Thread: Exorcism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026729
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
This could be written off as just another one of countless oddities available online from the religious fringe, but it has been picked up here in Australia and run on SBS news, as well as used in a Fairfax press Odd Spot.

In fact, exorcism per se cannot be easily dismissed on the grounds that it is theologically and ecclesiastically downmarket, since it is taken seriously by the RCC, not just various Protestant conservatives.

To most of those - not just evangelicals - who claim to take the Bible seriously, the whole question of demon possession is, let’s face it, a bit embarrassing.

On the face of it, Jesus seems to have believed in demons, and claimed to exorcise them.

Many of us therefore theoretically believe in the phenomenon, but prefer to take the safe way out, and assume that anyone manifesting possibly demonic symptoms is in fact psychiatrically disturbed, and needs professional medical assistance, not an exorcist.

The exceptions, in the West at least, are some penties who see demons everywhere (or used to; I am a bit out of touch with the Pentecostal scene these days, but get the impression that looking for demons under every rock is far less common now than in the past).

I realize we have run this before, but perhaps this latest public airing justifies a rerun.

Any comments on the exegetical / theological / psychiatric issues involved?

Anyone had any direct experience, for good or ill, at a pastoral level?

[ 31. January 2014, 06:49: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I believe there's a difference between demonisation and psychiatric or other illness, though the two may overlap.

For me exorcism is pretty much like healing. Occurs much more rarely than thought, and most where least noise is made about it.

And demons don't tend to be the bulging-eyes-and-sulfurous-breath type. They have moved on since the Middle Ages.

[ 31. January 2014, 05:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
LBC 97.3, a London based phone-in radio station discussed this yesterday, and it was notable that practically all the calls (all those I heard) were from people from a culture that believed in djinn possession - not necessarily as practicing as you might expect, at least one from a secular and sceptical background.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Well, I know a retired Anglican diocesan exorcist, a very funny and well-grounded man, who took his role seriously, himself a good deal less so, and left the role with his already good reputation significantly enhanced.

He seemed to be able to "spot the difference", also offer advice, take actions, which worked well whether the cause was psychological, or to use Luther's analogy, malevolent "birds flying round the head, trying to nest in the hair".

I have had one experience of this; an emergency call from a friend to help him with a distressing and frightening experience he was going through right at that time with a mutual friend of ours, who we both thought was very sane. What helped in that situation was the use of some lines from the Catholic rite of exorcism, which I'd happened across in some very recent personal study of this conundrum. Basically, I was sceptical. My counselling supervisor, a profoundly wise Christian women, said that she spent months counselling people who had "things cast out of them which were, in my opinion, never there in the first place". That had served me well as a touchstone.

But this situation really seemed different. I didn't really know what to do. But I recalled those lines from the Catholic rite. Used some of them. But I didn't thunder them out, or use other physical demonstrations. The words were a bidding of anything evil which was was causing disturbance and distress to depart. I spoke them very quietly. And the person who was behaving very bizarrly calmed down. No revolving heads, sulphurous breaths, changes in temperature! Something changed.

I now think there is something in the idea of "coming in the opposite spirit to what seems to be going on". If it seems to be deception, truth. If there is noise, quiet. If there is bizarre, normal. This would seem to be valuable whether what is happening is inner disturbance or some strange malevolent influence. It is a different sort of confronting. The aim is for folks to be restored, to become again "in their right minds". Tossing dramatic verbal and physical hand-grenades about in already volatile situations doesn't really seem to cut it. Still, small voices of calm seem better than earthquake, wind and fire.

[ 31. January 2014, 08:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I now think there is something in the idea of "coming in the opposite spirit to what seems to be going on". If it seems to be deception, truth. If there is noise, quiet. If there is bizarre, normal. This would seem to be valuable whether what is happening is inner disturbance or some strange malevolent influence. It is a different sort of confronting.
That doesn't really answer the question of whether demonisation is simply the ancient diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or something else entirely.

There is no doubt in my mind that people's expectations about how their afflictions may be resolved contributes hugely. I used to "exorcise" a Congolese lady in our church with resounding success; the same tactics on someone from a less, um, spirited background failed completely.

Does this mean there were demons in the first case and not the second, or neither, or both? I'm not sure, but I do think the demonic inhabits different bits of the psyche depending on our culture, background etc.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
This may surprise, or even slightly shock, some Shipmates in other parts of the world, but every diocese in the CofE has to have an official exorcist who is first port of call for any pastoral issues that could involve that sort of thing. I'm also under the impression that clergy are not allowed to try and deal with this themselves on their own initiative.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That doesn't really answer the question of whether demonisation is simply the ancient diagnosis of psychiatric disorder or something else entirely.
Quite right. That's because, certainly in my case, I'm not sure in any individual case whether I would know.

I watch too much classic TV. In recent re-run of an episode of "The Practice" your point re the Congolese woman was illustrated perfectly. A Catholic priest performs an exorcism on a woman who did indeed believe she was possessed, in the belief that it might help her. He thought her problems were probably psychological, but went with the grain of her apparent need. Unfortunately, she dies of a heart attack as a direct result of the exorcism. The moral and ethical and legal dilemmas of this were pretty informative.

I am pretty sure that the temptations, trials and evils of this world are a mixture of external and internal influences, some of which may not be "of this world". Something to reflect on is the line from the Lord's Prayer. "Lead us not into temptation (do not put us to the test) but deliver us from evil". That daily prayer seems a pretty powerful reminder of both internal and external influences, even though we may not be able to figure out which is which, or how much of either is involved. Traditional belief in the efficacy of exorcism needs to be tempered with a clear understanding of our complex psychology. That does not eliminate the possibility of malevolent evil, but ought to make us cautious, look for responses which will help "whatever".

