Jump to content

Two news items re: Latter-day saints and catholics


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, OGHoosier said:

I would say that the chair is green insomuch that I have an experience of green as I observe it, and the experience of green seems inseparable from the experience of observing the chair. 

So, it's true that we only have a description of the experience, but that experience might as well be the reality...

...is that what you've been maintaining this whole time? 

Yep. Phew. !

Maybe a bit more though. It's not that it "might as well be the reality", it IS reality because it's all we can know or communicate about the event. That is what R means when he speaks about eliminating the "reality/appearance distinction".

There is no existence we can speak about beyond experience!

So if Joseph was not lying about his experience, it was reality for him.

How many religious people in the world have experienced seeing spirits etc? Many many.

Their testimonies corroborate each other, that such experiences are real.  Their collective experience of the phenomenon makes them similar to the replicated results of science. 

Alma 32.

The spiritual replicated truths are measured in "sweetness", but the principle is the same.

So does Rorty make more sense yet?

Give this just one more watch and see if it makes new sense now

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to post
11 hours ago, Calm said:

How would we know if it wasn’t?  We cannot stand outside our lives to do a reality check.

That is exactly it.

But we are so used to looking at the world as if we see it independent of perceptions, we begin to believe our own lies

Now we see through a glass darkly.

We don't get to see it the way God does, "face to face"- yet.

And this insight that our senses construct the world as we know it goes all the way back to Kant (his "synthetic a priori"), in the 17 hundreds.

It is not wacko Bukowski dreaming it up. :)

 

Link to post
On 6/9/2021 at 9:47 PM, Calm said:

How would we know if it wasn’t?  We cannot stand outside our lives to do a reality check.

Exactly- and we cannot get "down" from interpretations to "reality" because we cannot get outside our sense perceptions

I am just saying what you said above of course.

A pyramid from above is a square.  If we only had that one way of seeing pyramids we would not even know that pyramids exist.

We only have one way of seeing as well, and that is "how humans see things"

That was the importance of Nagel's paper "What is it like to be a bat?"  Incidentally Dennet's objection misses the point that statements made from one viewpoint cannot be made logically equivalent to statements made from another viewpoint.

These two sentences are not and cannot be made logically equivalent

"Bukowski's brain is reacting at location exz in the cerebral cortex"

"I see the color red"

One statement is about the brain - a third person observation, and the other is a subjective statement from Bukowski describing an experience.

They do not convey the same meaning, nor are they logically equivalent.

Hope I am not getting too "philosoph-ee" but I see no other way to put it.

look up "what is it like to be a bat" in wikipedia if this link does not work

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_It_Like_to_Be_a_Bat%3F#:~:text=Bats are mammals%2C so they are assumed to have conscious experience.&text=Both sonar and vision are,same as a bat's perspective.

Link to post
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Bukowski's brain is reacting at location exz in the cerebral cortex"

"I see the color red"

And guess what...turns out the patterns of ‘thoughts’ (or rather the brain activity we assume is thought) associated with sensory experiences may not be as static as once thought, they appear to move around to different brain cells over time, so saying a thought corresponds to a set of triggered neurons isn’t that accurate. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/06/the-brain-isnt-supposed-to-change-this-much/619145/


Otoh, other studies are looking at the brain from another perspective. Will be interesting to see how it meshes together. 

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/06/newly-detailed-nerve-links-between-brain-and-other-organs-shape-thoughts-memories-and

Edited by Calm
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
21 hours ago, Calm said:

And guess what...turns out the patterns of ‘thoughts’ (or rather the brain activity we assume is thought) associated with sensory experiences may not be as static as once thought, they appear to move around to different brain cells over time, so saying a thought corresponds to a set of triggered neurons isn’t that accurate. 

Again, it's all language.

What's a  "thought" ?

How does that "correspond to the real world"?

