Poll On The Eucharist. Particles Is The Focus.

[Hubertus]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340330241' post='2447294']
I'm trying to find out how many Catholics want to fight me on this. When I take a consecrated wafer and state that we can ascertain that none of its particles are any different from what they were before, I want to see how many Catholics on this forum will say "Yes, of course the particles are no different, but transubstantiation isn't about particulate change- if it was, we would fight you on that really hard." And I also want to see how many Catholics do want to fight me on that, arguing that I only have the ability to draw conclusions concerning the "accidents" of those particles, and I don't really have any way of knowing what sorts of particles an object is really, truly, actually made up of.
[/quote] According to particle physics, the composition is still the same. Of course, that doesn't prevent us from still saying, "It is really, physically, the Body and Blood of Christ," but if we were to assess it simply using scientific measurements then we would assume that it is simply bread and wine. Thankfully, God did not make us scientific robots who can only believe what they see - He gave us the ability to at least somewhat grasp super-material concepts and implications.

To me it seems that the "substance" dealt with by the Particle Theory as you're discussing has only to do with matter itself, while the "substance" of classical philosophy, or at least of Catholic theology, implies a deeper significance.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340330241' post='2447294']
Dual aspects? Great! Let's table the supernatural aspect (about which you can make some comment but cannot explain fully) and focus on the other aspect. I guess you want to call that the "particle physics" aspect.

What can you say about the particle physics aspect? What is it that you believe you can know about that? For example, is it your belief that our modern understanding of particle physics allows us to be capable of identifying the number of protons that an atom has? Furthermore, when some miraculous transformation is alleged involving a wafer and a bit of wine, do you believe it's possible to ascertain whether or not an atom has become some different atom- that is, one which has a different number of protons?

I know that when you're faced with these sorts of questions, you're immediately confronted with the urge to reframe them in some manner similar to this: "I think what you mean to say is, do I believe it's possible to ascertain whether an atom looks like a certain atom, or has the characteristics of a certain atom if you choose to go to that level and look at things from there." Or...."I think what you're asking is, is it possible to ascertain whether or not atoms appear to have changed or not, or whether their observable properties have changed."

So we're clear, I am not asking those questions. So please fight the urge to go there. Just don't go there. Answer the questions that I have asked.

Do you understand the difference between these "reframed" questions and the questions that I'm actually asking?

From the ontological angle, I believe we can know things about particles. We aren't limited to knowing things about their appearance or their properties- we can actually know things about the particles. We aren't limited to saying "This thing looks like a duck and quacks like a duck." There was a time when we were limited to this kind of reasoning, but now we can say "This thing has duck chromosomes. This is duck DNA. And of course, we believe it has been a duck from the moment of conception. The duck DNA, the duck chromosomes, the duck genes- that is why it's a duck." Of course, this is all very much dependent on our ability to know exactly what kind of DNA we're dealing with, what kind of chromosomes we're dealing with, and what kind of genes we're dealing with. It depends on really, truly knowing what they are- not just what they look like. It's not enough to know that DNA makes noises that sound like quacks, and it's not enough to know that genes walk with a gait that resembles what you might see from a duck. You need to know what these things are, not just what they look like or resemble- and I believe this is something that we can know. It is knowable, and as with anything else that is knowable, you don't need permission from a Magisterium in order to know it.

I'm trying to find out how many Catholics want to fight me on this. When I take a consecrated wafer and state that we can ascertain that none of its particles are any different from what they were before, I want to see how many Catholics on this forum will say "Yes, of course the particles are no different, but transubstantiation isn't about particulate change- if it was, we would fight you on that really hard." And I also want to see how many Catholics do want to fight me on that, arguing that I only have the ability to draw conclusions concerning the "accidents" of those particles, and I don't really have any way of knowing what sorts of particles an object is really, truly, actually made up of.

I've made it clear what I'm looking for. Now your job is to ensure that a general sense of irritation and belligerence doesn't cause you to fight me on some different issue. It might confuse things. If you're going to fight me on anything, fight me on the knowability of basic particles like atoms and molecules. Or state that you don't want to fight me on this because there is no real disagreement on this point.
[/quote]
I took the time to read the whole post, but sorry I really don't understand what you want me to write. I am neither a physicist or a theologian, so if you are trying to trip me up, it will be a small victory. It seems to me that you are trying to steer this where YOU want it to go. Sorry I'm not a parrot, you can't cajole me into writing what you want me to write.
But anyhoo I'll add this. It's duel because Jesus took physical or [u]natural[/u] things and taught us "this is..." yet after 2k years it has not run out so it is supernatural as well. If you want to disregard the supernatural and just talk about the natural then go talk to a physicist, because if you remove the supernatural from the Eucharist all you are discussing is eating bread and drinking wine. If you take the custard out of a custard tart it's not a custard tart.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i wouldn't have a clue. I do though believe in the mystery part whether science can proove it or not. Like the 1000 upon 1000s of miracles in the last 2000 years some spectacular miracles of healing beyond the comprehension of medical science and some miracles of grace, including signs,wonders and portents. And i have seen a few of these. This is the proof. This is not proof enough for an athiest possibly.