In this area, Eutychus, I am reverently agnostic! I don't know for sure what the Hell is going on, or what part Hell might have to play in it.

[ 31. January 2014, 09:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And demons don't tend to be the bulging-eyes-and-sulfurous-breath type. They have moved on since the Middle Ages.
So what do they look these days?
 
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :
 
Small and grey with large black oval eyes?
 
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 
Someone I know well insists that his 'dabbles' into spiritualism, ouija boards, etc opened him up to 'familiar spirits' which had made their home with him without him knowing it. He was surprised when he first came to faith and found himself writhing on the ground 'like a snake' as people prayed for him. It took years before he was rid of all of them. He didn't and doesn't suffer with mental illness, and although he did drink and take drugs up until that time, he assures me he was not under the influence at the time.

I don't know what to think. I keep an open mind.
 
Posted by Yonatan (# 11091) on :
 
I used to be quite an avid reader of supposed true accounts of exorcism. Books like Malachi Martin's 'Hostage to the Devil' and M Scott Peck's 'Glimpses of the Devil'. They never convinced me. Martin was a pathological liar - even Peck who was 'mentored' by him acknowledged that. Martin's accounts are so fantastic they can't be taken seriously. Peck's book is rather worrying. The criteria which he uses for discerning a case of 'true' possession is laughable and very disturbing coming from a psychiatrist. I don't think it was a coincidence that most of the members of the exorcism teams were male, while both of the 'patients' were female and spent much of the time tied up. I couldn't see anything in his accounts which couldn't be explained in terms of known psychological processes.

As to Jesus' belief in demons, it was typical of Jews from that time and place i.e. first century northern Palestine. It's probably no coincidence that other famous exorcists such as Honi the Circle Drawer and Hanina Ben Dosa came from a similar time and place, and that John's Gospel which is far more focused on Jerusalem has no exorcisms.

[ 31. January 2014, 18:56: Message edited by: Yonatan ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And demons don't tend to be the bulging-eyes-and-sulfurous-breath type. They have moved on since the Middle Ages.
So what do they look these days?
Well my wholly unsupported, fanciful, probably heretical and vastly generalised take is roughly as follows:

Now that psychiatry and stuff has come along and doctors are all a bunch of rationalists, demons have lost their traditional way of terrorising people, so any power they might have once had in that realm is severly diminished. This is no fun for them. After all, nobody likes to be made fun of, especially when fear is your stock in trade.

So I reckon one place they hang out is churches that pooh-pooh psychology. Not so much in the exorcisms (at least not on the deliverance end) but in the worship, the teaching, and the abusive leadership practices. These type of churches don't tend to approve of people mocking hyperspirituality, so the demons get on just fine.

I think they've also taken up residence in all the dehumanised spaces of contemporary vast and sprawling institutions and bureaucracies. Nobody makes fun of them there, either, because they simply fade into the prevailing grey and nobody ever wanted to laugh at anything in an administration anyway, so they can just suck the life out of everyone. People will come and go, but the institution and its "spirit" live on.

Finally, there are probably a fair chunk lurking in the mainstream media (remember that in The Gravedigger File, the senior demon is in the process of being transferred from Moscow to Los Angeles) ensuring that viewers live in a mixture of fear, confusion and vapid entertainment.

In the main, these new roles are much less overt and more a case of the long con rather than the smash and grab, but I think the end results are pretty much the same. I'm not sure exorcisms are much good at getting rid of this type, though. Perhaps prayer and fasting...?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
This could be written off as just another one of countless oddities available online from the religious fringe, but it has been picked up here in Australia and run on SBS news, as well as used in a Fairfax press Odd Spot.
I'm not sure what's so odd or fringey about it. Once you've posited that there are invisible, malevolent spirits that can take control of human beings and that such spirits can be "cast out" using verbal commands, why is " . . . and you can do it over Skype!" going too far?
 
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
Personally I do believe in demons and that people can be possessed by them. I don't claim to have seen such a thing myself but the scriptures and the lives if the saints tell us that such is the case. The Church, it seems, was convinced enough to include "excorcist' among the orders.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
The etymology of malevolent is helpful. Having or demonstrating a wish to do evil to others. That wish to do evil is real enough, ubiquitous enough, whatever the causes may be.

Solzhenitsyn observed in "Gulag Archipelago 2", after the reawakening of his Orthodox faith while imprisoned in that "archipelago" himself, that religions strive with the evil inside human beings. That in all human beings, no matter how malevolent, there is some restorable area of good. And that in all human beings, no matter how good, there is some unhealed area of malevolence.

Whether we think evil is culturally defined or not, all human societies perceive a common area of socially dangerous behaviour and call it "bad-wishing" or something similar. They seek to counteract it because it is bad for the society. Most also see that it is bad for the person.

The social relativism dimension is only too obvious in the creation of the Gulags. Articles 58 of the old Soviet penal code was designed to root out counter-revolutionaries who were bad for society. It was worded so widely that it could be and was used, with deliberate malevolence, as an instrument of personal revenge, or state control. So it gave rise to all manner of evils, wreaked on millions of people who were not socially dangerous. This reality and the bitter personal experience of it, caused Solzhenitsyn (and many others) to look for deeper reasons for evil, older ways of wrestling with it. He regarded his imprisonment as a strange blessing from that point of view.