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 6/1/2021 at 6:13 PM, mfbukowski said:

This is not at all intended to be critical in any way to Aquinas, transubstantiation, or the Church, in fact I find it quite a fascinating new way to see Catholic doctrine that I thnk would be useful for folks looking to understand Catholicism in a  new way.

Maybe you would find that heretical though or not- I am not sure.   I just want you to know that I mean this to be positive and not find it critical in anyway.

What I have found is that in reading Bishop Barron, he has interpreted Aquinas in a post-modern way, in that the words he uses seem to express what Aquinas said, yet the meaning of the words have changed.

For example- "substance" has in effect become "significance" or "meaning", as in "The substance of the letter is positive and highly consistent"  or "This changes the significance and substance of the idea drastically"

One sense is talking about "the world" and the other is speaking of our ATTITUDE toward the world.

I think for Aquinas "substance" referred to a metaphysical "substance", using the word as we would use it today to mean something like "an oily substance" or a "metallic substance", or a "rock-like substance"-- something real and tangible out there in the world- yet of course it is spiritual and so, invisible, but definitely something that "stands beneath" the physical world, yet because it is invisible, by definition the substance is NOT what we see- what we see is the APPEARANCE of the substance.

An oily substance might refer to hair. Whether or not one uses brylcreem (a little dab 'l do ya'), the hair is substantial; it does not become something else because of the presence or absence of oil. A change from oily to dry hair would represent to Aquinas a change that is not substantial; it is accidental to the substance.

Quote

And so there is a dichotomy between appearance and substance. 

I thought that with the sole exception of Eucharistic theology, one identifies every other substance by how it appears.

 

Quote

And so in the Eucharist, in the traditional way, the words of consecration actually causes an invisible but in principle, physical, change in "what underlies" the substance of bread, to that which underlies the substance of flesh and blood, yet without changing the appearances.  So what still appears to be bread is now ACTUALLY the Body of Christ.

The Church teaches that there is no physical change. By every observable way, there is no change to the consecrated bread. To say that what appears to be bread is not substantially bread anymore can only be an act of faith. The Church insists that those who would receive Christ in Holy Communion put aside what their senses are telling them. We are permitted of course to believe in the reality of the bread, but after consecration the Eucharistic species is essentially the Body and Blood of Christ, and only accidentally bread. We know the words of consecration by an ordained priest are the "trigger" that cause the change, but that is no explanation for the mechanics of how this can happen. Knowing that it is a mystery beyond reason, the Church has never even tried to explain how it happens.

It would be as if someone tried to argue that what was growing out of a young man's scalp in the 60's could become substantially Brylcreem and only hair as the accident. Of course, we would, like many of the Lord's disciples, be skeptical. It would be a "hard saying", like the Eucharist.

Scholastic terminology is obviously unnecessary since we know it didn't come into use until the 12th or 13th Century. But at a time when the Real Presence was coming under attack, and even from Catholic priests, it was a good way of making crystal clear that Catholics accept the words of Jesus in John 6, in the same sense as did the disciples who heard Him, some lacking faith, others not understanding, but staying with Jesus. Catholics believe "the hard saying" of John 6 without asking how this can be and without comprehensive understanding.

There are other ways of asserting the Real Presence aside from scholastic terminology. But the faithful Catholic who would rather explain it a different way does not have the liberty to say that the way Aquinas explains it is false.         

 

Quote

Barron's interpretation, if I have understood it correctly, is that with those words of consecration, the SIGNIFICANCE of the bread has changed, for the believer, in meaning from being ordinary bread to actually being as significant as the actual Flesh of Our Lord.

If Bp. Barron is saying that the change only takes place for the believer, it would weaken what the Church has always taught. Our belief or unbelief cannot be an effective agent in favor of or against the change. It is the words of Christ spoken by an ordained priest: "This is My Body." The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist would be exterior to the believer and the unbeliever alike, according to my understanding of what the Church teaches.          

