Steven Carr

Bede's guest writer writes in
http://www.bede.org.uk/hieronymus.htm

'The corollary of believing in an intelligible universe, a rational Creator, and claiming to love truth is this: we must accept the results of unbiased scientific investigation, whether or not they fit our prejudices and particular theological presuppositions. This is where the problems begin.

All too often, Christians act as if we have a "get-out-of-jail-free card" when it comes to the natural sciences. We refuse to accept findings that perturb our neat and tidy interpretations of scripture and wave away things that make us uncomfortable. Ideas that would force us to return to the sources and develop a new understanding are pushed away with a "No, I don't believe in that, I believe in the Bible."'


Does this mean that if unbiased scientifc investigation shows that the bread and wine of Mass appears to contain nothing but bread and wine, with no apparent traces at all of any other substance, then Christians should accept that there is nothing but bread and wine being eaten and drunk?

Bede's writer continues 'Anything which is currently unexplained or poorly understood by science is explained by saying "God must have done it." While this supposed proof of God's activity makes some people feel comfortable, it never lasts.'

Can science explain how bread and wine can still appear to be bread and wine , while actually being the real substance of Christ?

Amos

No but religion can. The transformation takes place in our mind and not in the substance. The new heaven and the new earth are the same old heaven and earth but now seen in a different light wherein all is Christ and we must consume our equals to stay alive. "This is Christ" is the same "this is Buddha" and so there is nothing new here. Things only go wrong when "transubstantiation" is replaced by "consubstantiation" because symbols will never be real enough to sustain us and therefore we will die.

Bede

Steven,

You were fishing in another thread for this but the only people who understood you weren't going to take the bate.

I suggest you check up the doctrine of the real presence. It is certainly the case that Catholics accept a scientific analysis of the host would pronounce it as bread. Likewise a scientifc analysis of a Peiro della Francisco painting would say it was very old eggs. But Catholics, wisely, do not consider science as the only source of valid answers.

In the sphere of science we should accept scientific answers. Outside its sphere, on matters like transubstatiation, it has nothing to say.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Steven Carr

Bede should review the words of his guest writer
'All too often, Christians act as if we have a "get-out-of-jail-free card" when it comes to the natural sciences. We refuse to accept findings that perturb our neat and tidy interpretations of scripture and wave away things that make us uncomfortable. Ideas that would force us to return to the sources and develop a new understanding are pushed away with a "No, I don't believe in that, I believe in the Bible.'


Instead, Bede firmly declares that science clashes with his beliefs and that he will put Church dogma over science.

As for his bizarre analogy and his lack of understanding of science - has he never heard of image processing technology, which can recognises pictures?


Why does he think science cannot recognise (at least in principle), a painting of a scene? How on earth does he think his analogy is comparable to the Catholic church's declaration 'That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but only by faith, which relies on divine authority.'

Does he think paintings cannot be 'apprehended by the senses'?

How can his church claim to have been the foundation of science, when it lays down as dogma that reality cannot be apprehended by the senses?

How can Bede tell scientists that they are measuring an objective reality, when his church says science is useless for detecting real substances?

Skeptical

I have always considered that scientific inquiry is valid for any information that we can obtain empirically through our 5 senses. That is to say, the only questions that would not be valid scientific questions are ones that we cannot answer by obtaining empirical information. (i.e. how many angels can dance on a pin, if we can never know how big the angels are, etc)

So to say something is "outside the sphere" of science to me means something which we cannot have any empirical information about, something which is non-testable, non-detectable, essentially invisible to all of our senses.

If this is the case, it sounds like something about which we cannot really "know" anything, just "feel it" to be true or desire it to be true. And if this is the case, it seems like something which we might be correct about, but that we could never know we were correct about or have any good empirical reasons for believing. (I am implicitly assuming that something which is non-empirical cannot be verified, and therefore cannot be considered to be "known")

Is this the way you view things such as the transubstatiation, that they are somehow "known" through intuition or some other non-empirical means?

Bede

Skeptical,

I'm not going to argue too strongly against what you say. But we must note that scientific theories are only inferred from empirical information, we don't have direct access to them.

Subjective experience is also a valid form of knowledge although necessarily one which we obtain either by experience or testamony (although, in practice, we get most science from testamony too).

Frankly, I find Steven's shrill carping both very tiresome and entirely in keeping with his usual behavior here. I have no intention of wasting my time arguing with him.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

NOGO

We don't need science to solve this one just the same that you don't need a hammer for a thumbtack.

All one needs to do is to read the NT for an answer.

The real substance of Christ according to the NT is the Word of God (ie Jesus' teachings) which you have to accept (eat like bread) in order to get salvation.

According to the NT then, the bread is a symbol of the word of God and nothing more.

Any idea that the bread has anything to do with the body of a man is just an historical mishap.

Skeptical

While it is true the most of our empirical evidence of science is received from others, the information is at least in theory accessible to anyone who wants to look for it, which does not seem to be the case for "subjective experiences". (i.e. anyone can perform chemistry and physics experiments in their basement)

So that is where my real question is. I have spent a lot of time over the past few years thinking about this and no matter how I look at it, I just don't see how I could treat any experience I were to have as evidentiary if it could not be verified. I say this after studying the nature of human mind flaws such as memory problems, biases, human ego, etc. If I personally were to ever have some sort of "religious" experience, my first thoughts would be "how do I know that experience originated outside my mind versus inside", and without a way to obtain empirical evidence, I just don't see how to do it.

I was just curious how you viewed the information you believe you have and what mechanisms you use to verify it.

Understood, this thread just happened to catch my eye and the topic was on my mind. Perhaps another time.

Sauron

Outside its sphere?

Nothing that occurs in the physical world is outside the sphere of science.

Here Bede tries to draw a "do not cross" boundary around sacred cows that he is unwilling to submit to testing.

The problem isn't that science has nothing to say about these alleged miraculous events.

The problem is that science does have something to say about them - but Bede doesn't like the results.

Steven Carr

But Bede concedes that every bit of empirical information supports the claim that there is nothing but bread and wine after transubstantiation.

What is the difference between his view that the appearance of bread and wine is deceptive, and the view that God created the world about 6000 years ago and it is only the accidental properties that appear to be old?