Question to ex-Catholics

[heavenseeker]

I think God made the universe, my question is whats the point of makeing it so big if Earth is the only planet with life.

[mofca]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1036565' date='Aug 2 2006, 05:09 PM']
In the first sentence, you state objective truths exist whether you know them or not.
In the second sentence, you state the Eucharist cannot be an objective truth because you do not know it.

From these two sentences you seem to expect that, if the Eucharist is an objective truth, you would know it by now. Yet, you admitt that objective truth is truth whether or not you know it.

Why do place your knowledge as a requirement for it to possibly be an objective truth? Shouldn't you profess that sufficient evidence has not been provided to you, vice denying transubstantiation? Shouldn't you be agnostic on the issue?
[/quote]
Ok, I think I can clarify.
First of all, in the first sentence I used the word know, not believe. There is a big difference. I can believe that I am looking at a ceiling that is made of tile, but if what I am observing is actually a floor made of wood, it is a floor made of wood regardless of what I believe. Furthermore, it can be demonstrated with solid physical evidence and without question that I am looking at the real presence of a floor made of wood, and it is in fact an objective truth that the object is a floor made of wood, and this truth can be made known.

The point I was trying to make in the second line is that objective truth should be universally accepted knowledge by everyone if it is truly an objective truth. There are plenty of people, myself included, who have knowledge of the Eucharist and still do not see the evidence to support it as truth. Perhaps I could have chosen my words better and said that if the Eucharist is truly an objective truth, EVERYBODY should be able know it if there is objective evidence regardless of faith. I can say that it is a fact that Catholics believe that the Eucharist is Christ's true presence, and that would be an objective truth.

[Aloysius]

It is a fact that Catholics believe the Real Presence to be an objective truth.

Again, "objective truth" is not the same as "observable truth" or "provable truth". There are many things in heaven and earth, horatio, which are not dreamt of in your philosophy.

Imagine that there exists somewhere out in the deepest corners of space something completely invisible, completely intangible, completely unsmellable, completely untasteable, and completely silent. Absolutely no human sense can pick it up. But it is there, and that is objective truth. We'll never know it's there, and we'll never know it's objective truth, but it's true even though we cannot know it (which is precisely what makes it objective)

now, imagine there exists such an object right here on earth somewhere. or on the moon. or anywhere; because such a thing could exist, and if it doesn't have any accidental nature detectable to our limited human senses, we'll never know.

but say it made sense that it should be there. that someone took a roundabout philosophical way and showed that it makes more logical sense that such an object should be there rather than not being there. that could not be proven, but it would lead some people to believe it actually was there. like dark matter, no one has ever observed or proven the existence of that. imagine that it cannot be proven (it may be able to be, but imagine for a second that it exists like the object I described above). a roundable philosophical argument proves it to many people: that there has to be more mass in the universe for it to act the way it does. whether or not it is an objective truth does not depend on whether people know, observe, or believe in it.

[mofca]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1036823' date='Aug 3 2006, 07:37 AM']
It is a fact that Catholics believe the Real Presence to be an objective truth.

Again, "objective truth" is not the same as "observable truth" or "provable truth". There are many things in heaven and earth, horatio, which are not dreamt of in your philosophy.

Imagine that there exists somewhere out in the deepest corners of space something completely invisible, completely intangible, completely unsmellable, completely untasteable, and completely silent. Absolutely no human sense can pick it up. But it is there, and that is objective truth. We'll never know it's there, and we'll never know it's objective truth, but it's true even though we cannot know it (which is precisely what makes it objective)

now, imagine there exists such an object right here on earth somewhere. or on the moon. or anywhere; because such a thing could exist, and if it doesn't have any accidental nature detectable to our limited human senses, we'll never know.

but say it made sense that it should be there. that someone took a roundabout philosophical way and showed that it makes more logical sense that such an object should be there rather than not being there. that could not be proven, but it would lead some people to believe it actually was there. like dark matter, no one has ever observed or proven the existence of that. imagine that it cannot be proven (it may be able to be, but imagine for a second that it exists like the object I described above). a roundable philosophical argument proves it to many people: that there has to be more mass in the universe for it to act the way it does. whether or not it is an objective truth does not depend on whether people know, observe, or believe in it.
[/quote]