It taught him something he needed to re-discover; that social norms may themselves be sources of evil. And that warning certainly should be applied to both the superstitious use of exorcisms and the complacent ignoring of the reality of evil behaviour.

I quite like Eutychus's "heresy". It's a modern version of Lewis's well known "equal and opposite errors" concerning demons. They are equally happy with either an overweening, morbid, interest or a total ignoring. There is a lot of fanciful nonsense talked, and talked up, in this area. I'm pretty sure it is not all nonsense. At any rate, the use of prayer in the combating of evil is a regular part of my devotional life. The use of rituals of exorcism is not.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
This may surprise, or even slightly shock, some Shipmates in other parts of the world, but every diocese in the CofE has to have an official exorcist who is first port of call for any pastoral issues that could involve that sort of thing. I'm also under the impression that clergy are not allowed to try and deal with this themselves on their own initiative.
Prayers for deliverance from evil, including from spirits which promote evil, are a normal part of liturgical and pastoral practice for priests within Anglicanism. I think the prohibition you mention specifically applies to cases of demonic occupation (i.e. possession), rather than oppression.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
To most of those - not just evangelicals - who claim to take the Bible seriously, the whole question of demon possession is, let’s face it, a bit embarrassing.
I must admit that I don't really understand the logic of this comment. How can someone who "takes the Bible seriously" regard demon possession as "a bit embarrassing"?

I would have thought that someone who regards the latter as embarrassing would also have to regard the Bible as somewhat suspect.

The idea that Jesus simply went along with the views of his supposedly ignorant, primitive and deluded contemporaries, is a case of naturalistic special pleading driven by what CS Lewis called "chronological snobbery" without any basis in fact or evidence. Furthermore, it is theologically inadmissible, given the nature of Christ as "the Truth".
 
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday
To most of those - not just evangelicals - who claim to take the Bible seriously, the whole question of demon possession is, let’s face it, a bit embarrassing.
I must admit that I don't really understand the logic of this comment. How can someone who "takes the Bible seriously" regard demon possession as "a bit embarrassing"?

I would have thought that someone who regards the latter as embarrassing would also have to regard the Bible as somewhat suspect.

The idea that Jesus simply went along with the views of his supposedly ignorant, primitive and deluded contemporaries, is a case of naturalistic special pleading driven by what CS Lewis called "chronological snobbery" without any basis in fact or evidence. Furthermore, it is theologically inadmissible, given the nature of Christ as "the Truth".
1. I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and that it teaches that evil spirits exist, and that the Lord Jesus exorcised them.

2. I find the whole idea of belief in evil spirits embarrassing, and I bet I'm not the only one.

No doubt I shouldn't find it embarrassing, and no doubt, as you suggest, it exposes my captivity to another spirit,ie the zeitgeist, but as Doctor Johnson said, "Sensation is sensation".
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I'm not sure whether embarassment is appropriate, but I see no reason to own sensationalist portrayals of spiritual issues such as exorcism. Not everyone claiming to be an exorcist is one, and I expect that charlatans make for better TV.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

The idea that Jesus simply went along with the views of his supposedly ignorant, primitive and deluded contemporaries, is a case of naturalistic special pleading driven by what CS Lewis called "chronological snobbery" without any basis in fact or evidence.
I think there is a general shift in the understanding of what the demonic consists of in the few centuries prior to Jesus' coming. To that extent Jesus did 'go along' with the views of his contemporaries - with some exceptions.

I also believe that there was in all probability a rise in demonic activity around the incarnation - hence references to binding the strong man etc.

In any case, the spectacular tales of heads rotating, glowing eyes and projectile vomiting etc. mostly date from the middle ages, and I don't feel we need to assimilate them as part of our beliefs.

I suspect Eutychus mostly is correct in his diagnosis of where demons hang out these days - and there would be parallels here in Walter Wink's writings on The Powers. Similarly I would also see parallels in the work of Andrew Walls especially when it comes to how this picture varies across the world. There is a small taster here:

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2052
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
In any case, the spectacular tales of heads rotating, glowing eyes and projectile vomiting etc. mostly date from the middle ages, and I don't feel we need to assimilate them as part of our beliefs.
I agree, along with certain depictions of hell.

However, while I believe we need to be extremely cautious in our diagnosis of moral and apparently psychological problems, I don't accept that the Bible supports the assumption that all instances of demonic activity in and through human beings should be understood as cases of mental and / or physical illness. I am certainly no advocate of the "pigs in the parlour" (or rather "parlor"!) approach (in which it seems almost everyone has a demon), but I have been coming round to the realisation that the theory of the influence of evil spirits seems worthy of serious investigation, given that certain problems seem so entrenched and irrational and seemingly beyond natural cure. Of course 'influence' does not necessarily mean 'possession' ("Get thee behind me Satan" is one bibical example of this, in which Peter came under the influence of the evil one, but was clearly not possessed).
 
Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :
 
London Review of Books has published a fascinating account of possession and exorcism following the Japanese tsunami.

Here I definitely incline towards the psychological explanation: the reaction of a particular cultural mindset to a specific event. (If the mass wipe-out of tens of thousands of people always led to this kind of thing regardless of background then the phenomenon would be better documented.) But, whether we're talking spirits or people's minds, it seems that the enormity of that tragedy tore open holes which Stuff was then able to come through, and it needed sensitive handling by a spiritually wise and mature individual to be healed.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

However, while I believe we need to be extremely cautious in our diagnosis of moral and apparently psychological problems, I don't accept that the Bible supports the assumption that all instances of demonic activity in and through human beings should be understood as cases of mental and / or physical illness.
Similarly I don't think we should necessarily assume things are either one or the other - I suspect that some instances of 'possession' are a hybrid of demonic activity laid over mental breakdown in a parasitic manner. I wonder itself if possession in and of itself is less of an effective tactic - for some of the reasons Eutychus describes - and so demonic activity tends to have somewhat different characteristics, as raw fear itself doesn't seem to be as effective.

