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. — Hanover

Really, it means only two things?

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

That's not my argument.

Perhaps I've missed it, but each of you need to define mystical experience first. Some experiences from modern Christian mystics suggests hysteria, but if one looks back into medieval Christian mysticism, you find a starkly different picture for many. It'd be helpful to ground this discussion with good definitions.

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. — TimeLine

I guess I don't see mystical experiences as so out of the ordinary. I don't think they are mysterious at all. I wasn't really thinking about Catholics when I talked about billions of people, I was thinking of Eastern religions and philosophies, although you are probably right to include Western religions too. I have my own idea what "mystical" means. I haven't studied comparative religion much, so maybe what I am talking about is not what others usually think of as mystical.

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 — TimeLine

Is that not-smiley face angry at the QM guys or at me? I misunderstood what you were trying to say. I agree there is a lot of what looks like silliness in all those interpretations. It is my understanding that they can't be told apart, even theoretically. If that's true, it doesn't make any difference what interpretation you use. It is my understanding (I use that phrase a lot when I am talking about subjects like this) that the Schrodinger's Cat thought-experiment was a joke. It never seemed to make any sense to me.

In my lack of sophistication, it's always seemed that the correct interpretation is "that's just the way it is." QM describes how the world works. If it doesn't make sense to you, tough luck. Why would you expect the world would behave the same at the smallest scales as it does at human scale. I guess I thought that's what the Copenhagen Interpretation meant.

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. — TimeLine

I don't see why QM has to be consistent with common sense. Much of physics and lots of other things aren't. Relativity isn't.

Perhaps I've missed it, but each of you need to define mystical experience first. Some experiences from modern Christian mystics suggests hysteria, but if one looks back into medieval Christian mysticism, you find a starkly different picture for many. It'd be helpful to ground this discussion with good definitions. — Buxtebuddha

I guess to me, mysticism means understanding the world through awareness of the experience of it rather than measurements or observations of so-called objective reality. That comes mostly from my understanding and experience of the Tao Te Ching. I have not studied it, I have only read a number of versions and read just a little modern commentary. I have experienced some of what is described and it seems like the most mundane experience possible. This is usually where I hope @Wayfarer will show up and set me straight.

So, one's awareness of experience 'x' can't be measured or observed? How does one make sense of their awareness, or the experience, then?

So, one's awareness of experience 'x' can't be measured or observed? How does one make sense of their awareness, or the experience, then? — Buxtebuddha

Come on. Do you really not understand. You're experiencing things right now. You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. I just had dinner. I didn't watch myself eating - I just tasted the food, swallowed, felt it going down my throat, had a sense of wellbeing when I was done. I am verbalizing it now, but I didn't while it was happening.

Here's the issue with transubstantiation. By the power of the Word, the things referred to as the body and blood of Christ, are actually the body and blood of Christ, because that is what they are called the body and blood of Christ. But this is only true by Faith in the power of the Word. So the physical appearance of the objects, (look and taste for example), is not how one would expect the body and blood of Christ to appear. So to believe, you must release yourself of the preconceived idea that you have of how the body and blood of Christ would appear, and allow yourself to believe that the body and blood of Christ would appear as the items referred to as the body and blood of Christ. Then the items referred to as the body and blood of Christ actually are the body and blood of Christ.

You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. — T Clark

I'm not so sure. How're you not also observing your experiencing of eating dinner? You're experiencing it, so I think you're automatically measuring it somehow as being different from the experience of petting your dog.

I'm not so sure. How're you not also observing your experiencing of eating dinner? You're experiencing it, so I think you're automatically measuring it somehow as being different from the experience of petting your dog. — Buxtebuddha

You don't have to observe an experience to experience it, you just experience it. — Buxtebuddha

In my experience, I don't observe my experiences, I just experience them.

I realize that, but I'm saying that your experience has measurable phenomena. If you say that mystical experience is not measurable, then how can one even contemplate it? What's one to do with a mystical experience?

Kant pointed out that the only measurable aspect of the inner sense is time. My addition would be that time moves much much slower in the void, and much much faster in the spirit world. I like the name the "subtle body", as it is behind the scenes, and isn't any of the forms of its representation.

