A list of Catholic scientists is supposed to prove..what?

(May 14, 2015 at 3:03 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cat...scientists

Sorry, but if you're a chemist claiming that a chemical reaction can occur with the substance's chemical properties remaining unchanged, you automatically lose all your credibility as one. That's just denying the very foundation of chemistry.

Scientists can have any kind of strange beliefs, as long as they keep it out of their work. Just because they are a successful scientist, that doesn't validate random claims they make that have not been scientifically demonstrated.

(May 13, 2015 at 11:28 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: The assertion that this is what actually happens is patently ridiculous. Just saying "Jeebus says" carries no weight. You have made a claim that cannot be tested. You say the bread and wine changes, but its physical characteristics are not altered. By what measure has it changed, then?

Perhaps ridiculous to you, yet invoking Christ carries weight in a theological context. The measure in question is theological. Now, we're not going to rush the USDA beef carcass inspectors in to examine the host after the priest consecrates it. Good thing. But for whatever theological reasons they have, transubstantiation makes sense to Catholics.

Indeed, Carson has linked it to Jesus' use of a nominal sentence in "this is my body." English can use nominal sentences to denote either representation or identity; our language doesn't mark the verb "to be" for identity, in the way that Latin marks "sum." If Catholic theology was relying on the Latin Vulgate, the identity sense of the verb would be much stronger than what English conveys with "is."

(May 13, 2015 at 11:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If God says something, then it IS true whether you understand it or not.

That's unlikely to fly on Atheist Forums. I believe in God and assume he is true in his doings, though I'm less confident that personal revelation, or even statements in the bible, always represent God saying something directly, or at least saying it in words like humans do, because I'm not sure gods rely on words like we do. We use phrases like "the word" in connection with deity to assert that the deity thinks and communicates, but our cognitive limits force us to equate this thinking and communication to our own, which does use words and language. Human languages are highly fallible, however. A perfect being need not be limited by what words can express.

If I'm wanting to steer an atheist gently toward sympathy or understanding for theism, I can't just say "because God says it's so in the bible." The only currencies really accepted here are scientific and philosophical truths, with even the latter getting a jaundiced eye at times.

In theology itself the bible, while to be read carefully and revered, is only one source among many. I can't limit myself just to what one collection of texts says. Christian thought outside the bible, the texts of other religions, and yes, science and philosophy, including atheism and humanism, should have a role in helping us form our understandings of deity.

(May 14, 2015 at 3:05 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: A list of Catholic scientists is supposed to prove..what?

That despite the silly claims of modern-day atheists, the Catholic Church has always supported the advancement of science.

Yeah I'm sure Galileo was just thrilled with the support he got from the Vatican.

(May 14, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(May 13, 2015 at 11:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: If God says something, then it IS true whether you understand it or not.

That's unlikely to fly on Atheist Forums. I believe in God and assume he is true in his doings, though I'm less confident that personal revelation, or even statements in the bible, always represent God saying something directly, or at least saying it in words like humans do, because I'm not sure gods rely on words like we do. We use phrases like "the word" in connection with deity to assert that the deity thinks and communicates, but our cognitive limits force us to equate this thinking and communication to our own, which does use words and language. Human languages are highly fallible, however. A perfect being need not be limited by what words can express.

If I'm wanting to steer an atheist gently toward sympathy or understanding for theism, I can't just say "because God says it's so in the bible." The only currencies really accepted here are scientific and philosophical truths, with even the latter getting a jaundiced eye at times.

In theology itself the bible, while to be read carefully and revered, is only one source among many. I can't limit myself just to what one collection of texts says. Christian thought outside the bible, the texts of other religions, and yes, science and philosophy, including atheism and humanism, should have a role in helping us form our understandings of deity.

Thank you for your thoughts. I presumed that LOGIC would be relevant in an atheist forum, and consequently, saying "If...then" would still have meaning.

I'll be more careful.

Oh, like the time they put Copernicus' work on the no-no list?

(May 14, 2015 at 3:46 pm)robvalue Wrote: Scientists can have any kind of strange beliefs, as long as they keep it out of their work. Just because they are a successful scientist, that doesn't validate random claims they make that have not been scientifically demonstrated.

The list of scientists is also irrelevant to my post, in which I stated:

(May 14, 2015 at 12:55 pm)Pyrrho Wrote: Regarding chemistry and this subject:  The doctrine of transubstantiation predates modern chemistry.  In fact, I seem to recall some resistance to modern chemistry by the Catholic church precisely because of the doctrine of transubstantiation.  Now, they seem content with nonsensical pronouncements about it, instead of denying chemistry.

Initially having a dislike for a scientific theory because it does not fit with transubstantiation has nothing to do with whether or not one can be a scientist and be a member of the Catholic church.  The Catholic church no longer has a problem with chemistry, as they are now content to make nonsensical claims and pretend that chemistry has nothing to do with transubstantiation.

This is similar to the initial Catholic objections to the idea that the earth moves around the sun (remember Galileo?), but they are okay with that idea now.  They just let the Bible be wrong about some things, while pretending that it isn't, by making various nonsensical claims.

The modern Catholic approach is to speak gibberish and pretend that it is meaningful.  It is more tolerant of science than those Christians who take the Bible more seriously.

(May 14, 2015 at 3:53 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Thank you for your thoughts. I presumed that LOGIC would be relevant in an atheist forum, and consequently, saying "If...then" would still have meaning.

I'll be more careful.

Could you explain the logic behind 'it's true cos I say so'?

If blue then red! Look, logic!