I'd think bias would count against the witness, offering a motive to fabricate.

The basis presented for it seems to be a biblical passage or two then supported by some Aristotelian philosophy then in vogue, which draws upon distinctions not really supportable. — Hanover

What distinctions aren't supportable?

I think you still misunderstand the nature of substance. If a person is composed of two substances, then the person is two individual objects. To say that one thing is two substances would really be contradictory because substance is what validates the existence of the thing, so this would be like saying one thing has two existences. So substance dualism says that the human person is composed of two distinct things, body and soul, and this is why the soul can persist as a thing even without the body. It is usually argued that Aristotle's system is not consistent with substance dualism.

You're really just turning things around, saying that there is one thing (person) with two substances mind and body. This allows you to say that the one thing, person, has two properties, body and mind. The proper understanding of substance dualism would be more like two things, body and soul, each with properties. Each of these would be an individual substance.

If you check Aristotle's "Categories" Ch. 5, "Substance in the truest and primary and most definite sense of the word, is that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject; for instance the individual man or horse." In no way can primary substance be a property, this is what is explicitly excluded from the definition. "Substance" refers to the individual thing itself, not a property of the thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Excellent exposition. I would add that this view of substance is inescapable for Aristotelians and even Cartesians, however substance can also be seen, as per the Schopenhaurian understanding of it, as the inner meaning of things - that is their substance, as opposed to their appearance. So in this Kantian/Schopenhaurian framework, what is substantial is defined as opposed to what merely appears. The Will is substance (or conatus as Spinoza calls it) - the phenomenal world is appearance.

I'd think bias would count against the witness, offering a motive to fabricate. — Hanover

No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weight.

In arguing against that belief, not a single believer I've read has put himself imaginatively in the place of the believers and come ready to listen. — T Clark

There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. It's why I never substantively participate in philosophy of religion to begin with (which I think is akin to beating a dead horse). There's selection bias going on on both sides as to defining transubstantiation. To those participating I'd suggest that they, before moving on to particulars, try to agree on a single definition if this thread is to have any chance of moving forward.

No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weigh — Agustino

I would agree that statements against interest carry greater weight, the most significant being a confession (which is precisely why they must be given freely to be admissible). In your scenario, perhaps someone in fear for their life who offers testimony that places them in greater danger might be considered more honest, although exaggerating the testimony might also occur in that situation in an effort to assure the conviction. That is, once you've taken a swing, make sure you win the fight. I guess the point is that it really depends on all the facts.

To those participating I'd suggest that they, before moving on to particulars, try to agree on a single definition if this thread is to have any chance of moving forward. — Benkei

Now that's a pointless suggestion. The reason why we cannot decide whether transubstantiation refers to something real, is because we cannot agree on what the word means. If we came to an agreement as to what the word means, the discussion would be over.

There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. It's why I never substantively participate in philosophy of religion to begin with (which I think is akin to beating a dead horse). There's selection bias going on on both sides as to defining transubstantiation. — Benkei

The problem here, is that what a word means, or refers to, any word, is a matter of faith. You are adverse to arguing faith, as you've stated here, so you say "let's just agree on a definition, and get on with the discussion". But if we remove "faith" from this discussion, there is nothing left to discuss.

There is no arguing against faith as it isn't reasonable to begin with based as it is on unfalsifiable assumptions. — Benkei

Of course, a reasonable person would know that reasoning is not "arguing against." You're playing a game, that's not reason.

On the other hand, if you regard something as pernicious, arguing against it might seem to be the right thing to do, even if it's not exactly the done thing within philosophy.

On the other hand, if you regard something as pernicious, arguing against it might seem to be the right thing to do, even if it's not exactly the done thing within philosophy. — jamalrob

Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher.

I've made this point before in a number of places - I'm not a theist in any normal sense of the world. I don't have any belief in a personal God or in any supernatural phenomena. I'm an engineer and I love science. But - I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. They talk and think about it differently than I do, but then again, just about everyone talks and thinks differently than I do about just about everything.

But if we remove "faith" from this discussion, there is nothing left to discuss. — Metaphysician Undercover

Exactly. A good point to stop talking then and move on.

Of course, a reasonable person would know that reasoning is not "arguing against." You're playing a game, that's not reason. — T Clark

You're reversing it though. An argument is giving reasons for a specific idea or theory and you were talking about arguing against belief. It's generally accepted those reasons should be reasonable, which is why we don't accept "because I felt like it" when you kick the cat.

