Isn't any type of word use essentially the same type of "faith based belief"? So if you reject transubstantiation, you make the statement, "I have no faith in the way that they use words". — Metaphysician Undercover
Your decision to reject as "nonsense" a system which has allowed ideas to persist for hundreds, even thousands of years, is not a rational decision. — Metaphysician Undercover
Your decision to reject as "nonsense" a system which has allowed ideas to persist for hundreds, even thousands of years, is not a rational decision. — Metaphysician Undercover
And so the difference between a system that I make up on the spot and the Catholic one is simply they came up with theirs first? — Hanover
That's interesting. It does have some force against the comparisons some people have made with things they have made up on the spot and that have no meaning or function. But I think ideas can be persistent because they are functional without being true. — unenlightened
The point being that longevity offers us nothing in terms of proof of value or whether it'd be better to finally abandon it and move on. — Hanover
One thought I did have, for example, from a Cartesian perspective, is that I am composed of two substances: mind and body. It would make sense to say therefore that the properties of the person-object are that it is composed of those two things. That would make a substance a property, and while the identification of the mind substance/property could not be empirically shown by putting it under the microscope and seeing it, it could certainly be identified behaviorally in the person through the display of consciousness. This whole issue made me question your claim that the interjection of the body of Jesus into the wafer could not be known by the person except by faith because it is not the case that substance changes are per se undetectable. — Hanover
In fact, the way I saw it is that you simply divided the world into two sorts of properties: those that were detectable and those that were not. A wafer therefore has things you can know about it and things you can't. In fact, I'd go as far to say that the real words one should use instead of essential versus accidental properties is undetectable versus detectable, at as it relates to this discussion. — Hanover
But to your over-riding point that this is all some sort of language game and that I am just rejecting their word usage, I'm really not. — Hanover
I'm being offered no evidence whatsoever of the claim they're making.. — Hanover
And so the difference between a system that I make up on the spot and the Catholic one is simply they came up with theirs first? We can pretend its longevity is based upon its validity, but that would simply overlook certain political and historical realities. — Hanover
But I think ideas can be persistent because they are functional without being true. — unenlightened
The point being that longevity offers us nothing in terms of proof of value or whether it'd be better to finally abandon it and move on. — Hanover
Your question doesn't make any sense to me. There are people eating bread and drinking wine. Some claim that the substance of the bread and the wine literally changes into that of the body and blood of Christ. — Michael
So for example in a trial court there may be an object labeled "exhibit A". What this says, is that for the following intent and purpose, i.e. the following trial procedure, this object will be known as exhibit A. And in a logical proceeding we'll say "let X be...", so that the object described is known as X. — Metaphysician Undercover
It has nothing to do with not respecting naming practices. It has to do with stating the facts. Whether or not the wine is the blood of Christ is a factual matter (where transubstantiation is said to be literal), not a naming convention, much like whether or not the 45th President of the United States is Barack Obama. — Michael
You are referring to the object as wine, when in fact, it is called the blood of Christ. — Metaphysician Undercover
It appears to me, like "substance" is what all individual, particular things have in common, it is one universal. So I don't see how the substance of one particular object could differ from the substance of another particular object, if it is one universal, therefore all objects would be of the same substance and there is no inconsistency. — Metaphysician Undercover
There's a difference between what a thing is and what a thing is called. They might call it the blood of Christ, but if it isn't the blood of Christ then they are wrong, just as if I call the 45th President of the United States Barack Obama then I am wrong because the 45th President of the United States isn't Barack Obama. — Michael
Whatever it is you're talking about it has nothing to do with Christian theology. — Michael
In the case of the sacrament of the Eucharist, it appears very clear to me that the ceremony is a ceremony of naming the objects, giving them a new identity in the eyes of God, like baptism is, and marriage is, these are instances of giving things (people in these cases) an identity within the structure of the religion.
