Take your time. You have your work cut out. Perhaps the answers will come to you in one of your mystical experiences.

The people in the elevator experienced something different than what a scientifically-minded atheist would experience. Why? — Harry Hindu

:s so you think a scientifically-minded atheist would not be afraid in that situation? Fear is a normal reaction when strange, out of order events happen. That event was out of order. If the elevator stops, electricity goes out, and then you find that another random person is inside the elevator who wasn't there before wouldn't you be scared? I'd be very scared, and I might even attack that person out of fear. Becuase I just wouldn't know what happened. Maybe someone hijacked the elevator, some psycho, and they're trying to kill me. How am I supposed to know in just a few seconds reaction time?

I wouldn't necessarily assume it was a ghost, but by all extents something abnormal is happening. I would definitely assume that.

Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? — Harry Hindu

No. It's because an event that they didn't expect - actually multiple events that they didn't expect - happened all at once. So they were confused and afraid because they couldn't understand what was happening. Anyone would be afraid, regardless of religious convictions.

I'm not following your argument that "arbitrary" = "faith." I don't see the correlation and I don't understand why I can't accept that we use all sorts of arbitrary symbols to describe reality without having faith. — Hanover

If it's not readily apparent to you that the use of arbitrary symbols requires faith, then you may not grasp this even with an explanation. But it's very simple. There is a reason why you use the particular arbitrary symbol which you do, rather than some other arbitrary symbol. The reason is that you have faith that the other person will understand better, what you want to say, by your use of that particular symbol rather than some other. Since the symbol is arbitrary, there is no other reason for you to use it except that you have faith it will get you the desired result, the other person will understand you. All communication is based in faith.

There are foundational beliefs that anchor us into reality, sure. We might accept that our senses report to us what is occurring in the real world, and we might accept that reason and logic provide us insights into reality. Those foundational beliefs might at some level have to be accepted on faith, simply because a foundational belief can't have a further foundation; it's the origin of our belief.

If you're saying that your foundational belief is whatever the Catholic Church happens to tell you is true, I'd say that foundation is a much less rudimentary foundation than mine that no doubt relies upon many other more rudimentary beliefs, thus making it not truly foundational. — Hanover

I think you're just talking out of your hat here. You seem to have no idea as to how faith is foundational to knowledge, as you do not even seem to realize that faith is necessary for the use of symbols. How do you define faith? I would define it as confidence inspired by trust. Do you agree with this? If so, do you see how faith is necessary for communication to succeed? And because communication depends on faith, that's why deception is so easy for those with the will to deceive, because trust is taken for granted when we communicate.

But deception rapidly destroys the capacity for communication because the deception becomes evident, and we loose faith in those who demonstrate deception. That is why it is impossible that transubstantiation is deception, because it has persisted. We might have a start toward understanding each other if we begin with this point. If we can agree that it is not deception, because it has persisted, then we can proceed from here. Is it just an old club, with an odd use of symbols for purposes other than communication, like mathematics is, or is it something else?

You find it mysterious why people notice similarities among things and group them into categories? — Hanover

I didn't think you'd understand what I was saying there. I'll explain it again. We have a symbol "2". What 2 means is that there is one distinct object and another distinct object, two distinct objects. But in mathematical proceeding, the symbol "2" refers to the number 2, which is taken as one unity. So in it's true meaning, it means two distinct objects, but in the proceedings of the mathematicians, it refers to something contrary to this, one unity. How is it possible that 2 means two distinct things, but it also refers to one unity which is known as the number 2? Either there is two distinct things symbolized by 2, or there is one unity symbolized by 2, but to claim both is contradictory. But this is what is the case, what 2 means is completely different from what 2 refers to. So how this contradiction can be what is the case, is no less of a mystery to me, then what is a mystery to you, that "body and blood of Christ" means some guy who died thousands of years ago, and also refers to the objects of the Eucharist in the proceedings of the Church.

To come to a discussion without understanding the good things the Church had to offer was the sign of a bad philosopher (virtually word for word what you said). It seems then completely prejudicial to say that bringing to the discussion all the bad things that same church has caused is pointless, "so what?" as you put it. — Inter Alia

First off - thanks for a thoughtful reply.

I think bringing up the bad things the church has done is fine, but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion. Are you saying that there is something intrinsic about a belief in God, or, more specifically, the Catholic God, that leads to atrocities? It seems like you are. I go back to my Spain/Germany example. You don't buy it, but I think it's appropriate.

