Comment by johnpurr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnpurr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

All conspiracies's enemy is logistics. And yet for these eucharist miracles, the logistics are simple. They all have a clear and obvious point where foul play could be inserted, where the complicit number of people can be brought down to just 1. You may not like this explanation, but it's one people will rightly use to counter it. 'Why would people lie' is a pointless exercise. They would. Each person has a different story, intent, motivation.

Anyway I just read the first one, but I'm aware of these miracles some time ago. I don't think it has outward persuasive powers catholics think they do. It sounds trivial and specific. It's also so clearly some growth to me. You got the wafer, you got contamination, and you put it in a container with water. Of course, then they would find a separate heart tissue to send to the scientists.

(Also unrelated, but it's kinda funny. Catholics would be saying it's the literal body of Christ. And they they dropped it to the floor and went 'well, I can't eat that'.)

> Catholics would be saying it's the literal body of Christ. And they they dropped it to the floor and went 'well, I can't eat that'

When Catholics say this, they mean Transubstantiation.

As in, it retains the accidents (physical/observable properties) of bread and wine, but its substance (what it is) does literally become the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Christ.

So it might look, feel, and taste like bread and wine, but it is in fact the body of Christ.

So, kind of both..

You're correct that we can't prove the chain of custody for the Eucharistic miracles - this is discussed at the bottom of the article.

In general, there's no airtight "proof" for any miracle, and the best way to determine whether Christianity is true is to live the faith and see what happens. I wrote an article about this:

https://www.saintbeluga.org/the-rosary-the-ultimate-life-hac...

This could be applied to any faith. Likely many people would find that faith was also true? So they are all true simultaneously? But they also contradict one another, and have people killing each other in their "team's" name?

AFAIK there hasn't been any evidence shown for any of the faiths yet.

> the best way to determine whether Christianity is true is to live the faith and see what happens.

So you're telling me you tried this with a bunch of other religions before you landed on Christianity? You became a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Wiccan and lived those faiths?

I'm convinced that Christianity is true, so I don't feel compelled to keep exploring other belief systems. My conviction comes from the intellectual evidence, the witness of other Christians, and the fruits of my own faith life as a Christian. As I mentioned in my previous comment, I believe that ultimately the fruits of a lived faith provides the strongest assurance.

So basically you are confirming your own belief system using, well, your own and choices of other people which believe in the same thing. That sounds a little bit biased, isn‘t it?

Wait a minute… This has even a name in logical fallacies: CONFIRMATION BIAS.

I did a similar thing, having been agnostic for many years. I thought I'd give Christianity a go, and keep going until I felt it likely wasn't true. ~5 years later, I'm still going.

Of course, if I was not living in a Western country with a historically Christian society, I may well have tried Islam etc instead. But I happen to be in a mostly Christian country, so I gave that a go, and so far it has stuck.

I don't think that's in any way inconsistent. I have never claimed to be doing a scientific study. I have a PhD, and did post-doc research. I know what science is, and what it isn't, and how far it can reach. IMO these big questions are beyond the reach of science.

In order to really test the waters of a particular faith, you have to put your weight on it. I don't think this would be possible if my research schedule told me I'd be converting to Buddhism in 2 years, and then on to Islam after that, etc. So this "scientific" approach is flawed from the start. Instead, it makes most sense to start off with what you think is the most promising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com