Sciences vs. Religion

[dralexisnoble]

I dunno - American politics has become a religion to some people. Maybe we should dispense with politics, and revert to the sort of theocratic government which existed in the Sumerian city-states prior to the politico-military leadership which arose 4,500 years ago. Look at the advantages - a government controlled by God, who never spoke, except through His priests, who were part and parcel to the citizenry, and who generally invoked the will of the people, and beautiful temples instead of that hideous pseudo-neoclassical White House. Not only would "hitting the opposition with a Bill" cease completely, since laws would be written on clay tablets, but we could turn the Pentagon into a dynamite roller rink.

Here here! I'm for everything but the abolishment of the White house and clay tablets. The roller rink, however, is a must!

[mal4mac]

But the methodology of the survey, and the questions which got them to the 7% figure are flawed.

Are they? Your link is far from convincing. The original survey was published in Nature, were your accusations of bias published in a journal of equivalent stature?

[JCamilo]

That's not what I said. It is "literally" his body and blood. That is Catholic doctrine. Anyone who doesn't believe it should not receive the Eucharist at mass. This is emphasized relentlessly, and it's the sole focus of the service. That is why we bow before the tabernacle (where the consecrated host is housed) before getting in and getting out of the pews. We also have Eucharistic adoration where the consecrated host (Christ's body) is in an ornate structure called a monstrance where we can spend time in Christ's physical presence. It is by no means symbolic. It is Christ, according to Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Mere symbolism of the bread and wine is a Protestant approach to communion. That is why they are not permitted to go up and receive communion at a Catholic mass.

I have no idea how you use literary "We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol" if saying literary is the body and blood of Jesus would imply it is blood and flesh and not wine and breed. And Catholicism let clear it is wine and breed, not blood or fresh also. You may say the presence of Christ is literal, but not, which is what a chemical test would discover, that it is literary the body of christ - which is what you said and made mention in my answer.

And this is obviously a symbolism, using wine and breed to represent christ presence is symbolic. Specially considering I am talking from a non-beliver point of view.

[JCamilo]

Nope, I think *you're* misreading that passage, or reading it in another way.

Sure.

Nope, I'm arguing that he didn't see sufficient evidence for God.

No, you are not just doing it. You claim he is an atheist, which implies he does not believe in god and not that he found litte evidence. You also claimed stuff as he dismissed all gods. You also said the lack of evidence make his disbelief - which implies not believing - grow.... and I not going to keep quoting you. You are obviously not arguing Darwin was agnostic, but that he is atheist and tried to imply his studies lead to it. So I repeat:

"Darwin clearly argued evolutionists could believe in god, since his theory had no bearing on its existence, and you are trying to imply it is the reason behind his lack of faith. Of course, makes a lot of sense."

Dawkins doesn't believe beyond all doubt that there is no God, read "The God delusion" to see his subtle view.

There is probally no god is a blunt way to say there is no god, because nobody is foolish enough to fail for Dawkins embroidment of speech.

You are producing no quotes that show this, here's another direct quote from his autobiography, "the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic." He's an agnostic in the same sense as Russell and Dawkins. Because Russell and Dawkins don't want to be labelled as wishy-washy, dithering agnostics they call themselves atheists (because their position is very near strict atheism).

"
You are producing no quotes to help yourself either and he remains agnostic because - it is in the wiki entry, so you can read it - 'I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic' (and a few other. Just go and read). He is not like Russell at all.

[SentimentalSlop]

I have no idea how you use literary "We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol" if saying literary is the body and blood of Jesus would imply it is blood and flesh and not wine and breed. And Catholicism let clear it is wine and breed, not blood or fresh also. You may say the presence of Christ is literal, but not, which is what a chemical test would discover, that it is literary the body of christ - which is what you said and made mention in my answer.

And this is obviously a symbolism, using wine and breed to represent christ presence is symbolic. Specially considering I am talking from a non-beliver point of view.

Like I said, it is not the same body and blood he had 2000 years ago. We know the bread and wine is not supposed to taste different before or after it is consecrated. It is through faith that we believe Christ is present in the bread and in the wine. We take what Christ said at the Passover meal literally. His physical body and blood is now, here on earth, the consecrated bread and wine.

At Catholic mass, we state this in the Epiclesis: Therefore, O Lord, we pray: may this same Holy Spirit graciously sanctify these offerings, that they may become the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ for the celebration of this great mystery, which he himself left us as an eternal covenant.

Catholics believe it literally. I can't repeat this enough. It is doctrine, and it's in the catechism. Protestants have fell away and see the bread and wine as merely symbols, so that is why a good number of them believe that us Catholics are idolaters.

[Eman Resu]

I have no idea how you use literary "We're not supposed to taste human flesh and blood lol" if saying literary is the body and blood of Jesus would imply it is blood and flesh and not wine and breed. And Catholicism let clear it is wine and breed, not blood or fresh also. You may say the presence of Christ is literal, but not, which is what a chemical test would discover, that it is literary the body of christ - which is what you said and made mention in my answer.

