Why does it make sense to rely upon "faith"?

[WillP]

I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine--transsubstantiation. Members in this forum seem to believe in what is called "the real presence". They accept it on the basis of "faith".

I cannot reconcile that with anything resembling reasonableness. I find it amazing that people who are otherwise sensable and reasonable in their daily lives come to believe something that is so far removed from logic and reason as this doctrine.

Doesn't the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is--not just equvalent--but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

The concept actually brings to mind "the Emperor's New Clothes". So I have to ask:

1. Can "faith" really operate to allow people to defy their own sense of reality to this extent?
2. And, if so, what is the driving force of "faith" which is so overwhelming that it would allow one's reason to be so superceded?
3. Does anyone have second thoughts ever as whether they are only engaged in some form of wishful thinking or perhaps deceiving themselves?

[spencelo]

Originally Posted by WillP

Doesn't the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is--not just equvalent--but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

If it does, then there seems to be a fairly straightforward way of testing it: do a DNA test on the bread.

[Elizium23]

No, the doctrine is very specific: the molecular structure does not change. These are the 'accidents' of the matter used. The substance changes. No examination of the species, no visual inspection nor scientific apparatus can distinguish the change, because these study the accidents.

[Andre1000]

Originally Posted by WillP

I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine--transsubstantiation. Members in this forum seem to believe in what is called "the real presence". They accept it on the basis of "faith".

I cannot reconcile that with anything resembling reasonableness. I find it amazing that people who are otherwise sensable and reasonable in their daily lives come to believe something that is so far removed from logic and reason as this doctrine.

Doesn't the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is--not just equvalent--but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

The concept actually brings to mind "the Emperor's New Clothes". So I have to ask:

1. Can "faith" really operate to allow people to defy their own sense of reality to this extent?
2. And, if so, what is the driving force of "faith" which is so overwhelming that it would allow one's reason to be so superceded?
3. Does anyone have second thoughts ever as whether they are only engaged in some form of wishful thinking or perhaps deceiving themselves?

You do not really sound like a real skeptic because a real skeptic knows that even logic could be wrong and everything could be wrong.
Also: A revelation is completely true or completely wrong no one can pick something out, because we have no idea how God is, logic has no place for something that is completely out of the world(like God is). However, logic says if God is omnipotent than he can do everything like he wants, there is no more plausible or less plausible.

[WillP]

Originally Posted by Elizium23

No, the doctrine is very specific: the molecular structure does not change. These are the 'accidents' of the matter used. The substance changes. No examination of the species, no visual inspection nor scientific apparatus can distinguish the change, because these study the accidents.

Then to carry the "Emperor's New Clothes" analogy one step further, could the Emperor have made the same argument then? Could he have said that I have on real clothes. It's just that "the accidents" are missing?

[Eric Hyom]

WillP;
I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine--transsubstantiation.

The first sentence in the Bible talks about God creating the heavens and the Earth, we have no absolute proof for this, however, believers take this to be true but it does take faith and trust. If God had no beginning and he created the universe and life then all other miracles like transubstantiation, talking snakes, virgin births, raising the dead are all minor miracles by comparison.

Blessings

Eric

[ASimon]

Originally Posted by Eric Hyom

[color=#3e3e3e]The first sentence in the Bible talks about God creating the heavens and the Earth, we have no absolute proof for this, however, believers take this to be true but it does take faith and trust. If God had no beginning and he created the universe and life then all other miracles like transubstantiation, talking snakes, virgin births, raising the dead are all minor miracles by comparison.[/size]

If God had no beginning and had the power to create the universe and all life within it, this wouldn't qualify as a miracle. A miracle is a suspension of the laws of nature. The creation of the universe and all life within it would be exactly what you'd expect to see happen, given a timeless being powerful enough to do it.

[prodigalson2011]

Originally Posted by WillP

I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine--transsubstantiation. Members in this forum seem to believe in what is called "the real presence". They accept it on the basis of "faith".

I cannot reconcile that with anything resembling reasonableness. I find it amazing that people who are otherwise sensable and reasonable in their daily lives come to believe something that is so far removed from logic and reason as this doctrine.