You suggest that, were we talking about Nazism, this would somehow be different. i.e an accurate assessment of the net harms/benefits of the institution would become relevant. After all, Nazism brought full employment, security, gave a lot of people hope and a sense of identity but you're implying that, were we talking about Nazism, we would not have to bear these benefits in mind alone because they would be outweighed by the atrocities, and yet you seem unwilling to carry out the same calculation with Catholicism. — Inter Alia

My point was that Nazism is a doctrine which is inherently vile while Catholicism is not. As I said, you appear to disagree with that. I did not intend to do a cost/benefit analysis. I was looking at Christianity and Catholicism as ways of seeing the world. It's not the way I see the world, but I can see it's value. A lot of people I like and respect, including my wife, are Catholic.

You feel something, directly resulting from being Catholic (or some other theist position), provides an enlightenment about reality (from your last statement above). — Inter Alia

I'll say this, but as I wrote in a response to Benkei, I'm not interested in pursuing it in this thread. To me, the world - all of it, everything - is as much human as it is physical. I don't mean that in a mystical way. I am not positing any supernatural forces or entities, although I'm not explicitly rejecting them either. I can make a good, rational case that that position is completely consistent with a scientific view.

Basically, I'm struggling to understand why mention of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church (or any other religion) is constantly being stonewalled on this thread. — Inter Alia

In what way am I stonewalling? I just don't believe that it's relevant to the question at hand.

My understanding was that the question centred around why someone would have the faith they do in something as seemingly inexplicable as transubstantiation. Answers given seem to revolve around the fact that faith in Catholicism is not like faith in unicorns or Santa Claus because the catholic church is a meaningful organisation. — Inter Alia

I don't find the idea of transubstantiation any more inexplicable than quantum mechanics. I don't have any belief or understanding that it actually happens, but I also don't put any energy in believing that it doesn't. Belief in the tenets of the Catholic faith is a whole world view that I see as having value, even though it isn't my way of looking at things. Believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny are not.

I'm guessing you won't find my response satisfying, but I enjoyed the chance to think this through better for myself.

I realise it's not necessarily the discussion you wanted to have here, but I feel like your considerate responses deserve a better explanation than perhaps I have been able to give so far. The reason I think the atrocities of the Church are relevant are to do with trust.

We take virtually all our understanding of the world on trust. even if we're lucky enough to be a cutting edge scientist, that will only be one field and we'll be reliant on the integrity of the rest of our team. For the rest of us, we just trust scientists to explain the world, some of us trust religious leaders also. But this does not make us blind, we can still apply our rational (and emotional) insights to help us obtain pragmatically true theories from these people, that insight is in the form of judging whom we trust. I trust most scientists to provide me with explanations about events in the world to help me make decisions in my life. I trust them because they have not (as a mass) demonstrated anything other than a desire to obtain reliable, useful theories. There are some branches of science I don't trust, like medicine, there have been a number of problems raised with impartiality and the influence of the big pharmaceutical companies whose motives are clearly profit, not knowledge. There are many other examples, but on the whole I trust scientists because they seem reasonably decent people.

So when a priest tells me that the wafer has somehow become the body of Christ, I don't dismiss the information as obviously nonsense just because it sounds a bit unlikely (as some here seem bent on doing). My personal understanding of physics and it's limits is simply not sufficient to make that decision. But what I can do is try to understand the motives of the person or institution telling me, their character, their trustworthiness in this. This is where the Catholic atrocities come in. When I hear that this institution has previously allowed torture and murder, currently allows child abuse to go unpunished, subjugates women, ostracises homosexuals and refuses to help fight AIDS, I question whether this is the institution whose explanation I'm going to take on trust in this matter.

The alternative explanation (that the wafer remains a wafer) comes from secularism. Secularism is not an institution, nothing overall good or bad has been done in the name of secularism, they seem to be just ordinary people. It's not that I can't see any reasons why they might want me to accept their explanation, but as there's no institution behind it, I just take the individual's trustworthiness into consideration. Hundreds of people I've met seem to think the wafer is just a wafer, they're all just ordinary people, none of whom are engaged in covering up child abuse, or torturing people so they seem on the whole a lot more trustworthy. I know there are loads of really good Catholics, and I mean no insult to any of them, but they're not independently providing me with their explanation, they are acting on behalf of their institution, so it is their institution whose trustworthiness I need to judge.

So basically, I think judging the character of the person or institution providing the explanation you are considering is absolutely crucial to the process of deciding whether to adopt it or not and I'm afraid the Catholic Church has overall failed to demonstrate its trustworthiness in this matter, for the reasons I've given.

What does it even mean to say that you don't put any energy into disbelieving transubstantiation? You either disbelieve it or you don't. You must surely have spent time considering it. Which is it? If you disbelieve it, then that must have taken at least a minimal amount of energy. And if you don't disbelieve it, then why not?