It seems that the key difference in our thinking is the way we view the philosophy of objective reality. We could get into an endless discussion of Epistemology and never arrive at common ground. My way of thinking about objective reality is admittedly pragmatic. I prefer to use the scientific method when I draw conclusions and arrive at the truth. To quote the philosopher Richard Kirkham, he says "to qualify as an item of knowledge, a belief must not only be true and justified, the evidence for the belief must necessitate its truth."
In the examples you've given in the above quote, I would look at them as theoretical evidence of a given object's true existence, and that when something is claimed to be witnessed in reality, it then becomes [b]objectively true when observed in objective reality[/b]. Taking a roundabout philosophical way to show that something makes logical sense is not (imho) a reliable way of arriving at an objective truth. It injects preconcieved notions, different interpretations, and adds complexity to an issue that should be clear cut. In the case of the Eucharist, it is claimed to be an objective truth that is known, and occurs right in front of our eyes (a bolder claim than the existence of dark matter), but it is only a truth that can be known through philosophical reasoning mixed with a leap of faith (sketchy ground for proof of its existence). When you say that "it made sense that it should be there", that does not prove it to be "truth". It makes sense that somebody with an ice cube tray in their freezer would use ice in their glass of water on a hot day. However, this does not prove that they have ice in their water, or that there is even ice in their freezer. Therefore, the logical conclusion that there is ice in his glass is not an objective truth.
In your line of thinking, It seems that any claim can be objective truth. For example (and I intend no disrespect here, this is to illustrate a point) I could say that when I tap my foot three times and say googlybear really fast, an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh becomes present in my floor. There were a handfull of people who also claim this is true based on an interpretation of what the Pharaoh said 3500 years ago, and it was also written in a book and interpreted that way. Philosophically and metaphorically, the king is in my floor because without this floor to stand on, I would be walking on dirt and therefore my feet would be dirty as is my soul. The floor shelters me from the elements, without it I could not survive, so it makes sense that the Pharoh is in my floor. There are lots of people who have believed this for thousands of years, so it must be true. Now, obviously this story is not true, but in the minds of believers it is. Does that make it objective truth? Yet, the Eucharistic claim of truth does not have any additional logical grounds for being the truth. Yes, there is the argument that millions of people believe it is true. There is also the argument that millions of people are taught that this is the truth since birth, by people who claim to be an authority of truth, and questioning it risks eternal consequences, so why should they think any differently? There is the argument that this has been tradition for 2000 years. There is also the argument that this tradition has been filled with error and controversy, and that the Catholic church has a history of dismissing scientific truth as heresy when it is deemed theologically false (in the case of Galileo, for 200 years his work was on the list of books which Catholics were forbidden to read at the risk of dire punishment to their immortal souls).
It makes perfect sense to me that anybody who is raised outside of the Church would be skeptical of these alleged "truths". It also makes perfect sense that if you are born and raised in a Catholic environment, you will firmly believe that you were taught the truth. In both cases, I think its important that when determining the truth, it is the facts that should be examined.

Edited August 3, 2006 by mofca

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1036913' date='Aug 3 2006, 10:52 AM']
It makes perfect sense to me that anybody who is raised outside of the Church would be skeptical of these alleged "truths". It also makes perfect sense that if you are born and raised in a Catholic environment, you will firmly believe that you were taught the truth. In both cases, I think its important that when determining the truth, it is the facts that should be examined.
[/quote]
I, like a number of Catholics here, were not raised in the church. We came to it and believed well after the age of reason.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

On the other hand, I was raised in the Church and but only fully committed myself after my own independent study of our doctrines.

Edited August 3, 2006 by thedude

[mofca]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1037080' date='Aug 3 2006, 02:07 PM']
I, like a number of Catholics here, were not raised in the church. We came to it and believed well after the age of reason.
[/quote]


[quote name='thedude' post='1037103' date='Aug 3 2006, 02:48 PM']
On the other hand, I was raised in the Church and but only fully committed myself after my own independent study of our doctrines.
[/quote]

I applaud you for studying and drawing your own conlusions. However, everyone is biased due to there upbringing, myself included.

[jswranch]

[quote name='mofca' post='1037134' date='Aug 3 2006, 03:48 PM']
I applaud you for studying and drawing your own conlusions. However, everyone is biased due to there upbringing, myself included.
[/quote]
Then shouldn't you conclude that your denial of Transubstantiation could possibly be an error which your bias does not allow you to observe? Wouldn't an objectionable attitude require you to say 'I just don't see it' rather than 'It is not there?'

[mofca]

[quote name='jswranch' post='1037305' date='Aug 3 2006, 11:50 PM']
Then shouldn't you conclude that your denial of Transubstantiation could possibly be an error which your bias does not allow you to observe? Wouldn't an objectionable attitude require you to say 'I just don't see it' rather than 'It is not there?'
[/quote]
I've been saying that I don't see the evidence (in objective reality) that supports Transubstantiation as objective truth.

[Aloysius]

Galileo's works were never placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, get your facts straight. Galileo was condemned not for his scientific theories, but for his heresies regarding the faith which he connected directly to his scientific theories even though there was no scientific connection; as well as his claiming of things as fact before he was able to prove them. There's a lot of info about Galileo in our Catholic Defense Directory if you're interested.