[PilgrimageOfGrace]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340314769' post='2447198']
"I don't know" is an acceptable answer. On the whole, though, it looks like you would be more inclined to go through Door Number Two on Question Number One of the poll. Would you, or [b]are you more committed to an "I don't know" type of answer[/b]?
[/quote] I would have to say so, yes.

is there something specific you're searching for regarding the Eucharist?

It seems to be you want to understand what happens in the consecration, but I'm not going to assume such - I can do some reading if there's something specific you want to understand?

[Groo the Wanderer]

sounds to me like you just want to pick a fight. i for one would not allow you to take a consecrated host and destroy even a part of it just to see if it still looks like bread under an electron microscope.

are you just trying to be a butthat?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1340336703' post='2447320']
Bro, particles are physical. You're making this 1000x more complicated than needed. The particles change, but not physically, so yes including the atomic number. The atomic number in the atoms of the host does not due to consecration. Furthermore it's not the particles which are disguised. We can SEE the particles. We may not be able to "see" an atom broken up into its subatomic constituents, unless we had a powerful enough microscope, but it's not the Real Presence of Christ hiding electrons and protons from us. [b]You have it backwards. It's the carbon atoms and their electrons and such hiding the Real Presence.[/b]

Particles are only hidden insofar as the limits of our senses and understanding of particle physics. Whether these particles be in the Eucharist or otherwise.[/quote]

Bonus props, this was an especially exceptional paragraph. Particularly the bold part.

[stevil]

[quote name='cooterhein' timestamp='1340330241' post='2447294']
I don't really have any way of knowing what sorts of particles an object is really, truly, actually made up of.
[/quote]
I am not, nor have I ever been a Catholic, but my limited understanding of Catholic belief in eucharist bread and wine is that although it physically remains as bread and wine, there is an unmeasurable, unverifiable change into the body and blood of JC.
"Knowledge" of this change is via belief, not via verified evidence.

The church tells them that this happens, they smile, nod their heads and believe it to be the case. No expectations of physical proof, no search for verifiable evidence, I can only presume that they expect there won't be verifiable evidence so the only way they have of gaining spiritual "knowledge" is via the bible or via church teachings or via personal "religious experience".

If there was measurable, verifiable proof of god then god's existence would be fact rather than faith and belief, and apparently faith and belief is important thus there won't ever be any measurable, verifiable proof.

[PilgrimageOfGrace]

What are you really looking for?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='PilgrimageOfGrace' timestamp='1340743051' post='2449168']
What are you really looking for?
[/quote]
[img]http://www.particlezoo.net/physicsLOLcats/cat-enters-universe-through-wormhole1.jpg[/img]

[Vincent Vega]

It would appear as though you're attempting to fit the Church's teaching on Transubstantiation into your materialist worldview. Both sides will continue to talk in circles, separately from one another...it's like you're trying to explain why the angles of a triangle should never total more than 180, even though the people you're talking with aren't considering Euclidean geometry.

[Annie12]

I just wanted to mention that there is no reason why the particles would change. But this doesn't mean that Catholic doctrine is wrong! If anything it proves that it is correct! The Eucharist is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and no where has any theologian claimed that it has to look like flesh (even though there gave been numerous eucharistic miracles whet is has turned into flesh) why couldn't God be so powerfully to make this happen?!?! He stated the reality of the true presence IN THE BIBLE, HIMSELF. This idea wasn't created by some one out in left feild. Jesus stated it himself. Also, at communion, we are particapating in the same eucharistic feast as the last supper because it transcends time. Just follow this basic rule: don't try to disproove the spiritual with the scientific because they are two different realms.

[stevil]

[quote name='Annie12' timestamp='1341028348' post='2450683']
If anything it proves that it is correct!
[/quote]
Not really, given that the material, observable result would be the same, whether it is correct or incorrect, thus it is not proof of anything.
I expect this is the case with all metaphysical explanations.
I would say the physical reality of our universe, acts exactly as if there is no god.
You might say that the physical reality of our universe acts exactly as if there is a god.
Thus we have no proof for or against given the results are exactly the same.