But - I think that theists and mystics have a better overall understanding of the nature of reality than atheists do. — T Clark

Uhuh. That's so vague that it doesn't mean anything.

As to transubstantiation, it has no basis in the Bible as in the relevant passages they are symbols of his sacrifice. Transubstantiation is therefore an elaborate ritual totally made up by the Church where people eat disgusting bread and drink bad wine and have to wait in line annoyingly long and get confused about which hand goes on top of the other. According to the Catholic church, transubstantiation happens in a manner surpassing understanding. Which is double-speak for "it beggars belief so you'll have to take it from us in faith".

So, the only thing for atheists to do at this point is to shrug and get on with the important things in life, which is eat a fresh, crispy baguette with a selection of cheeses and drink velvet wine at home in the company of friends or family.

Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. — T Clark

Why? I can list the horrors caused directly by Catholicism - The inquisition, the persecution of 'witches', the sanctioning (and more horrifically, later cover-up ) of child abuse the execution of heretics. All of these things directly the result of a belief that one person (the Pope) has the power to directly communicate God's wishes. The persecution of Gays, the opposition to condoms in AIDS prevention, the unequal treatment of women, the persecution of the native south-americans, early support for the slave trade... shall I go on?

You either have to take the view that these things are not directly the result of Catholic teaching but rather the result of humans just being bad, in which case the same is true of all the good things the Catholic church has done - or you take Catholic teaching as being responsible for all the actions of it's followers, including the horrific ones.

Catholicism is either irrelevant to the actions of humans or it is directly responsible for some pretty horrific mass murders and abuses. I don't think it's unreasonable for the victims of such abuse, still going on to this day, and their supporters to carry just a little antipathy towards the Church.

That's just selection bias. I'm not a fan of institutionalised religion or faith as evidence of things unseen. But here's a list of wonderful things that wouldn't exist but for the church:

• a well-defined system of virtue ethics
• they kept alive the ancient Greeks
• invented arbitration
• and the principle of impartiality necessary for just judgments
• our system of human rights
• the just war tradition

No, that's my point entirely, you can't have one without the other. Either the Catholic Church is no force for anything whatsoever, or it is a force encouraging both good and bad things, neither of which are exclusive to it.

In neither of these cases are the importance given to its tenets in philosophical discussions justified. Either it is an irrelevance because it has little influence on human thought, or it a an influence like any other, capable of inducing both good and bad behaviour.

The reason why the bad behaviour it has encouraged is so important is that the judgement of such must take place outside of religious belief. To be truly religious is to believe that someone else (the book, the prophet, the guru) has access to a truth to which you do have access, and that therefore their word cannot be questioned by your own faculties (it is not 'faith' otherwise). So how would a true Catholic be able to say that the inquisition, the witch hunts, the child abuse etc was wrong? Their church told them it was right.

As to the detail of your list;

Virtue ethics existed in a pretty well defined system through Aristotle (and well before then).

The first recorded example of arbitration in law was in the wars of the Summarian king mesilim hundreds of years before Christ.

The independence of the judiciary, at least in the UK was written in the 1701 Act of Settlement which was directly a response against the influence of the Catholic Church.

The first declaration of universal human rights was on the Cyrus Cylinder in 539bc.

'Just' as in the massacre at Acre?

Virtue ethics existed in a pretty well defined system through Aristotle (and well before then).

The first recorded example of arbitration in law was in the wars of the Summarian king mesilim hundreds of years before Christ.

The independence of the judiciary, at least in the UK was written in the 1701 Act of Settlement which was directly a response against the influence of the Catholic Church.

The first declaration of universal human rights was on the Cyrus Cylinder in 539bc.

'Just' as in the massacre at Acre? — Inter Alia

This doesn't refute any of the points but I really don't care to go in depth into these things. It's sufficient that I consider them great for the argument I made.

No, I wasn't referring to that sort of scenario. I was referring to the sort of scenario where, say, someone saw a murder, but the murderer later threatened to kill all witnesses, and this person nevertheless comes forward to testify. In that light, his testimony, because he is willing to risk his life, has greater weight. — Agustino

Delusional people have risked their lives in order to maintain their delusions. They are even willing experience ridicule because the risk of losing the delusion is greater (be ridiculed or lose one's eternal status in heaven?).

And what risk is there really when losing your life brings the greatest things for you (going to heaven for eternity)?

The only way to distinguish between the validity of different claims is to apply the principle of falsification.