To equate the idea of transubstantiation with quantum mechanics in terms of inexplicableness, is to suggest that they're equally explicable. I think that the only way that you could find the idea of transubstantiation to come anywhere near quantum mechanics in terms of explicableness is if you disbelieve transubstantiation and could explain it in great detail by delving into why there's no good reason to believe it and why lots of people believe it nevertheless. That would indeed require a lot of energy if we are to grant your equivalence, given that quantum mechanics is a topic which is so complex that there's enough there to fill an average-sized book and yet still have only scratched the surface. But going to such a great length is simply not necessary in the case of transubstantiation. This sort of thing requires little more energy than the energy required in explaining why you don't believe that there's a celestial teapot or that the content of the tale of St. George and the dragon corresponds with historical fact. (The only factor that distinguishes these sort of claims from those that we've been discussing is popularity. The claims that we've been discussing are more popular because they're central tenets of organised religion, which is of course very widespread. But that can be counted in their favour no more than it can count (or could have counted) towards the favour of witchcraft, flat earth theory, the geocentric model, luminiferous aether, and so on). It's not rocket science!

tale of St. George and the dragon is factual — Sapientia

Actually I think the tale of St. George slaying the dragon is factual. Is there something wrong with that? :B O:) >:)

:s so you think a scientifically-minded atheist would not be afraid in that situation? Fear is a normal reaction when strange, out of order events happen. That event was out of order. If the elevator stops, electricity goes out, and then you find that another random person is inside the elevator who wasn't there before wouldn't you be scared? I'd be very scared, and I might even attack that person out of fear. Becuase I just wouldn't know what happened. Maybe someone hijacked the elevator, some psycho, and they're trying to kill me. How am I supposed to know in just a few seconds reaction time?

I wouldn't necessarily assume it was a ghost, but by all extents something abnormal is happening. I would definitely assume that.

Isn't it because they already accepted the premise of spirits, devils, angels, gods, etc. and THAT influences how they interpret their experiences, which is no different than your interpretation of your experiences? — Harry Hindu

No. It's because an event that they didn't expect - actually multiple events that they didn't expect - happened all at once. So they were confused and afraid because they couldn't understand what was happening. Anyone would be afraid, regardless of religious convictions. — Agustino

You're forgetting that the "other random person" was a little girl, not a big scary dude.

If it were me, I wouldn't react that way. I may be confused at first, but not fearful. I would then begin looking for an explanation as to how the child got into the elevator. Because I know that ghosts and zombies aren't real, I would probably start to think this was a prank.

Things happen all the time that I don't expect, but that doesn't make me fearful. It makes me inquisitive.

It's not prejudiced. New Atheism is actually recognised as entirely childish and not worthy of intellectual respect. It's so intellectually dishonest, I wouldn't even give it a second glance. They don't even understand what they're talking about. And that's a fact. Anyone who understands theism - even if they are an atheist and disagree with it - will actually agree. — Agustino

I don't know what New Atheism is and how it is different from just atheism. Is what I've been arguing "New" atheism, or just atheism? I don't know of any "new" way of rejecting claims that can't be falsified.

There is a reason why you use the particular arbitrary symbol which you do, rather than some other arbitrary symbol. The reason is that you have faith that the other person will understand better, what you want to say, by your use of that particular symbol rather than some other. — Metaphysician Undercover

If there's a reason I use "2" and not "3" for 2, then "2" is not arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is that it is not based upon a system or reason, but it's just random or whim. Not every symbol is arbitrary, but some are based upon prior similar usage (as when we adhere to roots) and some languages attempt to make the word look like the thing it represents (like hieroglyphics). Regardless, though, I would agree that whatever the basis for why we have chosen a particular symbol, the typical user has no idea what it is. All of this is terribly irrelevant though because none of this requires any degree of faith. The reason I believe "2" represents 2 is through empirical evidence. Every time someone uses "2," I know they mean 2. If someone starts using "2" to mean 3, I'd correct the person because it would be contrary to what I empirically knew to be true, and the argument would consist of empirical examples of usage.

This reliance upon empirical evidence is not limited to language usage, and I wonder why you've chosen to use it as example, but it is used to know most things about the world. And, as I've said, I fully acknowledge having faith in the truth of empirical evidence (and in my ability to reason) as those things are foundational to any understanding of the world.

. How do you define faith? I would define it as confidence inspired by trust. Do you agree with this? — Metaphysician Undercover

I think you've defined "belief" and not "faith." I would define faith as belief inspired by something other than proof. It is a belief often the result of spiritual apprehension but sometimes the result of necessity.