I think that a good definition is that it is externally indistinguishable from psychosis, only instead of making you sicker, it makes you healthier. This is something that is documented, and difficult to dispute, and measurable from the outside.

i don’t know if I can do that. I discovered Tao Te Ching through Alan Watts and have always greatly admired it, but it seems so quintessentially Chinese, and I am very much an Anglo. Still, there’s a few verses in it that have become part of my lexicon.

As for mysticism - in some ways it is impossible to convey but the great mystics, the genuine mystics, do speak a universal language.

As for mysticism - in some ways it is impossible to convey but the great mystics, the genuine mystics, do speak a universal language. — Wayfarer

I guess I thought your experience with Zen was similar. From where I stand the seem to be addressing the same experiences. Obviously, you know more about that than I do. That's why I rang you up. It's fdrake for statistics, apokrisis and StreetlightX for cognitive science, and Wayfarer for eastern religions.

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. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Your meaning is rarely clear, and that's a problem. If you're saying that, according to Catholicism, it's metaphorical, rather than literal, then I think you're mistaken, since the sources where I've got my information about Catholicism from state otherwise. Moreover, T. Clark's wife is Catholic, and she thinks likewise.

And what I was actually requesting was an explanation regarding your comments about logical necessity and a priori truth, which you haven't given. I might just resign myself to my suspicion that you were talking rubbish, whilst, in the same breath, accusing us of being silly.

Take this, for example:

Any "literal" claim is distinguishing the meanings really are expressed by the bread and wine, rather than being a mere imaginary whim. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I've read that several times now, and I'm still confused about what you're trying to say. For a start, bread and wine don't express meanings. That makes no sense. I feel like I need a translator when conversing with you.

f you're saying that, according to Catholicism, it's metaphorical, rather than literal — Sapientia

You don't understand what literal means. You think literal means physical >:O

Nope. If that's what I think, then you think up is down.

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

Right, but he's not considered to be the One True God come amongst mortals to save us from sin.

Muhammad. — Sapientia

Muhammad is not of absolute importance. Allah is. Muhammad is merely the messanger and the prophet.

Islam without Muhammad? — Sapientia

Yep, the centre of Islam is the One God Allah.

Buddhism without Buddha? — Sapientia

Sure, Buddhism is a set of techniques. Has nothing to do with a particular historical figure - maybe Buddha never even was a historical figure.

The Resurrection is not a historical event! >:O — Sapientia

That's not what the available testimony indicates.

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

>:) - when you see you're wrong, you run away.

It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific. — Sapientia

You can't know if it's unfalsifiable if you cannot even bring yourself to specify what predictions it makes. That's your own failing though. I've asked you multiple times already.

It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific. — Sapientia

Yeah so what? Emotions are also unfalsifiable, therefore they're unscientific. So that means they're mythical? Give me a break from first-grade reasoning.

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. — Sapientia

That's not true that a mystical experience wouldn't leave physical traces behind. Such could be detected in the brains of those undergoing them.

Bertrand Russell — Wikipedia

>:O

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? — Sapientia

Well, for one, I can conclude that mystical experiences do leave physical traces behind, and are scientific to that extent (we can judge whether or not someone really had a mystical experience). We cannot, however, scientifically study the inner meaning or significance of mystical experiences. That's not a failure either of science or of mystical experiences. It doesn't tell us mystical experiences are "mythical", or "unscientific" in a prejudiced sense. It just tells us that you're trying to cut a tree with a hammer ;)

That's not what the available testimony indicates. — Agustino

>:O

In that case, there must really have been witches, given all that testimony. (Look up witch trials in the early modern period).

In that case, there must really have been witches, given all that testimony. (Look up witch trials in the early modern period). — Sapientia

Not comparable. First of all, in those cases there exists testimony in both directions. And most importantly, the testimony in that case was very often forced out of people by violence, etc. And the testimony was of the nature "I think she was a witch". It wasn't of the form "I've seen the Risen Christ".