Of course it refutes your points, you said

here's a list of wonderful things that wouldn't exist but for the church: — Benkei

I gave you examples of them existing before, or in opposition to, the establishment of the church.
it doesn't get much more refuted than that.

It is not sufficient that you think they're great, this is a philosophy forum, not an evangelical platform. If you're not prepared to argue your case I suggest you don't make it.

I gave you examples of them existing before, or in opposition to, the establishment of the church.
it doesn't get much more refuted than that.

It is not sufficient that you think they're great, this is a philosophy forum, not an evangelical platform. If you're not prepared to argue your case I suggest you don't make it. — Inter Alia

That would be boring and not the issue in this specific thread. Suffice is to say that stones in the shape of wheels existed before the wheel was invented. So no, you haven't refuted my points but as I said, I don't feel like writing an exposé on this. Anybody who's studied law can tell you where my examples came from, you can bother them with it.

Exactly. A good point to stop talking then and move on. — Benkei

The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher.

The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yeah, nice value judgment. :-*

Of course people have faith and they have religious experiences. Yet neither faith nor religious experiences have anything useful to say about reality. You just get a "says you" "no says you" discussion that never ever goes anywhere. So take out faith and religious experiences and we can start talking about the things we both at least agree on exist.

Of course it now remains for you to show that they were delusional.

anything useful to say about reality — Benkei

What does useful mean?

No, of course, someone brings up that Catholicism is benign...

Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. — T Clark

... and its perfectly on topic, good point to make. Someone brings up some of the atrocities done in the name of religion and refutes the idea that it has provided substantial benefits and all of a sudden its 'boring' and 'not the issue'.

I wasn't aware that this was a forum reserved for apologists.

Of course people have faith and they have religious experiences. Yet neither faith nor religious experiences have anything useful to say about reality. You just get a "says you" "no says you" discussion that never ever goes anywhere. So take out faith and religious experiences and we can start talking about the things we both at least agree on exist. — Benkei

But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away.

But faith is reality, you just admitted so much. And the "says you", "no says you" attitude is reality too. So it's nonsense to say "let's just remove faith from reality, and make this attitude go away, and then we can have a real discussion". A reality without faith is not real, therefore we have to deal with this attitude, it's very real. You can't assume that having faith in non-faith will make faith go away. — Metaphysician Undercover

This is the type of nonsense I'd like to avoid and I'll probably quit this thread soon.

Equating and conflating faith to the point it becomes meaningless is really just semantics. I defined faith earlier in this thread as "the evidence of things unseen". When I say "remove faith" we are removing any evidence submitted for things unseen such as souls, God, miracles and transubstantiation. Instead we can talk about the aesthetic appeal of J-Lo's ass (can we still do that in the #metoo era?), which is actually real but no faith is necessary to hold an opinion on the matter.

What does useful mean? — Agustino

Only a philosopher will ask. 23 pages on transubstantiation and nothing happened. We can pin a link to this thread next to the word "useless" and let that be a definition by demonstration.

The problem is that faith is something very real, it is just as real as the food we eat, and we all partake. That someone can't handle the proposition that faith is real, and we all partake, so we as good philosophers ought to try to understand it, doesn't make faith go away, it just makes that person a lesser philosopher. — Metaphysician Undercover

I stepped away a minute and a few pages went by, so sorry if I've missed a point here or there.

I'd draw a distinction between faith generally and religion specifically. To the extent there's an underlying current of "physicalists and Catholics both rest on faith at some fundamental level, so neither can assert greater validity," I don't find that at all persuasive. To a large degree, the foundational beliefs of a physicalist (or someone generally non-religious) are things like there being an objective reality that is knowable through our senses, as opposed to fairly specific and structured claims like transubstantiation. If attempting to decipher the nature of reality, I rely upon my senses and reason and you rely upon the five books of Moses, surely you can see that we don't just have different foundational anchors, but they are of a significantly different type altogether. My point being that I am relying upon some fairly basic means of acquiring information, whereas you are relying upon some old book, and I therefore can say that we are not using faith in the same way.

I also don't find it all useful to refer to the antiquity of a doctrine to determine its validity, nor do I think it matters much how many good or bad things a faith has cast upon the world when assessing its value. Religion generally, and most certainly Catholicism, is as much a political institution than anything else, and just like a government can feed the hungry, it can engage in wholesale murder. Its success or failure to speaks also to its political pull in gaining and keeping adherents, not to its inherent rootedness in truth. It's clear that there are all sorts of religions worldwide with tremendous diversity among them, many thousands of years of old and many with hundreds of thousands and even millions upon millions of followers. Surely they can't all be right, which would indicate their being right has little to do with their success.

