Catholic theories of transubstantiation and trinitarianism
(Tangential, but the discussion is already 9 days old...)
Trinitarianism was a “mysterious answer” since its beginning, but AFAIK the problem with transubstantiation is that its official explanation is based on obsolete science: Aristotelian chemistry. After a few centuries, with lots of theology built on top of that, Aristotelian chemistry was replaced by atomic theory… but the theologists are not ready to throw away centuries of spiritual writings about one of the central points of their faith. This is why the explanations sound so confusing, because they are built on a foundation that no longer works.
I guess the lesson for everyone who wants to start their own religion is that scientific proofs for religious dogma may seem impressive in short term, but often don’t age well. Better keep the magisteria separate.
(Tangential, but the discussion is already 9 days old...)
Trinitarianism was a “mysterious answer” since its beginning, but AFAIK the problem with transubstantiation is that its official explanation is based on obsolete science: Aristotelian chemistry. After a few centuries, with lots of theology built on top of that, Aristotelian chemistry was replaced by atomic theory… but the theologists are not ready to throw away centuries of spiritual writings about one of the central points of their faith. This is why the explanations sound so confusing, because they are built on a foundation that no longer works.
I guess the lesson for everyone who wants to start their own religion is that scientific proofs for religious dogma may seem impressive in short term, but often don’t age well. Better keep the magisteria separate.