(urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis

brunians at brunians.org brunians at brunians.org
Sat Dec 19 11:52:41 PST 2009


Jeff, you are using the modern definition of the term 'science'.

Traditionally, any coherent and systematically organized body of knowledge
is a science.

The term was redefined in the 16th, 17th century or so, along with many
other terms.


.


> Matthew Weber wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com
>> <mailto:jwilson at io.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     brunians at brunians.org <mailto: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.
>
> It is a conjecture that in the sacrament of Holy Communion the substance
> of the bread and wine literally becomes the substance of the flesh and
> blood of Jesus Christ, while the species, the appearance available to
> the senses remains exactly as before. To be a scientific theory, this
> would have to be supported by a body of observations and experiments
> that would show a different result if the conjecture were false. Not
> only has this not been done by the Church's thinkers, people attempting
> to procure samples of the Eucharist for examination are harassed and
> charged with kidnapping and assault, and falsification has been
> discouraged historically by threat of anathema, despite the continuity
> of species making it unfalsifiable by definition.
>
>> 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/.
>
> The methods of 21st century science are also those of 17th century
> Galilean science and the 11th century Book of Optics, but I agree that
> scientific rigor is not what religious texts are for. I think that their
> highest purpose is explaining that religion is useful despite being
> primarily concerned with things that are not subject to scientific
> inquiry.
>
> --
> Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com
> IEEE Student Chapter Blog at
> < http://ieeetamut.org >
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>





More information about the Urth mailing list