And this is obviously a symbolism, using wine and breed to represent christ presence is symbolic. Specially considering I am talking from a non-beliver point of view.

Nope - there's nothing symbolic about Transubstantiation; the Catholic belief is that the Eucharist becomes the body (and, concomitantly, the blood) of Christ, although to all outward appearances the Host remains unchanged.

Schroeder's translation from the original Latin of Session 13 (Chapter IV) of the Third Tridentine Council is quite good, really:


http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM

"But since Christ our Redeemer declared that to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has, therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and appropriately calls Transubstantiation."

[JCamilo]

Substance is not a material trait. See Aquinas about it:

"I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 3; A[3]), Christ's body is in this sacrament not after the proper manner of dimensive quantity, but rather after the manner of substance. But every body occupying a place is in the place according to the manner of dimensive quantity, namely, inasmuch as it is commensurate with the place according to its dimensive quantity. Hence it remains that Christ's body is not in this sacrament as in a place, but after the manner of substance, that is to say, in that way in which substance is contained by dimensions; because the substance of Christ's body succeeds the substance of bread in this sacrament: hence as the substance of bread was not locally under its dimensions, but after the manner of substance, so neither is the substance of Christ's body. Nevertheless the substance of Christ's body is not the subject of those dimensions, as was the substance of the bread: and therefore the substance of the bread was there locally by reason of its dimensions, because it was compared with that place through the medium of its own dimensions; but the substance of Christ's body is compared with that place through the medium of foreign dimensions, so that, on the contrary, the proper dimensions of Christ's body are compared with that place through the medium of substance; which is contrary to the notion of a located body.

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament."

There is more places on his suma 528 where he make up the difference between Substance and Dimension, Substance is clearly different from presence on space, which is Dimension hence the conclusion "Christ body it is not present in the sacrament" , so the two parts of his body - blood and flesh are not there, unlike wine and breed. (Obviously, a christian believes he is there spiritually and do not believe they drink blood and flesh).

Aquinas adds:

'"The eye is of two kinds, namely, the bodily eye properly so-called, and the intellectual eye, so-called by similitude. But Christ's body as it is in this sacrament cannot be seen by any bodily eye. First of all, because a body which is visible brings about an alteration in the medium, through its accidents. Now the accidents of Christ's body are in this sacrament by means of the substance; so that the accidents of Christ's body have no immediate relationship either to this sacrament or to adjacent bodies; consequently they do not act on the medium so as to be seen by any corporeal eye."

Which is enough to show what the Trent Council will come with.

So, when we see the Council the following:

"Therefore, our Savior, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this sacrament, in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love towards men, making a remembrance of his wonderful works,[8] and commanded us in the participation of it to reverence His memory and to show forth his death until he comes[9] to judge the world. But He wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls,[10] whereby they may be nourished and strengthened, living by the life of Him who said: He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me,[11] and as an antidote whereby we may be freed from daily faults and be preserved from mortal sins.

He wished it furthermore to be a pledge of our future glory and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body of which He is the head[12] and to which He wished us to be united as members by the closest bond of faith, hope and charity, that we might all speak the same thing and there might be no schisms among us."

Where it calls it as a symbol. It does more than once in the text. And mentions the "spiritual food". Being symbolic does mean being false or unreal. Means one thing represents another. Obviously for a christian Christ is present and according the Church the changes are not physical but on "substance", the wine remais wine ,the breed remain breed. For anyone, wine and breed represents Christ presence - either you are christian or not - and symbolism is exactly when

"the art or practice of using symbols especially by investing things with a symbolic meaning or by expressing the invisible or intangible by means of visible or sensuous representations: as
a : artistic imitation or invention that is a method of revealing or suggesting immaterial, ideal, or otherwise intangible truth or states
b : the use of conventional or traditional signs in the representation of divine beings and spirits'

Since substance is invisible, then we do have exactly the merriam-webster definition of symbolism.

[Eman Resu]

Hence in no way is Christ's body locally in this sacrament."

It's accepted as such by Roman Catholics. Julius III's dictum at the Tridentine Council was made ex cathedra, and as such carries with it the understanding of 'interpretatio cessat in claris.' Read into Canon three centuries after the Summa Theologia was written, Aquinas' thoughts on the Eucharist - as moving as they might have been to Julius III - can't change what is, in this instance, "clear text."

I doubt that anyone here - Catholic or otherwise - would seek to deny your right to whatsoever interpretation you choose, nor to offer you any disrespect regarding your belief that Transubstantiation doesn't exist as viewed through the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church. Likewise, I'll assume that you'd offer no disrespect to anyone who embraced Transubstantiation as fact through their beliefs.

[JCamilo]

Of there is no offense.