I also suspect that for some of the reasons laid out above the scope of demonic activity waxes and wanes - but yes, there are also examples of influence rather than possession behind the actions of certain institutions and individuals. As their general tactic seems to be to prey on human brokenness.

[ 05. February 2014, 12:36: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that "the demonic" actually exists? Do we really need this concept given what abnormal human psychology is quite capable of?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that "the demonic" actually exists?
I don't come at it from that perspective.

I take the fairly straightforward view that Jesus appeared to believe in the existence of demons and that even within the NT, not all illness is said to be of demonic origin, so there is no reason to conflate everything attributed to demonic forces to solely psychological or biological factors. I tend to assume that this still holds true today, with the caveats I've mentioned upthread.

If one takes the view that Jesus was a prisoner of his immediate socio-cultural environment when it came to discernment of this nature, it's hard to assign much value to anything else he said. I don't find this option to make much sense, personally.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Jesus seemed to believe that epilepsy was caused by demons. We know that isn't so.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that "the demonic" actually exists? Do we really need this concept given what abnormal human psychology is quite capable of?
If someone is convinced that the Bible is true, then the testimony of the Bible would be accepted as legitimate evidence. This may sound like a circular argument, but it is not necessarily. Many things are believed to be true simply on the basis that something else that supports or implies those claims, is believed. An example within science would be: many aspects of the origin and development of life, which are unobserved and unobservable, are believed to have occurred on the basis that theories that imply these ideas are accepted.

There is also the evidence of the personal experience of various people, who have been into, say, witchcraft or the occult, and who have been healed through spiritual deliverance. The entire process involved the belief in and experience of the expulsion of demons. To argue that this experience was entirely psychological is to posit a theory which is unsupported by evidence - or at least is as evidentially tenuous and tendentious as the demon theory.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
If a person comes to believe that their problems are caused by demons, then "exorcising" those demons may quite reasonably help with those problems; that's not reason enough to actually postulate the objective existence of these demons. A point against their objective existence is that they only seem to be a problem inasmuch as people believe in them. When I believed in them, I was seeing their activity all the time. Now I'm fairly sure I don't, they don't do anything.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Is there any reason to limit demonic influence to mental illness? Why not physical ailments as well? Should we give serious consideration to substituting exorcisms for chemotherapy or antibiotics?
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jesus seemed to believe that epilepsy was caused by demons. We know that isn't so.
I don't think it's that clear cut.

Somebody with the symptoms resembling epilepsy is said to have been healed through deliverance. It's a big jump from there to asserting that Jesus thought everybody with epilepsy was demonised. And there are NT healings that make no reference at all to demonisation.

I have some sympathy for your perspective when you say you're no longer seeing things you thought were demonic in the same light as before, but again I don't think this is conclusive.

Books like Pigs in the Parlor and From Witchcraft to Christ have a lot to answer for in a certain subculture's view of the demonic - probably more than the NT if one is honest. I think the reality of evil with a personality is much more subtle than that, but I don't get paranoid about it.

[ 05. February 2014, 13:46: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Jesus seemed to believe that epilepsy was caused by demons. We know that isn't so.
Hm. Not sure about that. Jesus certainly healed people who were having seizures, but the gospel writer tends to include such people a list of illnesses both spiritual and physical.
quote:
23 Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and illness among the people. 24 News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demon-possessed, those having seizures, and the paralysed; and he healed them. 25 Large crowds from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him.
Matthew 4:23-25

 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
So if we have someone with the symptoms of epilepsy today, do we seriously consider the possibility that it's actually demonic possession? Or did demons only do that in NT times? It may be going beyond the text to conclude that Jesus thought all epileptic symptoms were demonic, but the fact remains that there are no instances of him seeing epileptic symptoms he says are not demonic, and it is therefore equally going beyond the text to say that Jesus would have distinguished between organic epilepsy and demonically caused epileptic-like symptoms. A considerably (to my mind) more parsimonious explanation is that in Jesus' time people did put epilepsy down to demons, and Jesus either didn't know better, or didn't see fit to correct the impression.

[x-post with Numpty]

I think what's being lost here is that it's incumbent on those proposing demons to demonstrate their existence; it is not incumbent on anyone to demonstrate that they don't. cf. pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters etc.

[ 05. February 2014, 13:53: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is there any reason to limit demonic influence to mental illness?
Not according to the NT, no, as we have just seen.
quote:
Should we give serious consideration to substituting exorcisms for chemotherapy or antibiotics?
I have been arguing why that's not a good idea. But it may just be that for some people, exorcisms might just be equally effective. This is not medical advice, just an observation that people are complex creatures. I note the humbler doctors, whether christians or not, recognise that modern medicine can't explain everything.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Homeopathy and Reiki sometimes work, but they're still bollocks. And they don't work because "science doesn't know everything"; they work because of well-known placebo effects. Besides which, "science doesn't know everything" isn't an invitation to invent stuff or throw in whatever favourite ideas we may have; it's an invitation for science to learn more.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:A considerably (to my mind) more parsimonious explanation is that in Jesus' time people did put epilepsy down to demons, and Jesus either didn't know better, or didn't see fit to correct the impression.
More cross-posting, but let me have another go at this, in line with what I posted much earlier.

