(urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis

brunians at brunians.org brunians at brunians.org
Fri Dec 18 20:05:46 PST 2009


No doubt.

.


> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com> wrote:
>
>> brunians at brunians.org wrote:
>>
>>> It is certainly scientific in the old sense.
>>>
>>> It has been gone over for a long time by some brilliant people and the
>>> loose ends are pretty much all tied up.
>>>
>>
>> How about transubstantiation, and other unobservable unfalsifiables?
>>
>>
> Could you unpack what you mean by "transubstantiation"?  Where I come
> from,
> the word is used to describe a theory of how the Real Presence in the
> Eucharist works; a theory couched in 13th-century neo-Aristotelian
> philosophico-scientific terms.
>
> Look at any of the great works of systematic theology (Thomas's Summa,
> John
> Damascene's Exposition, Lombard's Sentences).  There's nothing wrong with
> the reasoning in any of these works, and they proceed in an orderly,
> rational, and coherent fashion.  Whether you find them credible will
> depend,
> of course, on whether you accept their basic assumptions.  Criticizing
> them
> for not following the methods of 21st century science is a bit like
> criticizing theoretical mathematics for not having a good beat.  That's
> not
> what they're *for*.
>
> --
> Matt +
>
> The Ides of March have come.
> Julius Caesar (100-44 B.C.), From PLUTARCH, Lives, Caesar, sec. 63
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net





More information about the Urth mailing list