What 2 means is that there is one distinct object and another distinct object, two distinct objects. — Metaphysician Undercover

This categorization of two dogs as two objects and then on the other hand categorizing them as a group isn't mysterious and has nothing to do with transubstantiation.

If there's a reason I use "2" and not "3" for 2, then "2" is not arbitrary. The definition of arbitrary is that it is not based upon a system or reason, but it's just random or whim. Not every symbol is arbitrary, but some are based upon prior similar usage (as when we adhere to roots) and some languages attempt to make the word look like the thing it represents (like hieroglyphics). Regardless, though, I would agree that whatever the basis for why we have chosen a particular symbol, the typical user has no idea what it is. All of this is terribly irrelevant though because none of this requires any degree of faith. The reason I believe "2" represents 2 is through empirical evidence. Every time someone uses "2," I know they mean 2. If someone starts using "2" to mean 3, I'd correct the person because it would be contrary to what I empirically knew to be true, and the argument would consist of empirical examples of usage. — Hanover

Right, so isn't "empirical evidence" reliant on faith? The nature of time is such that whatever is empirical evidence, is now in the past. isn't it necessary to have faith in our systems of memory in order to claim that something empirical (in the past), is evidence to a present matter?

This reliance upon empirical evidence is not limited to language usage, and I wonder why you've chosen to use it as example, but it is used to know most things about the world. And, as I've said, I fully acknowledge having faith in the truth of empirical evidence (and in my ability to reason) as those things are foundational to any understanding of the world. — Hanover

You have claimed already, that this type of faith, having faith in empirical evidence, is a different type of faith, or a different sense of the word "faith", from faith in religious services. Let me see if I can draw out that difference. In the service it is declared that these items are the body and blood of Christ, but the empirical evidence is such that "the body and blood of Christ" refers to the person who died years ago. If I understand you correctly, you have more faith in the memory systems which provide the empirical evidence that "body and blood of Christ" refers to the person who died, than you have faith in the person performing the service saying this, which was bread and wine, are now body and blood of Christ.

In the one case, you refer to memory systems and have faith in the ability of the memory system. In the other case, one has faith in the ability of the person to describe what is occurring at the present time. It appears to me, that faith of the first kind, also requires faith of the second kind, because what happened at that time, had to be described. So faith of the first kind (faith in empirical evidence) has two levels of faith, faith of the second kind (faith in one's ability to describe what is occurring), as well as faith in the ability of the memory system.

So it appears to me that you have faith in the abilities of the people who described what occurred thousands of years ago, you have faith in the memory system employed, but you do not have faith in the person describing what is occurring now, at the Eucharist. You seem to believe that there is an inconsistency between the description thousands of years ago, and the description now, it is impossible that "body and blood of Christ" refer to these very same things.

Here's a question. If you have faith in that description from thousands of years ago, such that "body and blood of Christ" refers to that person who died back then, then what about the rest of the description, that he rose from the dead? Do you see what I mean? You have enough faith in the description to believe that "body and blood of Christ" refers to that person who died, yet you have no faith in the rest of the description. How is it the case that part of the description qualifies as "empirical evidence", yet another part does not? If the description is untrustworthy, shouldn't we dismiss the entire testimony as unreliable? Then why would you even believe that "body and blood of Christ" refer to some dude who lived thousand of years ago? And if this is the case, then there is no problem with the Church saying that these items are called "body and blood of Christ", because there is no reason to believe that these words refer to anything other than these items. There is no inconsistency in terminology. It is granted by fiat that these items will be known as "body and blood of Christ", and because this phrase cannot be reliably associated with anything else, there is no conflict.

I think you've defined "belief" and not "faith." I would define faith as belief inspired by something other than proof. It is a belief often the result of spiritual apprehension but sometimes the result of necessity. — Hanover

I think that "proof" is far too ambiguous here. In logic, "proof" refers to valid logical proceedings, but this leaves the matter of the soundness of the premises. What counts as a sound premise is debatable and what qualifies as "proof" is relative.

This categorization of two dogs as two objects and then on the other hand categorizing them as a group isn't mysterious and has nothing to do with transubstantiation. — Hanover

How two things become one, just by looking at them in a different way is very mysterious to me. But what is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things. However, this is very relevant to transubstantiation, in two different ways. First, we have two different things, the guy who died, and the items of the Eucharist, and they become one under the name "body and blood of Christ". Second, we have the bread and wine, and the body and blood, two different things which become the same thing under the name "transubstantiation". So what is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things, but they are actually one and the same thing, and that is how it is the case that two different things become one and the same thing. I find that very mysterious. What is mysterious to me, and what is mysterious to you, are two different things, but depending on how we look at them they are one and the same thing.