In my view, it may just be that the cultural environment of an NT epilepsy-sufferer meant they could be cured by exorcism in a way a twenty-first century Westerner could not.

To me, this cultural restriction does not necessarily mean no demons were present back then, though.

My theory (and I accept it is a highly speculative one, but it's the best I've got for now) is that demons inhabit the "space" our psyche allows them to.

I think people with a rationalistic, scientific worldview are unlikely to be successfully exorcised à la NT - not because I don't think it was true then, but because I think they are unlikely to be demonised in the same way nowadays.

As I posted earlier, I think demons muck around with us rationalistic types in other ways and are probably got rid of in different fashion. Trying to transpose exactly how Jesus did things in this realm is about as stupid as trying to walk on water - not that some people don't try.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
Seems awfully complicated, when we could simply say "they believed in demons then, we don't now."
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
it's incumbent on those proposing demons to demonstrate their existence
I don't think demons are answerable to us. If they exist, they are a higher (albeit corrupted) order of being.

My assumption (and yes it is an assumption, and you are free to mock it as a naive one) is that demons exist because the Bible speaks about them, and does so in a way that to me at least, suggests they are not merely a cultural artefact.

I have no problem with science mopping up areas of superstition, but I think anyone who assumes that it will ultimately succeed in banishing archaic fears (and thus demons' stomping-grounds) from every quarter of the human psyche for good is, well, as naive as I am...

It's an old quote from Hamlet, but an apposite one in my view:

quote:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
I think what's being lost here is that it's incumbent on those proposing demons to demonstrate their existence; it is not incumbent on anyone to demonstrate that they don't. cf. pink unicorns, Flying Spaghetti Monsters etc.
Why is it 'incumbent' on them to do this?

Within a naturalistic scheme it is not incumbent on anyone to do anything, because matter just IS. End of. There is no 'ought' anywhere.

Where does nature - empirically investigated - provide us with any instruction concerning the allocation of the burden of proof?

But even if you are right, the same argument applies to naturalistic claims. Those who claim that all mental, physical and moral problems are caused entirely materially are making a definite and positive claim about an aspect of reality. Therefore, there is a burden of proof on them to demonstrate that their theory is true. How many psychopaths have been cured by drugs?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
It's always incumbent on someone proposing the existence of something to provide the evidence base for its existence. Otherwise I could just say "actually, mental illness is caused by Green Flargles from the Planet Xarff" and then require you to prove that it's not.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I believe in the truth of the Bible to the extent that I believe its description of demons means they exist, then and now. For the purposes of this thread, I think that opening assumption is good enough.

If you think it isn't, then it's off to Dead Horses, but I don't promise to follow you there.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But even if you are right, the same argument applies to naturalistic claims. Those who claim that all mental, physical and moral problems are caused entirely materially are making a definite and positive claim about an aspect of reality. Therefore, there is a burden of proof on them to demonstrate that their theory is true.
Yes, which is why most advanced countries have agencies which assess the effectiveness of treatments for various medical conditions. If Conglomerated Pharmcorp wants to distribute a pill they say will fight infection, they have to demonstrate that the pill does, in fact, fight infection. Why do you regard this as an insurmountable problem?
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I believe in the truth of the Bible to the extent that I believe its description of demons means they exist, then and now. For the purposes of this thread, I think that opening assumption is good enough.

If you think it isn't, then it's off to Dead Horses, but I don't promise to follow you there.
It's not that simple though is it? I wasn't aware that participation in this thread required adherence to a particular belief in the nature of Scripture.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's not that simple though is it? I wasn't aware that participation in this thread required adherence to a particular belief in the nature of Scripture.
It's definitely not that simple...

No particular belief is required to join in the thread, but I've joined in on the basis of my stated assumption. There is no particular requirement to defend stated assumptions either.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Seems awfully complicated, when we could simply say "they believed in demons then, we don't now."
Or we began to see demons as internal (psychological) persecutory forces? Makes sense to me. You can even see them as autonomous, i.e. independent of the ego or self. Of course, this raises lots of other questions as to what 'autonomous' means, but going o/t.

It has the advantage of preserving the idea that these demonic forces are out to get me - I think this can be true.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that "the demonic" actually exists? Do we really need this concept given what abnormal human psychology is quite capable of?
Sorry, I have answered your posts out of sync, but I would say that exorcism has been (considerably) secularized, in that the various psychological treatments, viz., psychiatry, therapy, counselling, and so on, are types of exorcism.

I certainly know therapists who will speak of someone having a demonic force inside them. However, 'demonic' in this context has a different sense really, but it is still quite useful. They can certainly seem unearthly, uncanny, and fucking scary. Think Regan in 'The Exorcist'.

I see horror films in fact as containing useful information about such demonic forces, but of course, with the proviso that they are psychic in nature. But they're still real and autonomous.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
It's always incumbent on someone proposing the existence of something to provide the evidence base for its existence.
Who says it's "always incumbent"?

But even if this rule somehow objectively exists, then it applies equally to the claims of naturalism.

By the way... I have provided "the evidence base", which is the Bible and personal experience. If the evidence of personal experience is interpreted in a purely naturalistic way, then those proposing that interpretation are making a definite and positive claim, and therefore there is a burden of proof on them to substantiate it.

[ 05. February 2014, 15:27: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
The personal experiences you describe are already explicable in terms of known psychology; therefore they don't support the introduction of another otherwise unnecessary entity to explain them. The Bible only demonstrates that the Bible writers believed in them, nothing more.