Anyway, you fail to understand my point. I never argued that it was objective proof because so many people believed in it for so long; my entire point was that whether or not anyone believed in it has absolutely no effect on whether or not it is objective truth. Your case of making the pharoah present: it doesn't matter who believes in it and who doesn't believe in it, it is either objective truth or it is not objective truth. Now I would assume it was not objective truth, but how am I to prove that it is not objective truth? Scientific observation deals with the accidental world, and as such cannot truly say definitively whether or not an ancient egyptian pharoah is present in the floor. You would have to use roundabout philosophical arguments; and easily shoot down the philosophical arguments for why pharoah is on the floor.

[quote]There were a handfull of people who also claim this is true based on an interpretation of what the Pharaoh said 3500 years ago, and it was also written in a book and interpreted that way.
There are lots of people who have believed this for thousands of years, so it must be true. Now, obviously this story is not true, but in the minds of believers it is.[/quote]
Whether or not anyone claims or believes it is true has no bearing on whether it is objectively true.

[quote]Philosophically and metaphorically, the king is in my floor because without this floor to stand on, I would be walking on dirt and therefore my feet would be dirty as is my soul. The floor shelters me from the elements, without it I could not survive, so it makes sense that the Pharoh is in my floor. [/quote]
The floor is there whether or not the Pharoah is there, your feet will not be dirty either way. It does not make sense that there should be a pharoah present in your floor. What is the purpose of the pharoah being in your floor (I have listed the purpose for the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, prooving original sin and that only a food with divine substance could hope to feed someone lifted out of original sin)? On whose power does this Pharoah's substance replace the substance of the floor and does this power have any philosophical substantiation? (I called upon the power of the One True Creator, who can be proven to exist by Aristotelian philosophical proofs such as that there must be a source and final causation of all things and that this can only be one thing, otherwise there would have to be other causes for the multiple things, and that it must be absolute and infinite, and that it must have created the world apart from itself completely out of nothingness (again, anything before nothingness would have to have a first cause) and as such it created and sustains all substance) Historicity and basis for this power (our God is substantiated threw a long line of miraculous occurences, believed in by 3 of the world's major 5 religions, witnessed threw the history of the Old Testament, described and discovered in a roundabout philosophical way be Greek Philosopher)? Historicity and basis of the pharoah's existence? (Jesus Christ and His miracles are witnessed to by Christian and non-Christian sources from the time period) Historicity and basis of the pharoah's power? (Jesus Christ created the longest lasting human institution in human history which spread accross the globe out of a tribal religion, his existence is recognized by Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, he is recognized in importance (eschatologically, at least) by the religions of Christianity and Islam, he is recognized in divinity by the religions of Christianity and Hinduism)

The philosophical argument behind this does not hold water. My philosophical argument behind the Eucharist showed many things: that there was a need for such a food based upon fallen nature as observed throughout history; that there was historical basis and philosophical basis for the power that created it; that numerous unexplained miracles examined by science and still found unexplained have occured around it; that it answers the potentiality described by ancient philosophers and fulfills all hopes of ancient religions who were all just trying to answer the same human condition; a fallen substance.
[quote]Yes, there is the argument that millions of people believe it is true. There is also the argument that millions of people are taught that this is the truth since birth, by people who claim to be an authority of truth, and questioning it risks eternal consequences, so why should they think any differently? There is the argument that this has been tradition for 2000 years. There is also the argument that this tradition has been filled with error and controversy[/quote]

None of these arguments were made by me. I specifically said that whether or not anyone believed, prooved, or knew something, it would be objectively true. Try poking holes in the philosophical arguments I threw out there, like you did when we were discussing original sin; don't set up straw men 'cause I didn't rest anything on anyone's belief or disbelief.

Again, the word "objective" in "objective truth" comes from philosophy and as such does not refer to scientific materialism. You are saying that it cannot be [i]proven[/i] to be an objective truth. I agree. I am saying that it is an objective truth, and that this is why it makes sense that it's an objective truth.

"[b]becomes[/b] objectively true when observed in objective reality"
(emphasis redirected by me

oh, ok, so something becomes objectively true by observation? no, that is false. things are either objective true or they are not. To return to the rock that could not be seen on the other side of a wall; it does not become an objective reality the moment it is observed. It is an objective reality before anyone ever observes it.

it's the difference between OBjective and SUBjective. OBjective is true outside of any qualifications, while SUBjective is subject to qualifications. When you subject anything to observation, you are discussing what it subjectively, not objectively, true.

Anyone who truly believes anything believes that thing to be an objective truth, otherwise they do not believe it.

[mofca]

You've officially lost me at this point.

BTW, the Galileo facts I got from a book called "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan. Its a great read, I highly reccommend it.