I trust most scientists to provide me with explanations about events in the world to help me make decisions in my life. I trust them because they have not (as a mass) demonstrated anything other than a desire to obtain reliable, useful theories. — Inter Alia

I don't particularly trust scientists. I don't particularly distrust them either. I do, conditionally, within limits, trust science. I put my conditional faith in scientific consensus. That, I hope, washes out corruption, incompetence, and self-interest.

So when a priest tells me that the wafer has somehow become the body of Christ, I don't dismiss the information as obviously nonsense just because it sounds a bit unlikely (as some here seem bent on doing). My personal understanding of physics and it's limits is simply not sufficient to make that decision. But what I can do is try to understand the motives of the person or institution telling me, their character, their trustworthiness in this. — Inter Alia

I have no problem with your opinion on this, it's just not one I share. I can't defend Catholic doctrine because it's not a world view that I find useful for myself. On the other hand, I have no trouble believing that Catholics have a similar attitude toward the church as I do about science - they see the connection between what the church teaches and their own understanding of the world.

The alternative explanation (that the wafer remains a wafer) comes from secularism. Secularism is not an institution, nothing overall good or bad has been done in the name of secularism, they seem to be just ordinary people. — Inter Alia

That's kind of a stretch. The objection to religion comes from rationalists, materialists, realists, and yes, scientists. That's one of the reasons there are limits on my trust in science. Science lacks the vision to see alternative understandings of the world as valid.

What does it even mean to say that you don't put any energy into disbelieving transubstantiation? You either disbelieve it or you don't. You must surely have spent time considering it. Which is it? If you disbelieve it, then that must have taken at least a minimal amount of energy. And if you don't disbelieve it, then why not? — Sapientia

To me, transubstantiation is interesting as an idea, a belief, as part of a vision of the world. It's not an understanding I share. I do put energy into understanding how other people view the world. I was going to say that I just don't have an opinion, but that's not quite right. Or that I don't care whether or not it's true, but that's not right either. I can't imagine you find this explanation, if that's what it is, satisfying.

To equate the idea of transubstantiation with quantum mechanics in terms of inexplicableness, is to suggest that they're equally explicable. — Sapientia

I said I don't find them any more explicable. I believe that quantum mechanics is as good a description of how the world works as any we have now. That belief is based on my understanding of the scientific consensus. But when it comes down to explication, QM doesn't explain anything. It just describes what happens in certain situations. Physicists make scrambled eggs of any attempt to actually explain it. If I were a Catholic, transubstantiation might be the same. Neither is more or less inconsistent with common sense.

The only factor that distinguishes these sort of claims from those that we've been discussing is popularity. — Sapientia

The only factor that distinguishes these sort of claims from those that we've been discussing that you can see and accept is popularity.

First, it suggests that the theist has some superior method of understanding God, as if the skeptic lacks the capacity at the same understanding — Hanover

Thanks for your response, and my apologies for the delayed response.

I never suggested that the theist has a superior method of understanding God or that the skeptic lacks capacity to achieve the same understanding.

that the skeptic hasn't spent just as long as the theist in considering these issues — Hanover

I did suggest this, but the truth of this claim is quite evident for two reasons:

(1) The theist considers God to be, probably the most important topic, while the atheist and skeptic, since they disbelieve the existence of God, according significantly less importance to the study of God.
(2) If you look at the stats, you will see that the vast majority of philosophy of religion philosophers are theists (72.3%). This is the opposite of overall philosophers, where most are atheist (72.8%). What this shows us is that theists tend to study God (and hence philosophy of religion) significantly more than atheists, especially since the pool of all philosophers contains more atheists than theists. (stats here)

It's entirely obvious to me, and almost undeniable, that theists will understand, on average, the notion of God much better than atheists granted the two reasons provided above, one logical and intuitive, and the other empirical and statistical.

Now I understand if you don't want to accept this claim. I just put it forward hoping that you will accept it so that we can move from this point to other more relevant points. But if you reject it, that's not a problem. The claim isn't essential to my argument.

It's also very wrong to think that there is some monolithic thought process among theists, ignoring that the definition of God that one theist might have from another may vary widely even in the same church and same pew on any given Sunday. — Hanover

And, of course there are very different views from one church to the other, one denomination to another, and certainly one religion than another. — Hanover

EDIT: ooops I forgot to respond here.

While there are significant differences between Churches in terms of rituals, practices, ways of worship, etc. there aren't many significiant differences between conceptions of God, especially amongst theologians. Take a thomist and a scotist. They may disagree on a lot of metaphysical issues, but they don't by and large, disagree on the notion of God. Muslims may disagree that God is a Trinity, but they will not disagree that God is One - which Christians also believe, hence Triune (trinity + one). Etc. So disagreements are minor, and agreements are more profound.

