• Michael
    5.1k
    This discussion was created with comments split from The Shoutbox
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    I'm also close in terms of beliefs to Catholicism.Agustino

    Ooh. How embarrassing. Do you believe in transubstantiation?
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    Ooh. How embarrassing. Do you believe in transubstantiation?Sapientia
    Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed.
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    Yeah, the latin doctrine of transubstantiation is quite close to the EO doctrine of Metousiosis. The Eastern and Western Church are not that different. They were the result of the first schism, which was mostly over political issues, and the role the pope wanted to have over all the churches, which the East opposed.Agustino

    What is it that you find convincing about something so ridiculous, fantastical, and without scientific basis? Or is it just irrational faith?
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    without scientific basisSapientia
    What do you mean without scientific basis? What kind of scientific basis would you expect? Finding God in the atoms of the wine or what?
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    What do you mean without scientific basis? What kind of scientific basis would you expect? Finding God in the atoms of the wine or what?Agustino

    I would expect to see biological evidence of the body and blood of Christ. That has never been found.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    I would expect to see biological evidence of the body and blood of ChristSapientia
    Why? That's not what the doctrine claims.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    Obviously it doesn't claim that there will be biological evidence.Sapientia
    Exactly, so why are you looking for it?

    Obviously it doesn't claim that there will be biological evidence. The rest seems fine, and Google backs it up. Transubstantiation is the miraculous change by which according to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox dogma the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearances of bread and wine.Sapientia
    If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it. As you say, it still has the appearance, physically, of bread and wine.
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    Exactly, so why are you looking for it?Agustino

    I'm not. I said that that's what I'd expect to see if it were true. I don't base my expectations on what is absent from an old work of fiction. I base my expectations on what I know about science.

    If it's miraculous (ie mystical), why do you expect to find a biological change in the composition of the wine and bread? If there was such a biological change, then it wouldn't be mystical at all. The Eucharist is mystical in nature - Christ is mystically present in the bread and wine, not in terms of the atoms that compose it.Agustino

    Obviously I don't believe in miracles or faux mysteries. I'm curious why you do. That's how our conversation began, but now you're making it about me.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    I'm not. I said that that's what I'd expect to see if it were true. I don't base my expectations on what is absent from an old work of fiction. I base my expectations on what I know about science.Sapientia
    Why do you expect to see that if it were true? :s

    When the doctrine itself says that the wine and the bread retain the appearance of wine and bread, how can you possibly expect that appearance to be changed so that you'd find that it is biologically blood and not wine, and biologically flesh and not bread? :s

    Obviously I don't believe in miracles or faux mysteries. I'm curious why you do. That's how our conversation began, but now you're making it about me.Sapientia
    That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't. So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine.
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    Why do you expect to see that if it were true?Agustino

    I answered that: because of what I know about science.

    When the doctrine itself says that the wine and the bread retain the appearance of wine and bread, how can you possibly expect that appearance to be changed so that you'd find that it is biologically blood and not wine, and biologically flesh and not bread?Agustino

    But why do you believe that? Because it's what the doctrine says?

    What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig, if it is eaten in a special ceremony? Would you believe that?

    What if the doctrine told you to punch yourself in the face? Would you do so?

    Is there anything that you wouldn't believe or act upon, provided it was in the doctrine?

    That's another discussion, but you cannot expect transubstantiation to meet your standards of evidence because the doctrine itself makes it explicitly clear that it doesn't.Agustino

    Yes I can, because the doctrine itself, if taken literally, is full of rubbish.

    So you can disbelieve transubstantiation because you don't believe in mystical possibilities or miracles, BUT you cannot disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine.Agustino

    I can do both.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    But why do you believe that? Because it's what the doctrine says?Sapientia
    It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X isn't true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy.

    What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a fig, if it is eaten in a special ceremony? Would you believe that?Sapientia
    I wouldn't believe that because firstly I don't understand what it means, so I can't believe it. But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously.

    Yes I can, because the doctrine itself, if taken literally, is full of rubbish.Sapientia
    Empty assertion.

    I can do both.Sapientia
    One is a logical fallacy, but I see you like logical fallacies :P
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    Why do you expect to see that if it were true?Agustino

    Wait. I meant that that's what I'd expect to see if the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ. I believe that it would leave evidence. I don't believe otherwise, so if that's what the doctrine entails, then I don't believe that the doctrine is true. The doctrine is like a fairy tale, and I don't believe in fairy tales.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    I meant that that's what I'd expect to see if the bread and wine were turned into the body and blood of Christ.Sapientia
    Yes, if they had the appearance of the body and blood of Christ sure. But that's not what the doctrine claims.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    I don't believe otherwise, so if that's what the doctrine entails, then I don't believe that the doctrine is true.Sapientia
    You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place.
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    It's not about believing it at this point, it's about judging a doctrine by the claims that it makes. If a doctrine claims that X is false, you cannot judge the doctrine as false because X is true, obviously. That's a basic logical fallacy.Agustino

    What? That's not a fallacy. That's right.

