Transubstantiation 3: Is belief 'causal'?

I have had many postings which received many more views than the current series, but I have never had one generate more inquiries and responses. I have gotten lots of e-mails. Most of them making the same point: the baseball example does not work.

So, let's try again.
First of all, the criticism has made a category error. This is a discussion of ontology or being (essence, substance, etc.) not valuation. I personally do not think the Barry Bonds baseball is worth $750,000. I also know most people agree with me. I also know the vast, vast, vast majority of people think it is stupid. But that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is For people who care about such things having the authenitc, real, actual baseball does matter. Not just any baseball, but the one Bonds hit. In other words, it is a discussion about the objective sphere. (no pun intended!)

My son plays baseball. He has hit several home runs. Each time we got the ball. Each ball has value to me personally. THAT is NOT what changes the ball. I understand none of you care if my son hit the ball and the ball has no meaning to you. I would never argue with anyone that it should have any meaning or value. I would not even argue that they should agree it would have meaning to me (some folks would say baseball is stupid and I am stupid to care about any home run ball). The valuation of that ball is, in part, a subjective thing. Please understand, I get that. But there is not just a subjective element to this, there is also an objective reality outside of me and you.

The actual ball which Luke actually hit over the actual fence is actually and really and truly THE homerun ball. THAT is the change. THE ball is different from every other ball (beyond the other 5 he hit) and that difference is NOT physical, observable or measurable. The change in the ball is it is part of a different kind of ball, a kind of ball called "Luke's Home Runs." That is a quality of the ball's "substance" (used philosophically NOT scientifically or the way we usually talk)

Now you could care less that Luke hit that ball. It is worth nothing to you. You would throw it to your dog. That is fine. But IF you came to my house, I showed it to you, and you did that in front of me, it would generate a reaction. IF you said, well here is another ball, pristine and superior to the smudged and dirtied ball Luke hit, I would not be satisfied. I think it is clear why that is not an even trade. It is not simply based on my feelings. If it were then I could take the newer, better ball and be happy. Also, if it is just about remembering a home run then any ball, every ball could serve as a helpful reminder that Luke hit one out! In fact, that does happen. I often see home runs hit, or balls thrown and remember the excitement of those games where he banged one long and hard.

To say that the home run ball is not changed, but the only difference is how I feel about it is true in a sense, but it denies one simple fact. I feel the way I do about THAT ball BECAUSE it is THE ball that he hit. Now claiming I am generating "all" of that is not true. In the end, I generate all my reaction to the ball, but I do not "make" the ball anything different than what it is, THE ball that my son hit for a home run. Once it was hit over the fence the ball changed. Now everyone at the game admits and acknowldges, "Yes that ball flew over the fence and is a home run ball." That change the ball. Because it was changed, I cared about it in a different way.

Valuation, like faith, is our part of the process. Faith does not create reality. Saying "I think the bread is the body of Christ" is not what makes it so. It is possible that someone does not care about baseballs (most people don't). It is possible that someone does not care about eucharist (once again, most people don't). It is possible to believe or not believe Jesus is present. But since when does believing something cause it to be true?

If I say, "Your mom played that guitar with the Beatles." and you say, "My mom does not play guitar and she never met the Beatles." and I respond, "Oh, but I do believe it. I believe it with all my heart and soul. I believe it and it brings me great joy. That is why I treasure this guitar" You may choose not to argue out of kindness, or pity, or just because it seems fruitless to argue with someone about such a thing. However, my guess is you would never honestly say, "if you believe it is so then it must be true." You would not say, "that guitar was played by my mom with the Beatles because we believe it is so."

There are many reasons this is so important to me. One of the biggest is "Nominalism" has produced grave moral problems in our society. To say "nothing changes" it is only your feelings (beliefs, values, etc) which make things what they are creates all manner of problems. It leads to saying things like "That may be true to you but it isn't true to me." I.e, it makes truth a personal creation. And it everyone is free to create their own reality (only subjective) and there is no nature/essence of things (objective) then the world becomes a scarey place.