Quote

He gives an analogy of how the words "you are under arrest"- spoken perhaps by children playing cops and robbers change in SUBSTANCE and SIGNIFICANCE when a real police officer, under the right circumstances, says those same words.  Off you go to jail.

This is why it is okay for kids to play "Mass". Only an ordained priest can consecrate

Quote

That shift of meaning is caused by the context in which the words are spoken.   This is very much a Wittgensteinian idea in which the meaning of words and their significance change according to context.  One example he uses is the meaning of the word "brick".   Ordinarily that word means a rectangular object used in building houses.   But in the context of a bricklayer saying it to his assistant, as they are building a wall,  it can mean "Please hand me a brick" - changing the meaning of the utterance completely.

Okay.

Quote

To me it parallels the LDS Sacrament because the words of our sacrament- under the authority of the speaker- limit its blessings to those who "partake" of it- in other words, to people who are members.  In both cases, the community of believers led by their leader with authority, change the significance/substance of the bread

I understand.

Quote
So in my opinion, in Robert Barron's approach and the the LDS approach, the change in "Substance/Significance" of the Eucharist/Sacrament is phenomenological- that is- it is for believers who already believe it is happening. 
 
The BELIEF makes the change in significance real
 
We EXPERIENCE the bread in a different way than we did a few minutes ago- its significance/substance has completely changed

I see. That makes sense. It is more credible. The hard saying has become easier. I am just saying that this isn't what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't mean to say that I can show that you are wrong or Bp. Barron is wrong. All I am saying it is incompatible with Catholic Sacramental theology. One might ask why, if it is the belief of the faithful that makes the change significant, we cannot effect this change in the absence of a priest? I think there is a probably a good, reasonable answer that I am not thinking of at this moment.

------------------------------

Mark hi. I think you should not find much to disagree with in my assessment. I wish I were wrong and that there was a way to adapt your philosophy to the Catholic faith as well as it seems to do with the faith you have chosen.

I respect your evangelical spirit and that you would like to expand your worldview to include religions other than LDS if possible. I think you want the best for all people and would like to help them be less vulnerable to religious criticism and more open to religious claims. Thanks for your efforts so far with the religion you had as a young man. I will still be looking to see if you make a breakthrough! I wish you the best in that. 

Maybe MiserereNobis could help? He understands you better than I do. I would be interested, as I am sure you would, if he thought such a project could find success. 

Regards,

Rory 

 

Edited by 3DOP
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
On 6/13/2021 at 1:12 PM, 3DOP said:

An oily substance might refer to hair. Whether or not one uses brylcreem (a little dab 'l do ya'), the hair is substantial; it does not become something else because of the presence or absence of oil. A change from oily to dry hair would represent to Aquinas a change that is not substantial; it is accidental to the substance.

I thought that with the sole exception of Eucharistic theology, one identifies every other substance by how it appears.

 

The Church teaches that there is no physical change. By every observable way, there is no change to the consecrated bread. To say that what appears to be bread is not substantially bread anymore can only be an act of faith. The Church insists that those who would receive Christ in Holy Communion put aside what their senses are telling them. We are permitted of course to believe in the reality of the bread, but after consecration the Eucharistic species is essentially the Body and Blood of Christ, and only accidentally bread. We know the words of consecration by an ordained priest are the "trigger" that cause the change, but that is no explanation for the mechanics of how this can happen. Knowing that it is a mystery beyond reason, the Church has never even tried to explain how it happens.

It would be as if someone tried to argue that what was growing out of a young man's scalp in the 60's could become substantially Brylcreem and only hair as the accident. Of course, we would, like many of the Lord's disciples, be skeptical. It would be a "hard saying", like the Eucharist.

Scholastic terminology is obviously unnecessary since we know it didn't come into use until the 12th or 13th Century. But at a time when the Real Presence was coming under attack, and even from Catholic priests, it was a good way of making crystal clear that Catholics accept the words of Jesus in John 6, in the same sense as did the disciples who heard Him, some lacking faith, others not understanding, but staying with Jesus. Catholics believe "the hard saying" of John 6 without asking how this can be and without comprehensive understanding.