Doesn't the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is--not just equvalent--but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

The concept actually brings to mind "the Emperor's New Clothes". So I have to ask:

1. Can "faith" really operate to allow people to defy their own sense of reality to this extent?
2. And, if so, what is the driving force of "faith" which is so overwhelming that it would allow one's reason to be so superceded?
3. Does anyone have second thoughts ever as whether they are only engaged in some form of wishful thinking or perhaps deceiving themselves?

As far as transubstantiation goes:

"The Church has always taught that it remains bread and wine “at the molecular level.” The error lies in supposing this to be the only level."

"...Consider the myth of transhumanism. Suppose one day we learn how to “download” the mind of the uncle into a computer, so that he puts away the corruptible body and takes on a new incorruptible body and liveth for ever. Would the computer be the uncle or not? Yet if we examine the body of the computer, you could go all the way down to the nuts and bolts and molecules and it’s still… just a computer."

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-...#ixzz1yqlMY161

That article might help to clear things up for you.

[po18guy]

First of all, we need a working definition of faith. The best definition ever written is in the Letter to the Hebrews (11:1):

"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."

Faith and reason are the left and right hands of our existence. You are currently residing in a world which is most comfortable with physical "proof" to establish facts, which lead to beliefs. Yet, proof is also based, to a degree, on faith. We must have faith that the science of a given matter is verifiable, for it to be credible. Yet, just as science and other disciplines provide proof that is sufficient for our minds to accept, proof in matters of faith comes also in the supernatural realm.

[ReapReason]

Originally Posted by WillP

Doesn't the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is--not just equvalent--but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ).

No. That is not what Catholics believe. It would really benefit you to actually learn about what people believe. It will save you the embarrassment.

[sw85]

Originally Posted by WillP

I have to disclose that it defies my sense of reality that certain doctrines could possibly be true. Just to take a single doctrine--transsubstantiation. Members in this forum seem to believe in what is called "the real presence". They accept it on the basis of "faith".

Transubstantiation isn't that big of a leap when you accept other, more properly basic things.

This is a major problem with atheists when they attempt to apprehend religion. They leap straight into inordinate minutiae first and then declare the whole thing is obviously bogus. You need to begin at the beginning. In the beginning was God.

Originally Posted by WillP

I cannot reconcile that with anything resembling reasonableness. I find it amazing that people who are otherwise sensable and reasonable in their daily lives come to believe something that is so far removed from logic and reason as this doctrine.

Your real problem is that not everyone is an atheist. When you accept the necessity of an eternal, all-creating, all-powerful, all-present, all-knowing, loving, particular, conscious, and volitional God who is actus purus, manifesting Himself in a bit of bread isn't that big of a deal.

So, again, transubstantiation is a properly secondary belief.

Originally Posted by WillP

Doesn't the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is--not just equvalent--but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

Transubstantiation precedes genetic and molecular theories by centuries so it makes no claims in that regard, to my knowledge. What it claims relates to the philosophical ideas of substance and accidents.

Here's a useful treatment of the issue by Ed Feser:

. . . [C]onsider Jim and Bob, who are identical twins with similar personalities. You approach someone you take to be Jim, begin a friendly conversation, and after a few minutes say “Well, I’m late for a meeting. Nice chatting with you, Jim!” He responds: “I’m not Jim, I’m Bob!” If we conclude that your senses deceived you, are we committing ourselves to a shockingly irrationalist skepticism about sense perception? Are we endorsing a bizarre Bob-oriented fideism according to which “Bob’s say-so trumps sense perception”? Obviously not. Indeed, strictly speaking, it wasn’t really your senses that deceived you in the first place. The man you were talking to really does look like Jim; your senses told you as much, and they were right. The trouble is that you drew the wrong conclusion from this fact, because you failed sufficiently to consider that Bob looks and acts the same way.

