Miracles - is "thought" subject to the laws of science?

[RJT]

(Without trying to stir up a Protestant-Catholic debate, I need to use one of the big differences in our Faiths in an example. Also, I don’t really want to defend these particular examples against science. - Although, I will try, if need be. - This is just a way I look at the Mysteries of our Faith. It is a way that I can conceive of things. Obviously, if I "understood" them, they would not be “Mysteries” and I would not need faith.

Catholics believe in transubstantiation (I‘ll call A for simplicity.)
Protestants believe in B - I can’t think of the word they use off the top of my head.

Catholics believe that during our Mass, when the priest says the Eucharistic Prayers, bread and wine are literally changed into the Body and Blood of Christ (A).

Protestants ( and they can explain their beliefs better, but I think I am ok to say that they) believe the bread and wine do not literally change, that it is symbol (B).

Now Catholics don’t actually think that if a scientist were to perform DNA test on the bread and wine before and after, that there would be any difference. It is “another worldly” kind of thing.

I think we can look at Miracles like transubstantioan (and indeed we do believe it is a Miracle).

To give another analogy, we can view Miracles as we do our mind - our thinking. Thinking does not evolve anything that is subject to physical laws as we know them*. (Least I don’t think thinking does.) Thinking is not mass and energy that can be captured -am I not correct?

So, if thinking is certainly acceptable to science, then I think we can make the argument that Miracles can be too.

The following are two examples of how I like to understand Miracles, not sure if others do this way or not:

Miracles do not have to be literal in the sense that Jesus appeared physically to folk when He Resurrected as we understand the physical world. That is not to say He didn‘t actually Resurrect. But, if God is of another world so to speak, He could easily have let the witnesses see Him (almost like thinking they see Him) as we see things normally day to day. Again, this is not to say it was an illusion. It could be “understood” (at least to me) that he performed said Miracle, witnesses perceived seeing Him just as we perceive Joe Blow walking down the street. And that it was real - but not how we mean the word real when we use it normally. And some might not have been able to “see” Him at all.

A kind of sci-fi analogy that might be understandable to what it is I am trying to say: Let’s say God could stop time -like in the Twilight Zone. God freezes time. Pops in, says hi to the disciples, they only see Him, then He pops out. This all happens so fast that no one else sees diddly. Again, obviously I am not saying this is how it works, but I think one can better understand what the word Miracle can mean and still not be in conflict with science. And again Time was not stopped - that would go against physics (I assume). It is analogy.

Perhaps, this only makes non-believers think how ridiculous we sound. But, “that’s my story and I am sticking to it”.

*If science can explain thought -then perhaps this is a good topic for kbfc to write about. Kbgc, you would have, again, at least an audience of one (me again).

[carlo]

What you are saying is clear--thought is man's entry into the spiritual world and thought is spiritual. Thought tethered to the physical reality of the conventional scientist is related to earth-bound thinking but it's true reality is spiritual and relates to spiritual beings. Try "The Philosophy of Freedom" by Rudolph Steiner which concretizes this reality which is indeed not beyond the physical sense world but the substrata of this sense world but in no way cn be defined by sense bound thinking.

carlo

[RJT]

Thanks for the tip on Steiner. Will do.

[benkahuna]

Thinking is subject to the laws of science. It's just we haven't figured out any particular rules yet like we have for physics.

My answer requires a materialist perspective, of course. If you want to go idealist philosophy on it and pretend that thought is something completely different from science and not subject to its rules, you're on your own. There's no evidence to suggest its anything other than an emergent property of the brain and nervous system.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Now Catholics don’t actually think that if a scientist were to perform DNA test on the bread and wine before and after, that there would be any difference. It is “another worldly” kind of thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

After the Consecration, the "accidents" or physical properties of bread and wine remain, despite their total change into the Body and Blood of Christ.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking is subject to the laws of science. It's just we haven't figured out any particular rules yet like we have for physics.

My answer requires a materialist perspective, of course. If you want to go idealist philosophy on it and pretend that thought is something completely different from science and not subject to its rules, you're on your own. There's no evidence to suggest its anything other than an emergent property of the brain and nervous system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sentiments are like mine. They cannot be proved, but still not disproved. Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder. Lol.

[carlo]

You can examine thought (thinking) from a purely scientific standpoint but the idea that you can examine thought from the materialistic standpoint is flawed.

To base thought and thinking upon synthetic materialism is like saying that thoughts are produced by the brain as gall is produced by the gall bladder.

A ball is thrown down the field. The corresponding parabolic pattern is developed. A mathematician examines and clarifies with the algebraic formula y=x<2. This is in the realm of thought and thinking. The question is: Does the thought in this movement come about through this individual man or is it contained within(for want of a better word) the event? Does this concept thought exist in the reality? Yes.

To obtain a thoughtful understanding of nature one does not merely take in sensations as an animal would but one grasps the spiritual(thought/thinking) aspect and through one's mileu(body,speech,script) these thoughts can be brought to others.

The thoughts seen by 2 different people can be the same and scientifically examined. This examination is not material but the same scientific methodology of objectification is used in this research which is known as spiritual science.

Refer to Goethe's Archtypes in his scientific writings and the literature of Rudolf Steiner.

carlo

To summarise your original point, I think you are saying that from your point of view miracles do happen, but only if you imagine they happen, and to no extent do they really happen?

That can't be wrong.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
To summarise your original point, I think you are saying that from your point of view miracles do happen, but only if you imagine they happen, and to no extent do they really happen?

That can't be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I am saying if miracles occur it might be in a manner that others (than the one who believes and "sees" the miracle) don't necessarily have to be able to "see" too. It is not necessarily a given that everyone is able to (or indeed does) “see” the miracle.

[benkahuna]

Your analogy is bad. The gall bladder doesn't store "gall," but the thought does amuse me.

The gall bladder stores bile which is produced by the liver.

Interestingly, almost all animals from sharks to higher up have gall bladders. Except rats. Even mice have them. The human gall bladder can typically be removed with few complications (and it needs to be often enough).


Back to the topic though...


I think thought is produced by the brain just like the liver produces bile. It's just the product of nervous system functioning does not have mass and take up space (at least not insofar as we're aware).

I may be using the term material incorrectly here, but I pretty much use materialist to refer to a reality that most scientists concede exists. Matter/energy, mesons/bosons, etc. I include consciousness in this rubric because I think most scientists would concede that consciousness is a proven, real phenomenon.

The works you cite sound interesting and I can't really discuss the ideas intelligently unless I read them or otherwise become familiar with them.

Because consciousness is so poorly understand and is so different than anything we know about, I think it's very difficult to really compartmentalize it.

It's like someone I know used to often say, "You can't turn your own corner." It's almost like to really understand consciousness, you'd have to be outside consciousness as we know it.