In the case of Christians, if you affirmed that you saw the Risen Christ you would be persecuted. In the case of witches, you would be rewarded if you turned a witch in. In the case of Christians there exists virtually no testimony against the Risen Christ. In the case of witches the testimony was always ambiguous. In the case of Christians the testimony was of the nature of personal experience - seeing the risen Christ. In the case of witches, the testimony was of the nature "I think she's a witch".

So really, your laughable attempts aside, you have to try harder ;)

Define mystical experience for me.

You have an answer for everything, don't you? The extent that some people will go to in an attempt to justify something so patently absurd is fascinating. There are numerous other comparable examples that I could bring up. The point is, mere testimony is woefully insufficient when it comes to supernatural claims. And it certainly isn't credible to grant something the status of being factual or historical on that basis alone. You would not make a good historian. You can't even distinguish myth from history, at least when it comes to the beliefs that are central to your religion, which only emphasises your bias. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

What's interesting is that none of this is necessary. You don't have to bite the bullet and opt for the weaker position entailed by organised religion. You can be a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ's teachings, without adopting this untenable literal interpretation of scripture.

Good historians wouldn't question the validity of one's claimed experience, only how that claim functions in different narratives. Suggesting that claims of mystical experience are in fact myths is not the job of a historian, so I don't think either of you would be good historians.

Good historians wouldn't question the validity of one's claimed experience, only how that claim functions in different narratives. Suggesting that claims of mystical experience are in fact myths is not the job of a historian, so I don't think either of you would be good historians. — Buxtebuddha

A good historian would not count any supernatural claims as historical without exceptional reason. Agustino cited the Resurrection as a historical event. Agustino has not provided enough of an evidential basis to make an exception. Therefore, it should not be counted as historical. End of.

No credible historian would count the tale of St. George and the dragon as a historical event. There is no archeological evidence of dragons ever having existed. Similarly, there is no credible evidence that Jesus was ever resurrected from death. Testimony is not enough for obvious reasons. Otherwise you open the floodgates to all sorts of fantastical imaginings, be it ghosts, angels, demons, faeries, dragons, witches, walking on water, and so on and so forth.

You're not understanding at all. What I'm saying is that the claim itself is what historians analyze as part of a historical narrative, not whether or not the Christian resurrection happened yes or no. If Agustino is claiming that the Christian resurrection happened, not merely that it is claimed to have happened, then he could be right, but he could also be wrong. History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is.

History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is. — Buxtebuddha

History doesn't change.

You're not understanding at all. What I'm saying is that the claim itself is what historians analyze as part of a historical narrative, not whether or not the Christian resurrection happened yes or no. If Agustino is claiming that the Christian resurrection happened, not merely that it is claimed to have happened, then he could be right, but he could also be wrong. History isn't as set in stone as many seem to think it is. — Buxtebuddha

God's teeth, not this again. It's not that I'm not understanding, it's that I'm disagreeing. Whether or not we have enough evidence to discern whether or not it happened, which is to say whether or not it is historical, does come under the remit of a historian. We don't have enough to say that it happened in the case that is under discussion. It has more in common with mythology than history.

History doesn't change. — Michael

What we know as history does.

Whether or not we have enough evidence to discern whether or not it happened, which is to say whether or not it is historical, does come under the remit of a historian. — Sapientia

No, it does not. The historian analyzes what he has, not what he does not have. If he has no evidence suggesting the contrary, he ought not suppose that it did not happen, merely that it is not conclusive that it did. I'm sorry, Sappy, but you're wrong here. There's no way around it, and you can get offended all you like, but if I must qualify myself here, it is with me having a degree in history and have spent much of my life studying both history itself and how we study history. You can argue my acumen on philosophical matters, but here is where I'm not going to feign ignorance.

Also, I might remind you that I qualified my first reply here with good historians. I don't deny that there are historians who overstep their bounds, but they are bad historians. And I'm not alone in this.

If he has no evidence suggesting the contrary, he ought not suppose that it did not happen, merely that it is not conclusive that it did. — Buxtebuddha

Maybe for something like "Hitler had pancakes on his birthday". Not for "Jesus died, was resurrected, and then ascended to heaven."

You can think it's bullshit. I think it's bullshit. But it's not the historian's job to call bullshit. Philosophy does that!