It is very clear, that in the sacrament, the Church is assigning these names to these objects, giving them a particular identity. It is not looking at these objects and judging whether or not they fulfil the conditions required by a definition to be called by these names. Your argument is really a straw man because the sacrament is a case of naming items, not a case of describing what a thing is. The priest does not look at the object, and state the name suited for describing the object, the priest assigns a name of identity, to the object This is what such sacraments consist of, giving things a particular identity (naming them) in relation to God. — Metaphysician Undercover
Not every Christian will do. Not all Christians accept transubstantiation as literal. — Πετροκότσυφας
I've shown you a cardinal's take on the matter here. — Michael
The body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament by reason of the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, which are attached to the proper performance of the rite by a duly ordained minister. — Michael
You don't seem to understand the difference between those who claim that transubstantiation is literal and those who claim that it isn't. — Michael
Although the latter is just a case of naming items, the former is a case of describing what a thing is (and open to being wrong). We're supposed to be talking about the former. — Michael
I don't think we're talking past each other. I think he's just wrong, and not making any sense. — Michael
He seems to want to say that if it doesn't literally happen then it happens by fiat, which is ridiculous. — Michael
Else I might as well argue that because I refer to him as being "wrong" and me as being "right" then ipso facto he is wrong and I am right. It's a bastardization of Wittgenstein's "meaning is use", which he seems to be pushing. — Michael
What recourse do we have but to appeal to God? — Metaphysician Undercover
God is, assuming he exists, a useless ambiguous cunt who "moves in mysterious ways" but not so mysterious as to allow the powers that be to use his "word" to enforce definitive rules on others. 21 pages of semantics. Wonderful. The only thing religion is good for is illuminating what the religious feel comfortable accepting without thinking. — Benkei
The only thing religion is good for is illuminating what the religious feel comfortable accepting without thinking. — Benkei
Right, so no wonder you haven't adequately judged the matter if you don't know the criterion of truth in this case. I suggested that the criterion of truth, in this case, is experiential. You have to experience it, and it is that internal change that is the substantial change mentioned. So bread and water remain physically bread and water, but their meaning has changed for the believer. So, by all means, this is a mystical experience, that is open to those who take part in the Eucharist.Your original question makes no sense to me in this context, if I interpreted it correctly. When you asked me what I would see, I took that literally, as in, asking what it is that I would observe. I would observe no difference in the bread and wine.
The purported difference is that the substance has changed, and that the elements of the Eucharist which were formerly bread and wine are now the body and blood of Christ. But that isn't something I'd expect to see, and I don't know how I could know that to be the case.
And I didn't say that I had no internal criticism. I do. The internal criticism is epistemological: how can we know this? Even under the assumption that it is true, that question remains. What I did was emphasise the distinction between external and internal criticism, because the absence of that distinction seemed to be the cause of some confusion. — Sapientia
A miracle it might be, so long as you understand that the traditional definition of a miracle as something that "breaks the laws of nature" is silly.I disagree, but I think that this is semantic. I'd call that a miracle, as would countless others. In fact, I think that if you put it to the general public in the form of a survey, then the vast majority would agree that it's a miracle. So you're just not speaking the same language as the rest of us. — Sapientia
Yes, it actually does discount your testimony in comparison to someone who is willing to die for what they've witnessed. If you have no skin in the game, it's easy to testify for anything. And don't be silly now - if you were a judge and a man risked his life to testify something, while the other didn't risk anything, who would you believe?I wouldn't be willing to die for most of what I'd testify to having witnessed, but that doesn't discount my testimony. — Sapientia
That's not true from my perspective at least. I apply the same standard to all claims in intellectual matters.No, I can't add metaphysics to the list. That's far too vague and unexplained. And if you think that you've got a solid case, then you must have much lower evidential standards than me - at least when it comes to what we're talking about here. Elsewhere you raise the standards, creating a double standard. The stuff that we're talking about here gets special treatment, because it's your religion. But that isn't a reasonable, objective stance to take, and you should admit that. — Sapientia
Sure, I can absolutely imagine a world - not our world though - where the sea lion produced mystical experiences, and everything around the universe revolved around it. Sure, nothing ridiculous in that. Just a different world from ours. In ours, as we know it today, that would indeed be ridiculous.How much testimony? What if it was a central tenet of your religion? What if people reported mystical experiences which they attributed to the sea lion? These were not rhetorical questions. — Sapientia
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.