Anyways, Aquinas is not here to change his future, it is to illustrate the meaning of Substance, in the text which refers to Christ body as having non physical presence (or the traditional physical presence that can be validade by empirical evidence, which was the proposal of the chemestry exame. The Church expect to have "wine and breed" as result and this in no way disprove the transubustantiation), which Julius confirms. It also confirms the symbolic nature of those elements in the sacrament (which from the logic does not imply it is false, the symbol is the thing in such rituals).

Simple as put, it is like an object (you, me) etc, to have more than one part. Substance , an excential invisible part and some material part. By mentioning - in the part you quoted - substance, they suggest that other part, a left over of sorts, is absent. This left over is what implies that to our mundane senses - it is wine and breed. Obviously, this show those guys are in no way ignorant, completely fools and had phylosophy and mostly, logic, present in their doctrines to the point they understood empirism quite well and analysed their miracles with that in view as well (which made Mal4mac challenge a bit foolish, the church had the answer well build 700 or more years ago for him).

This is Pope Paul VI, 1965.

'46. To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which goes beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the greatest miracle of its kind, (50) we have to listen with docility to the voice of the teaching and praying Church. Her voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic Church fittingly and properly calls transubstantiation. (51) As a result of transubstantiation, the species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new "reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the manner in which bodies are in a place.'

He uses the other symbolism a few times (he mentions it but consider a mistake praying with focus on Symbolism), uses here sign and end telling us, the body is present but not in the way bodies are in a place. He basically - even the use of substance - repeats and confirms Aquinas and the kind of interpretation I have. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...terium_en.html

and this is Vatican site compedium:

"282. How is Christ present in the Eucharist?

1373-1375
1413

Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist in a unique and incomparable way. He is present in a true, real and substantial way, with his Body and his Blood, with his Soul and his Divinity. In the Eucharist, therefore, there is present in a sacramental way, that is, under the Eucharistic species of bread and wine, Christ whole and entire, God and Man.

283. What is the meaning of transubstantiation?

1376-1377
1413

Transubstantiation means the change of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of his Blood. This change is brought about in the eucharistic prayer through the efficacy of the word of Christ and by the action of the Holy Spirit. However, the outward characteristics of bread and wine, that is the “eucharistic species”, remain unaltered."

[mal4mac]

So are the carbon atoms in the wafer swapped with carbon atoms from Christ's body? Is Christ in bodily form in heaven teleporting his carbon atoms to the wafer and swapping these atoms with the wafer's carbon atoms? Does Christ allow for scientific advance? Given the current availability electron microscopes invisible transubstantiation might need to take place at the atomic level. As all carbon atoms are the same, why bother doing this? Is there an extra undetectable "spiritual oomph" in Jesus' carbon atoms? If so, how does this "spiritual oomph" work itself out in the human body? If it cures diseases, or improves complexion, such things should be detectable.

[JCamilo]

You are being childish and illogical. It is clear stated the change is not physical, nothing happens with atoms. Dont you think the first time a priest said to some pagan guy with a bigger sword "this is the body and blood of jesus" the guy didnt tasted and said "wine and breed for me"?And neither it is meant to cure diseases, it is more a way to fasten the bound with the community and the community with Jesus.

[mal4mac]

I'm being childish and illogical One of the posters said, "His physical body and blood is now, here on earth, the consecrated bread and wine." I'm just trying to draw out the implications of that. I think the whole discussion is daft, like arguing over how many angels dance on the head of a pin. Symbolic or real, big end of the egg or small end of the egg. I wish I had Swift's satirical gifts.

[JCamilo]

There is nothing wrong with her sentence. The discussion is not daft, what matters is not how many angels but to which tune they are dancing.

[Eman Resu]

I wish I had Swift's satirical gifts.

Oh, I don't know - Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's satire regarding The Lady's Dressing Room wasn't bad either.

[YesNo]

On the physics front: I think you need to get up-to-date. Have you heard of Lawrence Krauss? We now know it is entirely possible for a universe to come from nothing, and our universe actually looks like a universe that came from nothing.

It was in a post Orphanpip made some years ago on Lit Net featuring Lawrence Krauss that got me interested in the Big Bang. I didn't realize it previously that there was scientific evidence that the universe came from nothing.

The way I see it now, rather than promoting atheism, this view of the big bang confirms what I understand to be a theistic, specifically Catholic, version of creation.

In any case, with the universe only 13.7 billion years old, chance has even less time to operate to get us to the state we are in now.

And even if existence itself did begin to exist and we had no idea how it started, that wouldn't make it reasonable to assume it was a god any more than it would be reasonable to assume it was a transcendent, cosmic purple dragon. A gap in our scientific knowledge is not justification to insert anything you can imagine.

I suppose it could be a purple dragon. Wouldn't you like to know if it is or not?

I see atheism as boxing in science with an assumption that there is nothing conscious out there besides ourselves and that any evidence from our own consciousness should be dismissed. The same thing goes for determinism. Science is still in a conceptual box that assumes determinism in spite of the fact that this has been discredited.