So far no-one's given me an objective reason to suppose these demons exist; I can't prove they don't, but nor can I prove that pink unicorns don't play in the back of my garden when I'm not looking.
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that "the demonic" actually exists? Do we really need this concept given what abnormal human psychology is quite capable of?
Sorry, I have answered your posts out of sync, but I would say that exorcism has been (considerably) secularized, in that the various psychological treatments, viz., psychiatry, therapy, counselling, and so on, are types of exorcism.

I certainly know therapists who will speak of someone having a demonic force inside them. However, 'demonic' in this context has a different sense really, but it is still quite useful. They can certainly seem unearthly, uncanny, and fucking scary. Think Regan in 'The Exorcist'.

I see horror films in fact as containing useful information about such demonic forces, but of course, with the proviso that they are psychic in nature. But they're still real and autonomous.
Oh aye, but you know and I know that that's not what the traditional understanding of the term "demon" means - it's talking about putative fallen angels now hanging around the place looking for people to control. That's what I'm more than a little sceptical about. According to a lot of people that should make me easy prey for them, and yet I can't recall the last time I growled blasphemies in a strange voice or started screaming on sight of a crucifix.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Yes, which is why most advanced countries have agencies which assess the effectiveness of treatments for various medical conditions. If Conglomerated Pharmcorp wants to distribute a pill they say will fight infection, they have to demonstrate that the pill does, in fact, fight infection. Why do you regard this as an insurmountable problem?
Did I say that the testing of drugs was "an insurmountable problem"??

Of course many problems and conditions - probably 99.9% - are naturally caused, and natural treatments have been successfully tested. I am not against medicine, and nothing I have said has suggested that. It's not a case of "either...or", but sometimes "both...and". If we believe that there is a spiritual dimension to a person's being (as I certainly do), then some problems are spiritual. Of course, an atheist won't accept that, but that doesn't affect my thinking, given that I am under no compulsion to subscribe to the thoroughly unconvincing worldview of naturalism, which attempts to explain everything in entirely physicalist terms.

The idea that there is a chemical, genetic or mechanistic solution to every problem in life stretches credulity to the limit and beyond.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If the evidence of personal experience is interpreted in a purely naturalistic way, then those proposing that interpretation are making a definite and positive claim, and therefore there is a burden of proof on them to substantiate it.
Personal experience is usually "interpreted in a purely naturalistic way" because so few people claim to have supernatural powers. In fact, most of us and most of the people we meet lack discernible supernatural abilities, so that interpretation is, itself, based on personal experience. Couple this with the way many people making supernatural claims about their abilities (e.g. various TV psychics, Peter Popoff, etc.) turn out to be frauds and grifters, so this is not an unreasonable starting position.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider
The personal experiences you describe are already explicable in terms of known psychology...
Please elaborate, with supporting evidence (i.e. evidence not based on conjecture, naturalistic circular arguments or tentative theories).
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Karl wrote:

Oh aye, but you know and I know that that's not what the traditional understanding of the term "demon" means - it's talking about putative fallen angels now hanging around the place looking for people to control. That's what I'm more than a little sceptical about. According to a lot of people that should make me easy prey for them, and yet I can't recall the last time I growled blasphemies in a strange voice or started screaming on sight of a crucifix.

Yes, of course. But that's what I mean when I say that demons, demonic possession and exorcism have been secularized.

The interesting thing about this is that some elements of 'demonic possession' have been preserved; but the supernatural element has been discarded. But I suppose this is a general tendency.

As to fallen angels and so on, I find that uninteresting really.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Personal experience is usually "interpreted in a purely naturalistic way" because so few people claim to have supernatural powers. In fact, most of us and most of the people we meet lack discernible supernatural abilities, so that interpretation is, itself, based on personal experience. Couple this with the way many people making supernatural claims about their abilities (e.g. various TV psychics, Peter Popoff, etc.) turn out to be frauds and grifters, so this is not an unreasonable starting position.
Ahem... some of us don't derive our understanding of the concept of the 'supernatural' from Hollywood, superhero comics and the likes of Uri Geller et al.

Sorry 'bout that.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If the evidence of personal experience is interpreted in a purely naturalistic way, then those proposing that interpretation are making a definite and positive claim, and therefore there is a burden of proof on them to substantiate it.
Personal experience is usually "interpreted in a purely naturalistic way" because so few people claim to have supernatural powers. In fact, most of us and most of the people we meet lack discernible supernatural abilities, so that interpretation is, itself, based on personal experience. Couple this with the way many people making supernatural claims about their abilities (e.g. various TV psychics, Peter Popoff, etc.) turn out to be frauds and grifters, so this is not an unreasonable starting position.
The other problem is that the supernatural seems capricious, precisely because it opts out of a naturalistic method. Once you decide to do that, then there are no limits on possible outcomes, to use the jargon.

Yes, I might be haunted by fallen angels, but it might also be by irritable supernatural jellyfish from a distant planet, or indeed, by qufargges.