Your assertions that you know exactly what God is — Hanover

My assertion isn't that, it's simply that I have a more accurate notion that the atheist, that's all. So my knowledge is probably terrible - but that terrible is still much better than your average atheist.

as I see one's relationship with God as personal, subjective, unprovable, and unverifiable by definition. To present God as this object fully subject to a complete knowable definition candidly feels to me like you have no idea what god is, but are instead just trying to define another object. — Hanover

I agree with you to some extent, hence why rational knowledge that can be achieved of God is only partial and never close to complete.

By literal change, I mean not symbolic. The bread is the same in substance than it was before and after the prayer. — Hanover

No, the bread is precisely not the same in substance. The doctrine claims that there is a change in substance, but not in the properties. Here is what substance means:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14322c.htm

By the very fact that the Eucharistic mystery does transcend reason, no rationalistic explanation of it, based on a merely natural hypothesis and seeking to comprehend one of the sublimest truths of the Christian religion as the spontaneous conclusion of logical processes, may be attempted by a Catholic theologian.

Hence why the mystical experience of which I have spoken of at first is absolutely necessary to understand transubstantiation. The substantial change is of a mystical nature - the inner nature of the bread and wine changes, in other words, their significance. But to perceive that, you must experience the mystery - there is no other way. It is useless to put it into words when the experience is lacking. Words can only be taken on faith.

I have no particular reason or obligation to take the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc, seriously. — jorndoe

Sure. You're not talking theologians here, you're talking about divinations and other forms of peasant claptrap. If anything, Christianity is largely responsible for the elimination of this type of superstition. Nietzsche understood as much, hence he labelled Christianity as nihilistic.

Here's what Montaigne had to say:

Where oracles are concerned it is certain that they had begun to lose their credit well before the coming of Jesus Christ, since we can see Cicero striving to find the cause of their decline. [C] These are his words: ‘Cur isto modo jam oracula Delphis non eduntur non modo nostra ætate sed jamdiu, ut modo nihil possit esse contempsius?’ [Why are oracles no longer uttered thus at Delphi, so that not only in our own time but long before nothing could be held in greater contempt?]

But there were other prognostications, derived from the dissection of sacrificial animals – [C] Plato held that the internal organs of those animals were partly created for that purpose – [A] or from chickens scratching about, from the flight of birds – [C] ‘aves quasdam rerum augurandarum causa natas esse putamus’ [We think that some birds are born in order to provide auguries] – [A] from lightning and from swirling currents in rivers – [C] ‘multa cernunt aruspices, multa augures provident, nnlta oraculis declarantur, multa vaticinationibus, multa somniis, multa portentis’ [the soothsayers divine many things; the augurs foresee many; many are revealed by oracles, many by predictions, many by dreams and many by portents]; [A] and there were other similar ones on which the Ancient World grounded most of their undertakings, both public and private: it was our religion [Christianity] which abolished them all.

Montaigne, Michel. The Complete Essays (p. 41). Penguin Books Ltd. Kindle Edition.

And really there's tens if not hundreads of other philosophers which bother to make this point. If you don't bother to read these sources, I can't help you.

If some deity of theism existed and wanted me to know it did, or had critically important messages for me, then it would have no problems what so ever letting me in on that. — jorndoe

>:O - as if the deity was like a bearded human living in the Sky. So pathetic. Again, we're not discussing the peasant understanding of God. You have to step up your game.

Isn't that what qualifies something as a deity in the first place (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, non-deceptive, trustworthy, etc)? And, ex hypothesi, such a deity would be the only authority on its messages. It's not like I'm strangely "resistant" or anything, and such a deity would know that already. — jorndoe

If a deity told you the Truth, then what free will would you have? None. To know the Truth is to act the Truth - and that must be a free choice. So when God "hardens the hearts" of unbelievers, it simply means that He does not reveal Himself to them, in order to allow them to freely choose their unbelief. If he revealed Himself, He could force them to believe. As Pascal said:

In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. — Blaise Pascal

Meanwhile, I'm certainly not going to take all the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans for it. Why would anyone? (Could anyone, even, given all the incompatibilities, ambiguities, inconsistencies, ...?) Requiring other humans to indoctrinate me isn't something I'd expect of a worthwhile deity. No, that's just gullible, biased, non-thinking tomfoolery. (Perhaps akin to delusion, as mentioned by Harry Hindu.) — jorndoe

Yep - again this is the common-folk superstition that you're talking about, not theology. Nobody told you to accept that.