Edited August 4, 2006 by mofca

[Aloysius]

Galileo was a heretic, not because he said the universe was not geocentric, but because he denied the divinity of Christ among other things. He was lucky to have only undergone a small trial in Rome whilst being treated very luxuriously and not to have been completely excommunicated. That's cause he had friends in high places and was hiding his heresies under the guise of scientific theories; if anyone else then or in the present day denied the divinity of Christ, they'd be excommunicated. I double checked and realized that what I meant was that only initially that the book wasn't placed on the index, it wasn't until later when the book "On the Two Systems" (which I have read, btw, it was removed from the index almost 2 centuries ago) became a symbol for other heretics that it was placed on the index too. Not all of his works, just this one book and not until years later.

Anyway, I never said I could prove that it was objective truth. Whether or not something can be proven says nothing about whether it is an objective truth. I think you are being confused by the english word "object". They both come from the same root, meaning something exterior to oneself, but they do not mean the same thing in modern english. objective truth means it is exterior from everything else, something that in and of itself is true. object generally connotates something physical, material, observable, but this has nothing to do with the meaning of "objective truth"

reducing things to scientific materialism saying only scientific and material things are objectively true is gravely eroneous, especially if you are saying that understanding the definition of "objective"; and I would say to you: there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

everything that is true is objectively true. humans do not, cannot, and will not ever be able to fully know, prove, understand, or explain everything that is objectively true. and the objective truths that we cannot observe must be arrived at through philosophy.

[mofca]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1037529' date='Aug 4 2006, 12:27 PM']
Galileo was a heretic, not because he said the universe was not geocentric, but because he denied the divinity of Christ among other things. He was lucky to have only undergone a small trial in Rome whilst being treated very luxuriously and not to have been completely excommunicated. That's cause he had friends in high places and was hiding his heresies under the guise of scientific theories; if anyone else then or in the present day denied the divinity of Christ, they'd be excommunicated. I double checked and realized that what I meant was that only initially that the book wasn't placed on the index, it wasn't until later when the book "On the Two Systems" (which I have read, btw, it was removed from the index almost 2 centuries ago) became a symbol for other heretics that it was placed on the index too. Not all of his works, just this one book and not until years later.

Anyway, I never said I could prove that it was objective truth. Whether or not something can be proven says nothing about whether it is an objective truth. I think you are being confused by the english word "object". They both come from the same root, meaning something exterior to oneself, but they do not mean the same thing in modern english. objective truth means it is exterior from everything else, something that in and of itself is true. object generally connotates something physical, material, observable, but this has nothing to do with the meaning of "objective truth"

reducing things to scientific materialism saying only scientific and material things are objectively true is gravely eroneous, especially if you are saying that understanding the definition of "objective"; and I would say to you: there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

everything that is true is objectively true. humans do not, cannot, and will not ever be able to fully know, prove, understand, or explain everything that is objectively true. and the objective truths that we cannot observe must be arrived at through philosophy.
[/quote]

Vatican quote from Galileo indictment:
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both psychologically and theologically false, and at the least an error of faith."
I think that speaks for itself.

[quote]reducing things to scientific materialism saying only scientific and material things are objectively true is gravely eroneous, especially if you are saying that understanding the definition of "objective"; and I would say to you: there are more things in heaven and earth, horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. [/quote]
I feel pretty comfortable about the things that I know are true. Obviously there are many things that exist in reality that are objectively true which you and I don't know. The key difference with the Eucharist is that it is a truth that exists in objective reality (if you consider reality an objective truth) that is claimed to be known. What does it mean to know the truth? It means that you know it is true. How did you obtain the knowledge that it is true? Faith, philosophy, tradition and mysticism. I believe that if people generally accepted these criteria as valid evidence for truth, we would have no court system, no education system, and pretty much no society to speak of. Earlier in this thread you referred to the Eucharist as a concrete example of a change of substance, not accidents -based on Faith, philosophy, tradition, and mysticism. None of these things lend any evidence of concrete proof of anything....therefore how can anyone really know? The answer is nobody can "know", but they can choose to "believe". We've already ruled out that it can't be proven. OK, lets take the word objective out of the equation. We're still left with the word "truth". What does "truth" mean? According to the dictionary it means 1. Conformity to fact or actuality. 2. A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
When I am told that something is truth, it must fit the above definition. Otherwise, how can it be called truth?
We're definitely spinning our wheels at this point. I feel I have made my case to the best of my ability. I'll continue to read if there are any further responses, but I'm done posting for a while. I need to get some work done :

[jswranch]

I really do wish you would check out some of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica on how we, as mere humans, can even begin to speak of God and theology. This topic was so important to Thomas, it was the first thing he discussed. Please make developments in this area of understanding God before we even think of the Eucharist, unless of course you wish to attend a Mass or Adoration, which I recommend.