How can I tell the difference? Ask them I suppose.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
So far no-one's given me an objective reason to suppose these demons exist; I can't prove they don't, but nor can I prove that pink unicorns don't play in the back of my garden when I'm not looking.
What do you mean by "an objective reason"? The traditional "philosophical" (rather than scriptural) reason would be quite simply that incorporeal sapient spirits are a lot more like God, the Incorporeal Sapient Spirit, than any bodily beings (including us, sapient but corporeal) ever can be. Angels hence make for a harmonious and good creation reflecting God's own Being fully into created being, and their non-existence would leave an obvious gap in the realised possible that would not befit the perfection of a universe made by a perfect God. That such creatures potentially can and in fact did fall, and are called "demons" as a consequence, is a different issue. As would be the question what powers such demons have over humans now. This is rather a kind of aesthetic completeness argument for the existence of angels as such, based on the original good of creation.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Yes, which is why most advanced countries have agencies which assess the effectiveness of treatments for various medical conditions. If Conglomerated Pharmcorp wants to distribute a pill they say will fight infection, they have to demonstrate that the pill does, in fact, fight infection. Why do you regard this as an insurmountable problem?
Did I say that the testing of drugs was "an insurmountable problem"??
The testing of drugs relies solely on naturalistic methods, which you seem to regard as insufficient to prove anything.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ahem... some of us don't derive our understanding of the concept of the 'supernatural' from Hollywood, superhero comics and the likes of Uri Geller et al.
Why not? This isn't a snotty rhetorical question. Once you've accepted the standard that the examination of physical reality is insufficient to demonstrate anything, why not accept Hollywood supernatural thrillers and Peter Popoff at face value? Is it simply a matter of personal preference?

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The traditional "philosophical" (rather than scriptural) reason would be quite simply that incorporeal sapient spirits are a lot more like God, the Incorporeal Sapient Spirit, than any bodily beings (including us, sapient but corporeal) ever can be. Angels hence make for a harmonious and good creation reflecting God's own Being fully into created being, and their non-existence would leave an obvious gap in the realised possible that would not befit the perfection of a universe made by a perfect God. That such creatures potentially can and in fact did fall, and are called "demons" as a consequence, is a different issue. As would be the question what powers such demons have over humans now. This is rather a kind of aesthetic completeness argument for the existence of angels as such, based on the original good of creation.
The same argument could be made for magnetic monopoles. Maxwell's equations practically cry out for their existence, yet despite the æsthetic imperative they don't seem to exist.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The personal experiences you describe are already explicable in terms of known psychology
I'm sure the ancients thought they pretty much had the bases covered with fire, air, earth and water, but that's not what most people believe now. And psychology is not a hard science. It's an interpretive framework with a whole chunk of subjectivity included. For me it works as a toolbox to help understand things, but it doesn't work as an Explanation with a capital E.

[ 05. February 2014, 16:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
The personal experiences you describe are already explicable in terms of known psychology
I'm sure the ancients thought they pretty much had the bases covered with fire, air, earth and water, but that's not what most people believe now. And psychology is not a hard science. It's an interpretive framework with a whole chunk of subjectivity included. For me it works as a toolbox to help understand things, but it doesn't work as an Explanation with a capital E.
That's a very interesting point, and I agree that the various psychological disciplines are basically pragmatic (or 'instrumentalist', to use current jargon), in character. But then science itself does not set out to describe/explain reality; but to make observations about appearances. The rest is philosophy, if you want to go there.

The problem I find with supernatural explanations is that they seem arbitrary or capricious. Is there a method with which to assess them?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The other problem is that the supernatural seems capricious, precisely because it opts out of a naturalistic method. Once you decide to do that, then there are no limits on possible outcomes, to use the jargon. Yes, I might be haunted by fallen angels, but it might also be by irritable supernatural jellyfish from a distant planet, or indeed, by qufargges. How can I tell the difference? Ask them I suppose.
You can tell the difference by asking what these entities are and what they do, as for any other entity.

Can we confuse your proposed entities with angels? No, we cannot. If your "supra-natural jellyfish" are incorporeal spirits, then how would we (or they) tell that they are jellyfish? "Jellyfish" is a designation tied to a specific embodiment. How would we know that they are from "a distant planet"? Angels do not have a birth-"place", since they are not as beings spatially localised. Give more information about those super-natural jellyfish, for example concerning their supposed activities, and we can discuss further how they are similar or different from angels. As for your "qufargges", since all we have on them so far is a name, of course they could be angels. Entities do not change their being and activity due to re-naming by arbitrary sounds. But give us even a bit more information, and we soon will be able to figure out whether they are angels or not.

Fact is, nobody is actually all that confused about proposed supernatural entities. The human ability to categorise entities works just fine. If I tell you: "This angel attacked that girl, bit her neck and sucked out all her blood. He had these really long fangs, see, there are the puncture holes. Then he turned into a bat and flew away. I'm afraid that this angel will return to attack us, so let's find its coffin and ram this stake through the angel's heart." Then presumably you would answer: "That's not an angel you are talking about, that's a vampire." It is a different question how we would prove any specific super-natural activity, and attribute it to the correct entity. But there are limits to how much that matters. For example, if St Augustine was correct in asserting that the Greek gods really were demons pretending to be Greek gods, then this would be of great concerns to the Greeks not because they had their classification patterns wrong; but because Greek gods are capricious and hard to please, but mostly neutral, whereas demons are evil. The revealed intentionality would be the problem, not the actual misclassification.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
science itself does not set out to describe/explain reality; but to make observations about appearances. The rest is philosophy, if you want to go there.
With this I wholly agree, but this is often not how it is portrayed. It was KLB who used the word "explain".

quote:
The problem I find with supernatural explanations is that they seem arbitrary or capricious. Is there a method with which to assess them?
I think this depends largely on what your starting-point is.

My starting-point is the working assumption that the Bible contains the truth. In this context, I take that to mean

1) that demons exist (because Jesus seems to think they did and I find the explanation that he was a prisoner of his culture when addressing metaphysical matters does too much damage to the claim of his divinity)

2) that it offers a number of enduring principles about how they operate and what, if anything, we are supposed to do about them.