Where does that leave things? Those claims can't all be right, but they could all be wrong. What's the simplest coherent explanation? — jorndoe

The simplest coherent explanation is that there would be no fake doctors if there were no real doctors.

As the instigator of this discussion, I think that I have greater authority than others when it comes to what we're supposed to be talking about here. And, contrary to the rather misleading impression that you create, and as the preceding discussion demonstrates, not only is my definition of transubstantiation in sync with that of the Eastern Orthodox Church and Catholicism — Sapientia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05572c.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05584a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

Please read these links.

I put the matter to rest twenty pages back and ten days ago by copy-pasting from two different dictionaries and giving an example. I don't recall getting any disagreement. — Sapientia

If meaning is use, dictionary definitions are meaningless. You said you accept that meaning is use. So read how the term is used by the Church.

Spoiler: he's still making the same errors that he has been making from the beginning. — Sapientia

He might be, why are you telling me?! I've never backed MU's argument for that matter, and I haven't even followed it that closely. I do agree with him on some of the shorter points I've seen him make and which I've read.

So, you don't believe it, but you want to hold back and sit on the fence? You want to treat it with respect, even though deep down you know that it's not only false, but frankly ridiculous?

QM explains a lot. It solves problems and answers questions. The whole of QM is one big explanation. So I find your claim that QM doesn't explain anything completely absurd at face value and wonder whether you mean something else.

What other distinguishing factors do you think that there are with regards to transubstantiation, the resurrection of Christ, and the examples I gave? How about this one? It is a customary expectation to give the former special treatment, such that they're treated with more respect, and so as to give them credit were it would not be given in comparable examples.

No, please explain to me in your own words what you think the difference is and quote any particular passages you think are of relevance.

Just giving you a heads up.

So, you don't believe it, but you want to hold back and sit on the fence? You want to treat it with respect, even though deep down you know that it's not only false, but frankly ridiculous? — Sapientia

I don't expect you to agree with me. I've been generally staying out of discussions with you because you are impenetrable. Unwilling to even try to imagine that there are other valid ways of seeing the world than yours.

No, please explain to me in your own words what you think the difference is and quote any particular passages you think are of relevance. — Sapientia

That means you want me to do work. Which means you'll have to wait >:)

I don’t know what could’ve given you that impression. X-)

peasant claptrap — Agustino

I was talking about Hinduism (which includes some polytheist varieties), Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses), Islam (Sunnis, Shias), Mormonism, Scientology, you name it. All those there that people get assimilated by and start taking seriously.

If anything, Christianity is largely responsible for the elimination of this type of superstition. — Agustino

Seems the Muslims have taken over, where the Christians left off?

• Saudi Arabia's War on Witchcraft (Ryan Jacobs, The Atlantic, Aug 2013)
• Saudi religious cops trained to fight magic (Staff, Emirates 24|7, Feb 2016)

If a deity told you the Truth, then what free will would you have? None. — Agustino

Looks like an ordinary non sequitur to me. But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ...

the countless human claims of supernatural deities, their elaborate plans, what they want, require or demand, etc — jorndoe

the incompatible, ambiguous, inconsistent, spurious words of fallible humans — jorndoe

... for me to take any one of them more serious than any other. But there's no such arbiter.

You start talking about something you call "Yahweh", you don't show Yahweh, Yahweh doesn't show, all that's left is your talk. Others talk about something they call "Vishnu", they don't show Vishnu, Vishnu doesn't show, all that's left is their talk. Yet others talk about ... Exactly as if Yahweh, Vishnu, etc, are fictions. I wonder why... Don't you?

I also observe that there are little-to-no means of differentiating existence of all these entities (and their characteristics, plans, demands). It's all equally dubious. Exactly like grandiose stories told by fallible (obsessed) humans.

The simplest coherent explanation is that there would be no fake doctors if there were no real doctors — Agustino

I'd say we can differentiate fake and real doctors. Differentiating fake and real fantasies, on the other hand, ... :D

I was talking about Hinduism (which includes some polytheist varieties), Christianity (Catholics, Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses), Islam (Sunnis, Shias), Mormonism, Scientology, you name it. All those there that people get assimilated by and start taking seriously. — jorndoe

Non sequitur. This literarily has nothing to do with what you've quoted.

Seems the Muslims have taken over, where the Christians left off? — jorndoe

So I'm supposed to take you seriously because you've shown an aptitude to populate your posts with irrelevant links?

But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ... — jorndoe

What? :s

But I wasn't referring to achieving omniscience, rather, that the authority (deity) set the record straight among ... — jorndoe

There is no record to set straight. The mystical kernel is very similar amongst the religions, with differences being, for the most part, just differences of expression. Man has had a relationship with the divine from the very beginning of times.

