|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Religious children have harder time between fact and fiction | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You claim to "know" what CS is thinking where I only think I understand what he's saying. I think he's trying to explain how the Church rationalizes the belief.
No, what he's trying to do is rationalise a belief that is incompatible with reality and he's smart enough to know it.... Tangle writes:
Why don't you cherry-pick dictionary definitions to make your point?
'actual' not 'philosophical', not 'symbolic'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ZR writes: You claim to "know" what CS is thinking where I only think I understand what he's saying. I think he's trying to explain how the Church rationalizes the belief. I'm not claiming to know what he's thinking; I'm demonstrating what's he's doing - rationalising.
Why don't you cherry-pick dictionary definitions to make your point? I really don't care what definition is used; you're missing the point. You don't understand what Catholicism teaches and what a 'real' Catholic is required to believe. The transubstantiation is real. As CS says, it's not symbolism. It's a problem now because, of course, it's utter bullshit but that's why it's worth discussing.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But you (and the catholic church) claim that it actually, really, physically IS the body and blood of christ, correct? I'm not claiming anything. Catholic doctrine does NOT claim that the bread physically becomes the body, no. The "substance" of the bread changes into the body, but the bread still physically looks like bread.
You don't openly say "well, we just pretend that it is" or "you just have to believe me that it really, truly is". No, its certainly a matter of belief. There's no evidence.
I have no idea what that means. A cracker is not a species, nor is wine. I get that it's a metaphor, but I really don't get it. Species is Latin for "form". It has nothing to do with animal species. These lines from wiki explain it fairly well:
quote: The idea is that a hat is not the material its made of, or the shape, or whatever forms, aka species, it has. The hat has those things but those things are not the hat. What the hat actually is, its substance, is not something that you can perceive. You can only perceive its forms, or species. Well shit, now we're into that stupid ontological discussion...
Hopefully you tell the kids in your church that it's just magic and wishful thinking. When I do occasionally go to church, I don't talk to the kids.
You and I must have different ideas of what a logical deduction is, then. You're probably wrong A logical deduction does not lead to veracity. The conclusion can only be as good as the premises. No doubt you disagree with the premises, but that doesn't make the pathway to the conclusion illogical. And being deduction just means that you start with the premises and work through logic to get to the conclusion. So there's really nothing wrong with it being a logical deduction, even if you know that the conclusion is wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You claim to "know" what CS is thinking where I only think I understand what he's saying. I think he's trying to explain how the Church rationalizes the belief. You're absolutely correct. I'm not talking about my personal beliefs, I'm explaining what the Church's doctrine says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 828 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
From Message 15
CS writes: Better at not indoctrinating children so that they cannot distinguish between fact and fiction: then from Message 19 CS writes: Catholic doctrine is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Jesus and they are not merely symbolic. Now from this message I am replying to:
CS writes: No, its certainly a matter of belief. There's no evidence. How can you honestly claim that the catholic church is "Better at not indoctrinating children so that they cannot distinguish between fact and fiction" when a core tenet of the religion is something not based in evidence and is simply wishful thinking? can you not see that it is exactly the sort of thing in question and is more evidence pointing to why religious kids are prone to having trouble distinguishing fact and fiction? Does your church tell it's members (children, specifically) that they are performing a symbolic gesture when eating the wafer? Or are you all told that it is actually turning into jesus?
The idea is that a hat is not the material its made of, or the shape, or whatever forms, aka species, it has. The hat has those things but those things are not the hat. What the hat actually is, its substance, is not something that you can perceive. You can only perceive its forms, or species. Thanks. I think I understand it now.
A logical deduction does not lead to veracity. The conclusion can only be as good as the premises. No doubt you disagree with the premises, but that doesn't make the pathway to the conclusion illogical. And being deduction just means that you start with the premises and work through logic to get to the conclusion. So there's really nothing wrong with it being a logical deduction, even if you know that the conclusion is wrong. My understanding was that your (or was the churches?) logical deduction in question is that it "logically follows" that the wafer and wine is jesus since that is what the bible says, so you "logically deduct" that the wafer you are eating turns into jesus. Maybe you could clarify?Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
CS writes: I'm not talking about my personal beliefs, I'm explaining what the Church's doctrine says. Which was why I asked this
Tangle writes: You don't actually believe this stuff do you? But you declined to answer.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
How do you square that with the easily provable condition that the consecrated wafer is still just a wafer and the wine is just wine? It's all about grown up people playing a child's game of pretend.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You're trying to demonstrate; you have not yet achieved demonstration.