There are other ways of asserting the Real Presence aside from scholastic terminology. But the faithful Catholic who would rather explain it a different way does not have the liberty to say that the way Aquinas explains it is false.         

 

If Bp. Barron is saying that the change only takes place for the believer, it would weaken what the Church has always taught. Our belief or unbelief cannot be an effective agent in favor of or against the change. It is the words of Christ spoken by an ordained priest: "This is My Body." The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist would be exterior to the believer and the unbeliever alike, according to my understanding of what the Church teaches.          

This is why it is okay for kids to play "Mass". Only an ordained priest can consecrate

Okay.

I understand.

I see. That makes sense. It is more credible. The hard saying has become easier. I am just saying that this isn't what the Catholic Church teaches. I don't mean to say that I can show that you are wrong or Bp. Barron is wrong. All I am saying it is incompatible with Catholic Sacramental theology. One might ask why, if it is the belief of the faithful that makes the change significant, we cannot effect this change in the absence of a priest? I think there is a probably a good, reasonable answer that I am not thinking of at this moment.

------------------------------

Mark hi. I think you should not find much to disagree with in my assessment. I wish I were wrong and that there was a way to adapt your philosophy to the Catholic faith as well as it seems to do with the faith you have chosen.

I respect your evangelical spirit and that you would like to expand your worldview to include religions other than LDS if possible. I think you want the best for all people and would like to help them be less vulnerable to religious criticism and more open to religious claims. Thanks for your efforts so far with the religion you had as a young man. I will still be looking to see if you make a breakthrough! I wish you the best in that. 

Maybe MiserereNobis could help? He understands you better than I do. I would be interested, as I am sure you would, if he thought such a project could find success. 

Regards,

Rory 

 

There is so much to be said, and in another sense, nothing to be said.   Is it all a "mystery"?  YES.

Thanks so much for this discussion- I believe that in the end it is all up to meditation and the spirit- and words really fail

Well philosophically I think there is quite a bit I might disagree with.  Hair is not an "oily substance" even with Brylcreem on it.  And I do not see that way of viewing "substance" as compatible with scholasticism or helping to explain it.

But certainly it is true that we cannot possibly understand the nature of sacraments or ordinances or why we have these ceremonies or how logically they work.

I used to scoff at the answer I would receive from Catholics "Oh it's a mystery", but the more mature I become in the gospel the more I realize it is ALL a mystery.  Life itself is a mystery which surpasses our ablity to use words to explain why beliefs are important to us

My strategy now is to come up with a single unified paradigm to show genuinely secular, but good folks, how their views do not actually confict with Christianity but are compatble with ways Christianity can be viewed.   I personally found Mormonism by studying philosophy of course, so for me, the rational explanation came first once I understood the nature of language and how it functions in our descriptions of what we see as "real"

And certainly the concept of a Human God as found in our doctrine is the most direct correlation with humanism that can be found.  Ultimately this version of Christianity has the potential to show both God’s glorified humanity, and humanity’s ability to become godly.

Was/is Jesus a human being or not?

That is the real question.  And if He was a SUPER human of some kind, how can it be said that he was really “human” at all, and how could it be said that he completely understands our weaknesses and how hard it is for all of us?

All the undefinable stuff postulating various dualisms- like the appearance/reality distinction, the substance/appearance distinction, the mind/body problem, the God but not God and human but not human- natural vs supernatural are ultimately linguistic inventions that cannot really be defined.

And so we are back to mysticism.   Words just get in the way.

Again Wittgenstein meets Teresa of Avila, and pragmatism which defines the limits of rationality in religious and other realms wins again!

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-return-to-the-mystical-9781441166524/

It's all about personal revelation, call it what you will.  You talk to God and he answers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...