From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon May 02 2005 - 20:47:02 BST
Hi Mark, all,
> Subject change, since I think we might move this beyond the
> transubstantion debate....
Very happy to make it wider and let go of TS, but isn't this what we're
covering in the 'scientific beliefs and religious faith' thread?
> 1) Ant offered the belief in transubstantion as evidence of a
> science/theism conflict.
>
> 2) Sam said TS implies no conflict, citing Aquinas' explanation of
> TS as making a distinction between substance and accidents, saying
> that the bread and wine change in substance, not accidents and, since
> science is able to mark changes in accidents, not substance, there is
> no conflict.
Between 1 and 2 there was quite a dialogue between Scott and Ant which
covered a lot of ground.
> 3) Sam claimed, therefore, that no Catholics really believe they are
> eating flesh and drinking blood.
That's *roughly* the implication, but I don't think they were my words. But,
taken in a certain way, OK.
> 5) I claimed that this is not the impression I got as a young
> Catechism student. But maybe Sister Mary hadn't read Aquinas.
>
> 6) Ant said that maybe she had but was doing what the church seeks to
> do: indoctrinating members to adopt non-questioning, non-scientific,
> authoritarian explanations of what is and isn't true.
This is where I want to quote Ian about 99% propaganda. This just seems to
be passing on other people's opinions. No independent thought required, just
parrot the criticisms made by the governments of Protestant countries in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The whole question - as I see it - is
about what counts as 'questioning, scientific explanation', which I was
hoping Ian was going to comment on.
> 7) In a similar vein, very recently, DMB said that this is how
> theologians protect themselves from scientific criticism, claiming,
> basically, for example in this case (TS), there is a substantial
> change that is not measurable by science, but is nevertheless real.
Ditto my comments above. But also there wasn't much of a 'scientific'
problem when TS began. The 'evidence' is perceived through faith, however
you want to define 'nevertheless real'. Or is the argument that only what is
scientific is real? (does anyone who accepts the MoQ believe that?)
> msh now says:
> If David is correct, and I think he is, then it will be IMPOSSIBLE
> for any scientist to show a conflict between science and theology.
> This doesn't bother me much, because I've always claimed that science
> and theology are mutually exclusive areas of investigation, one with
> its roots in practical empiricism, the other stemming from
> assumptions based on faith.
>
> It seems to me that, at this point, the discussion would be over but,
> because, for whatever reason, most (all?) theologians are desirous
> of science's stamp of approval, they constantly offer challenges
> exactly like the challenge offered by Scott to begin this thread.
> And the circle goes round...
I think Feyarabend's missive was to the point.
> So, to me the interesting question has always been, why do
> theologians so often appear to seek the imprimatur of science?
Because they've absorbed the ideology of the age.
> I'll appreciate any comments along these lines, but please bear in
> mind that I have little familiarity with modern theology.
> Nevertheless, you should be able to make valid ideas understandable,
> even to a theological dufus like me. Just as I can discuss any
> aspect of computer science in terms understandable to non CS
> Engineers.
See my other post, when it comes through.
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 02 2005 - 23:18:17 BST