I'm demonstrating what's he's doing - rationalising. Tangle writes:
I'm taking it from a real Catholic rather than from somebody who doesn't seem to understand what real Catholics are saying.
You don't understand what Catholicism teaches and what a 'real' Catholic is required to believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Then I suggest you listen to what he's saying.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
How can you honestly claim that the catholic church is "Better at not indoctrinating children so that they cannot distinguish between fact and fiction" when a core tenet of the religion is something not based in evidence and is simply wishful thinking? Because, I think, having a few "silly" beliefs doesn't render Catholic children unable to distinguish between fact and fiction as bad as the Creationist approach of indoctrinating children with a wholly anti-science mentality. Catholics tend to embrace new scientific discoveries while the Creationists just dig their heels in. (Like how the Pope said that he would baptize aliens and Ken Ham said we should stop looking for them because they're going to hell anyways.) I think those two different approaches form different fundamental bases that yield different effects on how to distinguish between fact and fiction. I'd bet that a Catholic upbringing might still be worse than a purely secular one, but the article in the OP just looked at "church-going" versus "not church-going". I just thought it be interesting to see how the Catholics differ from the Creationists. I think they'd do better.
can you not see that it is exactly the sort of thing in question and is more evidence pointing to why religious kids are prone to having trouble distinguishing fact and fiction? Yes, but I don't see this one in particular as being that big of deal. Most people don't put a lot of stock in this one. Especially in contrast with something like evolution.
Does your church tell it's members (children, specifically) that they are performing a symbolic gesture when eating the wafer? Or are you all told that it is actually turning into jesus? Its been a while, but I think we didn't really get into the speicifics of transubstantiation until high school. In grade school, I think we were taught that we believe that it really is the body, and not just a symbol, but there really wasn't that much detail on the subject given at that age. Oh and I think its worth pointing out that's typically how we were taught: "We believe this", "The Church teaches that", rather that "These are undeniable facts that you cannot doubt".
My understanding was that your (or was the churches?) logical deduction in question is that it "logically follows" that the wafer and wine is jesus since that is what the bible says, so you "logically deduct" that the wafer you are eating turns into jesus. Maybe you could clarify? No, the idea of transubstansiation was the deduction. Like, it goes: Premise 1) Jesus said the bread is his bodyPremise 2) It sill looks like bread Conclusion) The substance must be what is changing rather than the form - i.e. transubstansiation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Are you channelling Faith? He told me I understand what he's saying. Message 34
Then I suggest you listen to what he's saying
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Tangle writes:
I'm taking it from a real Catholic rather than from somebody who doesn't seem to understand what real Catholics are saying. You don't understand what Catholicism teaches and what a 'real' Catholic is required to believe. A lot of people don't get that there is a lot of diversity within the 'real' Catholics and that it never gets down to the point of being required to believe something. Well, not anymore. Our past is, shall I say, a little more colorful. I suppose it depends on the parish, but most priests are just happy that you show up. Its a community and you gotta have participation. And if you can't bring yourself to accept some belief, its really not that big of a deal. I mean, the Church can't really think that nobody is using birth control. And if they really cared as much as people seem to think they do, as if they'd kick you out for being bad at being Catholic, then they would've died out a long time ago. As someone else mentioned earlier: Anything to stay in business!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
It occurs to me that that sounds a lot like mineralization of fossils - minerals replace the original materials while preserving the structure.
The substance must be what is changing rather than the form - i.e. transubstansiation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Show me where he says that he doesn't believe it himself. I'm still waiting for that answer. Regardless, he's still rationalising an impossible belief.
Not that it matters what CS believes, it's what Catholics are actually taught that matters. And that varies over the years and in which country. Like I say, they're pragmatists. And btw, don't make assumptions, I know as much as CS does about what Catholics are taught and are supposed to believe. It's been a while since I believed that eating meat on Friday was a sin though.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
It occurs to me that that sounds a lot like mineralization of fossils - minerals replace the original materials while preserving the structure. The substance must be what is changing rather than the form - i.e. transubstansiation It does, just less physical change and more magic:
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024