You start talking about something you call "Yahweh", you don't show Yahweh, Yahweh doesn't show, all that's left is your talk. Others talk about something they call "Vishnu", they don't show Vishnu, Vishnu doesn't show, all that's left is their talk. Yet others talk about ... Exactly as if Yahweh, Vishnu, etc, are fictions. I wonder why... Don't you? — jorndoe

Yeah, I'm not that mystified that some call it "snow" others call it "schnee" or "neige" or even "雪". What's the big deal with that?

The fact that the experience of God is subtle and hard to find is something that is known across all the religions. The talk is the finger pointed towards it, not the experience itself.

I also observe that there are little-to-no means of differentiating existence of all these entities (and their characteristics, plans, demands). It's all equally dubious. Exactly like grandiose stories told by fallible (obsessed) humans. — jorndoe

What makes you think there are multiple entities? That would indeed be absurd. I think you really do have a first-grade understanding of religion. It's really becoming pathetic. You're like a child trying to speak a language he cannot understand. It's better to stop doing that, and try to understand only one religion deeply first. That might give you the insights you need to understand the rest too. You're like a little boy who has learned a few words in French and thinks he's now able to have a conversation in it.

Differentiating fake and real fantasies, on the other hand, ... :D — jorndoe

Yeah, apart from you thinking they are fantasies, you haven't provided any other evidence. Your inability to become aware of certain aspects of existence isn't shared by everyone else.

Indeed, the truth is that you will struggle to find any academic in the field of comparative religion, anthropology or theology who would even take the questions you pose seriously. They are a joke, and for the most part treated as such, and they represent a profound misunderstanding of what religion is. The only place where you find this sort of polemic is in Richard Dawkins and other New Atheists - and they're addressing things at a low, mass-consciousness level, not at an academic one - in other words they're talking to stupid people. That's why amongst academics who are interested in these fields, and have published literature on it, these "critiques" are laughed at. Can you imagine a Eliade (refer to The Sacred and The Profane) taking such concerns seriously? Or a René Girard? :s

Now you're just making noise, @Agustino, moreso than other discussions on the topic that I'm aware of anyway.
And it's a bit disingenuous to tell others what they're talking about.
Let me know if you want to stick to the post.
Anyway, incidentally watching the mass in Rome; those folk are big on transubstantiation, unlike, say, the Jews and the Muslims.

I can't address the whole tree, but Baptists didn't come from Anglicans, Mormons and pentecostals didn't come from Methodists, and Presbyterians didn't come from Lutherans.

those folk are big on transubstantiation, unlike, say, the Jews and the Muslims. — jorndoe

Merry Christmas!

Sure the Jews and the Moslems don't have the doctrine in the same manner, but they sure do have equivalent doctrines. The point of transubstantiation is that man can come to share, by grace, in the Divinity of the Trinity - ie, God became man so that men may become gods. Doesn't the same doctrine exist in Kaballah or Sufi mysticism? Of course - the essential point that man can share in a divine essence (though not in the sense of his essence becoming one with the divine essence) is there.

None of the differences you've mentioned are profound differences. A profound difference is a difference in content, not merely in language. For example, such a difference is on reincarnation between the Christians and the Buddhists - though even there things are debatable (ie, what reincarnates - cause Christians would agree that atoms and matter, and maybe even desires and tendencies reincarnate).

That's why I said your post is a joke. It's not even worth the effort for me of addressing each of those petty little points. Nobody - no academic - stoops so low as to discuss at the level you want to carry the discussion at. That level displays a profound misunderstanding of religion. For example, you don't even understand what transubstantiation means - you literarily have no understanding about the content of it, you just repeat a string of words. You find a different string of words in Islam, or in Judaism, etc. and then you go like "Oh see, irreconcilable differences, they can't all be right!". You don't understand what those words mean, so you have no clue at all if you find a similar doctrine expressed through different words in another religion.

If your post was submitted to any academic who deals with comparative religion, you'd easily get an F.

As for differences between Christians... take the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church. You count them as two separate groups, but in essence they are the same. The only difference is one of emphasis - the Catholic Church puts greater emphasis on reason, while the Orthodox Church puts greater emphasis on mystical experience. And apart from that, the significant difference is a political one - the Orthodox Church does not accept the authority of the pope. That's all. In most other regards, believers will find deep agreement between themselves. So you're one of those people who cannot distinguish doctrine from politics.

So, when do you suppose this very long discussion which I have only noticed getting longer but haven't followed, will move on to the Immaculate Conception and the virgin birth (not the same thing), the proper method of baptism, the closure of divine testimony, and other matters?