    If a doctrine claims that it's false that there are fish in the sea, but it's true that there are fish in the sea, then why on earth could I not judge that doctrine as false, given that it would be false.

    I wouldn't believe that because firstly I don't understand what it means, so I can't believe it.Agustino

    It means what it says. What's not to get? And how can you get the one but not the other?

    But I certainly don't disbelieve it because I don't see the fig having the appearance of a flying octopus, obviously.Agustino

    If you were reasonable, you'd disbelieve it because there is no evidence, besides hearsay, that it has ever happened, or, really, that it ever could happen.

    Empty assertion.Agustino

    No it's not. Have you read the doctrine? Or, rather, is it just that you do not want it to be full of rubbish, because you don't want to believe in rubbish? Sorry, but it is what it is.

    One is a logical fallacy, but I see you like logical fallacies.Agustino

    No, neither are in themselves, and neither are in the right context. I disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wine, and because I disbelieve that it would happen without causing such a change.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    What? That's not a fallacy. That's right.Sapientia
    No, you misread that because you didn't update page. I changed it to isn't instead of is almost immediately.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    It means what it says.Sapientia

    What if the doctrine said that a fig will transform into a flying octopus, but would keep the appearance of a figSapientia
    In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?

    I can tell you what the blood and body of Christ are in a mystical sense, I can tell you the significance of that. But not of the flying octopus. So I disbelieve the latter because I don't understand what it means.

    I'm a humble boy, unlike the arrogant owl, who admits to not understanding some things, you see.

    If you were reasonable, you'd disbelieve it because there is no evidence, besides hearsay, that it has ever happened, or, really, that it ever could happen.Sapientia
    There is evidence. Mystical experience.

    No it's not. Have you read the doctrine? Or, rather, is it just that you do not want it to be full of rubbish, because you don't want to believe in rubbish? Sorry, but it is what it is.Sapientia
    :B >:O

    I disbelieve it because there is no biological change in the bread and wineSapientia
    So if I tell you that there are no flying pigs, do you disbelieve because there are no flying pigs? :B
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    Yes, if they had the appearance of the body and blood of Christ sure. But that's not what the doctrine claims.Agustino

    You can disbelieve it, but not for the reason you gave, namely that there is no biological evidence in the wine and bread that they are the body and blood of Christ - since that's not what the doctrine claims in the first place.Agustino

    That's missing the point. You can't rightly answer my question of why you believe what the doctrine claims by saying that that's what the doctrine claims.
  • Agustino
    9.4k
    That's missing the point. You can't rightly answer my question of why you believe what the doctrine claims by saying that that's what the doctrine claims.Sapientia
    So you should clarify your question. Your first question wasn't that. It was telling me how I should disbelieve the doctrine based on what it never claimed. That was indeed missing the point. So now if you rephrase your question on to the right subject, why I personally believe, I may be able to answer it.

    So don't be like Mike who still has a first-grade brain (oh sorry, he graduated to second) and thinks he's burned me by saying that Catholics (and Christians) are cannibals and vampires, since being a cannibal and a vampire involves eating physical flesh and blood.

    I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.

    So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them.
  • Sapientia
    4.5k
    In what sense does the fig transform into a flying octopus if it keeps the physical appearance of a fig? You might say in a mystical sense. Well then, I will ask what is a flying octopus in a mystical sense?

    I can tell you what the blood and body of Christ are in a mystical sense, I can tell you the significance of that. But not of the flying octopus. So I disbelieve the latter because I don't understand what it means.

    I'm a humble boy, unlike the arrogant owl, who admits to not understanding some things, you see.
    Agustino

    What I want to know is how you think the one can literally change into the other, whilst keeping its original appearance, and leaving no scientific trail of evidence. And if you can't answer that, then I want to know why you believe it, and I want you to confirm whether or not it is as I suspect: irrational faith.

    There is evidence. Mystical experience.Agustino

    Haha haha haha haha haha. I'm talking about real evidence. You could justify just about anything with that, so it doesn't really count.

    So if I tell you that there are no flying pigs, do you disbelieve because there are no flying pigs?Agustino

    I believe that there are no flying pigs based on the evidence, or lack thereof.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.