Something similar can be said of one’s sense perception of the Eucharist. One might judge that it is bread that one is looking at, touching, tasting, etc., even though it is not bread at all, but the Body of Christ. But to say that one’s senses are deceiving one in this situation is to speak loosely. As in the case of Jim and Bob, strictly speaking your senses are not really deceiving you at all. They told you that the accidents of bread were present, and they really were present. (Aquinas thinks so. Why? Precisely because “it is evident to sense” that they are.) The trouble is that you drew the wrong conclusion from this fact, insofar as you assumed that the presence of the accidents entails that the substance of bread must be present as well. That is to say, you failed to consider that the accidents might still be present even if the substance is not. As in the case of Jim and Bob, what is going on here is not that what sense perception tells you should be “trumped” by something else. It is, in both cases, something far more mundane – the senses are accurate as far as they go, but haven’t given you the whole story, and since you failed to realize this you drew a mistaken conclusion. This happens all the time, and hardly only when non-Catholics come to Mass.

Originally Posted by WillP

The concept actually brings to mind "the Emperor's New Clothes".

This really is not very original.

Originally Posted by WillP

So I have to ask:

1. Can "faith" really operate to allow people to defy their own sense of reality to this extent?

See all of the above. Faith is trust in what reason has revealed as truth. When you understand that God exists and what His nature is, transubstantiation is paltry stuff.

Originally Posted by WillP

2. And, if so, what is the driving force of "faith" which is so overwhelming that it would allow one's reason to be so superceded?

The two do not conflict; this is old horse which is easily refuted. Faith is trust in what reason has revealed to be truth, in the sense that a man who is afraid of flying but does so nevertheless has faith that the plane is almost certainly not going to crash. It's not that the belief is irrational: the plane really isn't going to crash, most likely. The faith there is the act of the will adhering itself to that perfectly rational belief. Just so with God.

Originally Posted by WillP

3. Does anyone have second thoughts ever as whether they are only engaged in some form of wishful thinking or perhaps deceiving themselves?

I don't, no.

[sw85]

To answer your main question, "Why does it make sense to rely upon 'faith'?", you are asking what rational reason there is to have faith. But faith is the adherence of the will to truths revealed by reason. So you are asking why reason obliges us to believe that what reason has revealed as truth is truth. This is obviously a silly question. To have faith just is to be reasonable; it couldn't be otherwise. One may as well ask why we should believe triangles can only have three sides, or why circles can't have 418 degrees.

[Alberti_Devoveo]

Originally Posted by WillP

Doesn't the doctrine say that the molecular structure of bread changes into what is--not just equvalent--but is identical to the human DNA of a specific human (i.e. Christ). Moreover, the same DNA reincarnation occurs over and over and over throughout the decades and into as many digestive systems as consume it (apparently, the body of Christ is infinite in this regard).

I find it curious how atheists can be so misled on this subject, despite nearly 800 years worth of writing that clearly states that the above is not at all the case and despite the fad atheism sparked in the last half-century.

[Eric Hyom]

ASimon;
If God had no beginning and had the power to create the universe and all life within it, this wouldn't qualify as a miracle. The creation of the universe and all life within it would be exactly what you'd expect to see happen, given a timeless being powerful enough to do it

Agreed.

A miracle is a suspension of the laws of nature.

If God created the universe and all life using one set of laws, then God should also the power to change these laws as he wills. We accept miracles happen because an all powerful God can do these things.

Blessings,

Eric

[WillP]

Originally Posted by prodigalson2011

As far as transubstantiation goes:



That article might help to clear things up for you.

I read the article. It basically says that one can look at a "thing" either concretely or abstractly.. There is, for instance, the chair I am actually occupying with my physical body and then there is the idea of a chair which you call to mind as you read this post.

While this is a way to view "things", you beg the question, however.

1 If the "real presence " of Christ is an abstraction, as the article, posits, then how can one convincingly argue that the "real presence" is real?

2. If abstractions as are conceived of in this article are plausable, couldn't I just as easily find an abstract version of Elvis Presley in cookies and milk?

As for the "where is my uncle" problem, the question is answered by definition. If you mean a physical body, then the uncle is gone. The body exists no more. His personality may be replicated somehow in the megabites of computer information, however. There actually are physicists who have posulated that the so called ressurection of humanity will be orcould be accomplished by computerized versions of the many "selves" which have ever existed. (see Frank Tippler's work).

Altogether, I still wonder why people believe something which requires resoort to convoluted and fanciful explanations. It simply doesn't make sense to me. And by the way, I grew up catholic so I was exposed to the same level of teaching except, in my case, I was something like the boy in the story concerning the Emperor's new clothes.