantism than Catholicism. — Jamalrob

True. Prior to the earliest geological explanation of the earth's history over time, Biblical literalism about creation made reasonably good sense. After these theories were published, not so much.

Actually, extremely doctrinaire Biblical literalist inerrancy is quite modern--a reaction to both Darwin and the Biblical criticism carried out in the 19th century which revealed a more complex history to the various books of the Bible than previously known. It was hatched out by crackers in the southern Bible Belt. It seems to be more common now than say... 50 years ago, and has spread north, east, and west.

It should have been nipped in the bud.

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

My wife is Catholic with a thoughtful understanding of doctrine. I've talked to her about it. Transubstantiation is definitely not a metaphorical or symbolic phenomena. It is meant literally.

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

Since we're talking about something I said, I guess I should speak up. I don't think quantum mechanics is bullshit. I believe it is true in the sense that other scientific descriptions of the world are true. I believe that subatomic particles behave the way QM describes with the understanding that physicists still have a lot to work out.

I don't think transubstantiation is bullshit either, although it is not part of the way I understand the world. I guess I would say I don't have an opinion. That's not quite right. I guess I don't think about it except as something interesting that someone believes. Or something to argue about here. Notice I haven't once argued for transubstantiation as a fact. For me, the most important thing about it is that it shows the philosophical lack of vision and intellectual dishonesty of those who support realism, science, naturalism, absolutism, materialism, etc. Dishonesty isn't the right word. Maybe blindness.

Really? How so? — Sapientia

Yep, it's among mostly American Protestants that you find the creationists and fundamentalists. On the various brands of Christianity, their doctrines and histories, you could do worse than read A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by Diarmaid MacCulloch.

Specifically on the relationship between literalism and Roman Catholicism, you could read this article from a leading Jesuit magazine:

A Fundamental Challenge: Three ways to combat biblical literalism

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). However:

"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"

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.

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.

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

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.

"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

I would probably say "mind-based," but in this case I think that would be a quibble. In general, I have no problem with that statement.

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

I remember trying to read "The Tao of Physics." I finally threw it down in anger and frustration. Ever since, some people's inability to see that any connection between QM and mysticism is metaphorical has driven me crazy. That doesn't mean I think QM is right and mysticism is wrong, they're just completely different things. 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.

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

Since no specific religion is part of my understanding of the world, it doesn't make sense for me to have an opinion on dogma or religious practice. Unless, of course, it calls for killing or enslaving children and other innocent people. That being said, it is my understanding that religion didn't start out primarily to deal with moral and ethical issues. It was intended to describe the entire world and all its aspects.

It comes down to this - for me, the universe, all that is; water, air, supernovas, bagels, love, triangles, cows, Republicans, some 23 legged numcztns on the third planet around some planet in some galaxy 11 billion light years away, God too; represents an inseparable combination of what is inside me and what is outside me. It's not really a combination - they were never separate. I believe that even though I am as hardheaded a proponent of science as you are. I am an engineer in a whole long line of clunky, methodical engineers.

There's a lot more to it, and I've discussed it on other threads. No need to go more into it here.

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

Billions of people? Are you sure about that? There are a lot of religious people who don't have mystical experiences and would likely think there is something wrong with the person experiencing it just as much as there are a lot of Catholics that do not actually believe they are drinking the blood of Christ. Stigmata never actually happened to people and if it did, it is no different to pseudocyesis or other physiological manifestations symptomatic of a pathological disorder.

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

The point I was attempting to convey is that there is a lot of wrong in QM and those even with a hint of common sense would be able to see the difference that something like Schrödinger's cat was a clear example of how QM cannot be applied to our everyday reality and yet we have the Copenhagen Interpretation. There is the double-slit experiment followed by the claim that atoms move because they know they are being observed. >:o

I am saying that there is a lot of garbage from QM that is inconsistent with common sense and that there is no mutual exclusivity between classical and quantum interpretations of the universe, but at the same time there is a reason why these absurd suggestions are formulated because we have through QM developed some precise calculations, formed a better understanding of the behaviour of particles, and advanced our understanding of a number of others things. It is a process that is leading to something better, a kind of by-product of our epistemic evolution.