Well, we're not talking about Nazism here. It's Catholicism - a world view followed by hundreds of millions of people over two thousand years. It would take monstrous hubris to claim it has nothing of value to offer. To come to a discussion without that understanding is the sign of a poor philosopher. — T Clark

The question isn't whether it has nothing (as in zero) to offer. The question is whether its fundamental beliefs are true, from the resurrection to transubstantiation. It takes no hubris for me to say those things are false. It takes blind faith for you to say they are true.

But sure, if the Catholic Church had a food drive, I might throw a can of green beans in the bin and be thankful to the Church for offering something of value to those in need. And to the extent the institution survives by offering a strange mythology to a susceptible people, I'm in favor of it, so long as it keeps having food drives and the like. But to the extent anyone should argue that the mythology has a value outside of its political influence in creating group cohesiveness, as in suggesting that the mythology must be rooted in reality, I say such simply does not logically follow.

Only a philosopher will ask. 23 pages on transubstantiation and nothing happened. We can pin a link to this thread next to the word "useless" and let that be a definition by demonstration. — Benkei

I believe it's actually a very relevant question. What you mean by useful is very important. Many things are not useful in the sense that they don't have immediately observable results, but without them, everything falls apart.

In the Christian tradition, for example, prayer, worship, meditation and contemplation are means for the believer to get in closer communion with the Lord through His Son Jesus Christ. You may say that getting in closer communion with God is useless - it doesn't put food on the table, it doesn't make your wife happier, it doesn't make you more successful, it doesn't save your kid from an illness, etc. etc. While it's true that very often it may not directly do those things, it does help.

For example, without meditation or contemplation, you find that you lack motivation. You don't feel like going to the gym, you don't really feel like working hard anymore, you become more depressed, etc. All these things impact every single area of your life. So while the spiritual side may not play any direct role in providing what is useful, it plays an absolutely critical role in making what is useful possible for you in the first place.

So I think that without a solid spiritual foundation many aspects of life are impossible. And that doesn't necessarily require that you are a Christian, or even a believer of any of the particular religions when it comes to the box that you tick on surveys. But it does require that you are a believer in heart.

For example, the one version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion.

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God’s will as best he can, such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation...

Baptism of desire can be explicit…The doctrine of the Church also recognizes implicit baptism of desire. This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knows that amongst Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole of humanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptism without knowing it, but in an effective way. In this way they become part of the Church…"

Last one is from here.

So I think many atheists, including people like yourself, really do have a poor understanding of religious traditions.

Of course it now remains for you to show that they were delusional. — Agustino

From Wikipedia
The following can indicate a delusion:

The patient expresses an idea or belief with unusual persistence or force.
That idea appears to have an undue influence on the patient's life, and the way of life is often altered to an inexplicable extent.
Despite his/her profound conviction, there is often a quality of secretiveness or suspicion when the patient is questioned about it.
The individual tends to be humorless and oversensitive, especially about the belief.
There is a quality of centrality: no matter how unlikely it is that these strange things are happening to him/her, the patient accepts them relatively unquestioningly.
An attempt to contradict the belief is likely to arouse an inappropriately strong emotional reaction, often with irritability and hostility.
The belief is, at the least, unlikely, and out of keeping with the patient's social, cultural, and religious background.
The patient is emotionally over-invested in the idea and it overwhelms other elements of their psyche.
The delusion, if acted out, often leads to behaviors which are abnormal and/or out of character, although perhaps understandable in the light of the delusional beliefs.
Individuals who know the patient observe that the belief and behavior are uncharacteristic and alien.

Additional features of delusional disorder include the following:

It is a primary disorder.
It is a stable disorder characterized by the presence of delusions to which the patient clings with extraordinary tenacity.
The illness is chronic and frequently lifelong.
The delusions are logically constructed and internally consistent.
The delusions do not interfere with general logical reasoning (although within the delusional system the logic is perverted) and there is usually no general disturbance of behavior. If disturbed behavior does occur, it is directly related to the delusional beliefs.
The individual experiences a heightened sense of self-reference. Events which, to others, are nonsignificant are of enormous significance to him or her, and the atmosphere surrounding the delusions is highly charged.

I have indicated the parts you exhibit in bold. The ones in italics are the clear indications that you have a delusion.