People simply believe in gods or they don't.

Edited July 4, 2012 by stevil

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341445930' post='2452416']
Not really, given that the material, observable result would be the same, whether it is correct or incorrect, thus it is not proof of anything.

[/quote]
After receiving the Eucharist I have life in me and am able to do Christ's work with more vigour and more step. So I could say that I have empirical evidence. I just can't demonstrate it to others. Its a personal thing.

[quote]I expect this is the case with all metaphysical explanations.
I would say the physical reality of our universe, acts exactly as if there is no god.
You might say that the physical reality of our universe acts exactly as if there is a god.
Thus we have no proof for or against given the results are exactly the same.[/quote]
With the complexities of science it can be seen that the universe behaves as if there is a designer.


[quote]People simply believe in gods or they don't.[/quote]
Once again it is not just choosing to believe something because it sounds great. Fairies at the bottom of the garden sound great too, but I have no personal empirical evidence of them.

[stevil]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1341523921' post='2452617']
After receiving the Eucharist I have life in me and am able to do Christ's work with more vigour and more step. So I could say that I have empirical evidence. I just can't demonstrate it to others. Its a personal thing.
[/quote]
When drug companies test drugs they give some people a placebo and some people the real drug. This is because people's minds can trick them, a person can perceive a drug to be working i.e. no more headache, no more achy muscles etc. To do a test on eucharist bread and wine you would need to give some people ordinary bread and wine that is physically exactly the same so they don't know the difference. Then see if people can accurately state whether they had been taking the real thing or not.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1341523921' post='2452617']
With the complexities of science it can be seen that the universe behaves as if there is a designer.
[/quote]
The vast majority of scientists are atheists, much more so that the ordinary population. Mostly these people don't see an intelligent designer.


[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1341523921' post='2452617']
Once again it is not just choosing to believe something because it sounds great. Fairies at the bottom of the garden sound great too, but I have no personal empirical evidence of them.
[/quote]
As an outsider I have no idea how one comes to believe in gods, how one comes to believe in a particular god and how one chooses the right denomination of belief in that particular god.
To me it seems no different to belief in ghosts, witches, fairies, alien visits, etc...
Some people perceive to have had personal experience of these. I can't prove that there experiences were real or not.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341525897' post='2452645']
When drug companies test drugs they give some people a placebo and some people the real drug. This is because people's minds can trick them, a person can perceive a drug to be working i.e. no more headache, no more achy muscles etc. To do a test on eucharist bread and wine you would need to give some people ordinary bread and wine that is physically exactly the same so they don't know the difference. Then see if people can accurately state whether they had been taking the real thing or not.
[/quote]
Once again no! you cannot put it to the test. But then how well do double blind placebo tests work? DBP tests were done on anti depressants too. And look how well they work. Many people get sicker on them and the docs insist that they don't go off of them. Happened to me, finally went off them altogether against advice and got better. Now that it has been proven, they don't want me to go back on them. So much for scientific tests. Whether the effect of the Eucharist is in my mind or not is really irrelevant the end result is the same, because of faith.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341525897' post='2452645']
The vast majority of scientists are atheists, much more so that the ordinary population. Mostly these people don't see an intelligent designer.
[/quote]
Well I don't know how true or false that is, but if you read the thread 'The creation Museum' you will see that many of us agree with scientific process as the cause of all that there is. But we believe that God is the creator of science and used that to create. And It would be an odd sort of scientist that didn't marvel at the intricacies of physics/biology that's behind all this. Many people are happy to see only as far as the horizon and adopt the philosophy of accepting only theory and empirical evidence and reason that science is sufficient to explain it. However there are many things science cannot prove and without men of vision who were prepared to see beyond the horizon and propose theory only based on faith many other great scientific discoveries would not have been realised. It doesn't require anything more extraordinary than this to reason God.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1341525897' post='2452645']
As an outsider I have no idea how one comes to believe in gods, how one comes to believe in a particular god and how one chooses the right denomination of belief in that particular god.
To me it seems no different to belief in ghosts, witches, fairies, alien visits, etc...
Some people perceive to have had personal experience of these. I can't prove that there experiences were real or not.
[/quote]
When I read the New Testament of the story Of Jesus, I see that there is so much sense and wisdom in what he taught that I have to believe it was real. I've never read a fictional story that comes close. Even if one doesn't believe in the supernatural aspect, if everyone lived by his teachings what a much better place the world would be.