I agree this does not rule out all arbitrariness or capriciousness, but I submit that neither does psychology. It is at least easy using point 2) above to shoot down almost all the kinds of whackier report that are offered up as clickbait, movie plots or best-selling christian paperbacks. For instance, the epistle of Jude offers good grounds for not engaging demons in conversation.

While not being obscurantist, I think this starting-point also cultivates a healthy sense of humankind's own limitations: there will always be more out there than we have dreamed of in our philosophy, and we need to bear that in mind.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Eutychus

Your point about psychology is again on the ball, that it is, in some ways, as arbitrary as theism.

Well, 'arbitrary' is not quite the right word, since it's not simply a guess (I think!).

I suppose the key thing in all these fields is the starting point - as you say, if you accept the Bible as somehow indicative of truth or reality, you are on your way.

I am just wondering about the arbitrariness of psychogical ideas - I suppose they are checked against people's experience. Famous example, Freud's early ideas about sexuality were largely dropped by post-Freudians, since observation did not bear them out. But of course, for Freud they were born out - ah, by the dreaded confirmation bias! I suppose most of us see what we want to, and it's partly in the clash with others, (who disagree), that some of the bias maybe erodes. Possibly.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The same argument could be made for magnetic monopoles. Maxwell's equations practically cry out for their existence, yet despite the æsthetic imperative they don't seem to exist.
Well, magnetic monopoles have been (more or less...) demonstrated experimentally to exist as quasi-particles in spin ices, see for example here. That makes them real particles which however cannot exist in vacuum, but rather arise as collective lattice states. If your intention was to draw an analogy from that to God's messengers to humanity perhaps existing as real beings only through this very function of influencing the human community, then I for one find this a highly fascinating theological speculation...
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Ahem... some of us don't derive our understanding of the concept of the 'supernatural' from Hollywood, superhero comics and the likes of Uri Geller et al.
Why not? This isn't a snotty rhetorical question. Once you've accepted the standard that the examination of physical reality is insufficient to demonstrate anything, why not accept Hollywood supernatural thrillers and Peter Popoff at face value? Is it simply a matter of personal preference?
Well, you are assuming that those, who do not subscribe to the naturalistic worldview and its strong empiricist epistemology, have no regard for the limiting effect of reason, and therefore are willing to believe absolutely anything. But this is a fallacy. 'Super'-naturalistic factors - i.e. factors that cannot be reduced to the merely physical - are logically inferred from the fact of human experience (and I use the term 'experience' in the widest sense, within the same category as empirical observation). So the category of supernatural realities or 'powers' would include entities as 'boring' and commonplace as: reason, morality, consciousness and free will, all of which, in my view, cannot be adequately explained within a naturalistical paradigm. I therefore am a being with "supernatural powers" (yes! [Big Grin] ) and so are you.

Sorry Hollywood to burst your bubble...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Sounds a bit like having your naturalistic cake, and eating your supernatural chocolate eclairs as well.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Dunno where the word 'naturalistical' came from in my last post. Naturalistic, of course.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, you are assuming that those, who do not subscribe to the naturalistic worldview and its strong empiricist epistemology, have no regard for the limiting effect of reason, and therefore are willing to believe absolutely anything.
Why not? Once you've ruled out observation as a method of determining anything, what's left?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Where does nature - empirically investigated - provide us with any instruction concerning the allocation of the burden of proof?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But this is a fallacy. 'Super'-naturalistic factors - i.e. factors that cannot be reduced to the merely physical - are logically inferred from the fact of human experience (and I use the term 'experience' in the widest sense, within the same category as empirical observation).
You're going to have to make up your mind about whether observing physical reality can demonstrate anything or not. If there's no such thing as a burden of proof, how is anything proven?

Let's take the already-cited example of Peter Popoff. One explanation of his prophetic abilities is that they were fed to him by an accomplice over a radio receiver. As evidence we've got recordings of intercepted radio messages, a transmitter, a receiver, and note cards detailing how the 'prophetic' information was gathered. The problem with all this (at least from your perspective) is that it relies entirely on what you refer to as "naturalistic claims".

An alternative hypothesis is that all the evidence was conjured into existence by demons hoping to harm Popoff's ministry. (Something Popoff did, in fact, claim.) Sure, if we're dependent on "naturalism" we'd have to reject this as a desperate and self-serving refusal to admit reality, but you've made the claim that there's no reason to privilege naturalistic evidence above supernaturalistic.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
"My dear, here we must run as fast as we can, just to stay in place. And if you wish to go anywhere you must run twice as fast as that."
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
On a journey through a relatively underpopulated part of Newfoundland we listened for a couple of interesting hours to a radio call in show about fairies. The Newfoundland variety of fairies are mean tricksy things who steal your socks and make babies sick and generally upset things fair nasty. Not quite powerful enough to really make things bad, though someone suggested a cancer was fairy caused The guest on the show discussed fairy extermination, repellent and ways of making your home uninviting to these little sprites.

Like country music lyrics or professional wrestling, I have trouble thinking anyone with a sniff of education and sensibility would take this seriously, but then we were cautioned at an outport B&B by the husband that his wife believed in fairies and wanted the second expected child to avoid colic by the rightful practices of whatever it is you do to stop the colic fairies.

So exorcism, well maybe if you maintain a medieval world view. It is the malevolent motivations of the humans that are far more troubling, with the seven deadly sins describing their evil rather neatly.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
no prophet

Well, it's the idea of projection which secularized such ideas, and brought them home, to us.

Maybe this is one of the great shifts in human thinking - away from geocentrism, away from eternal Platonic categories, away from the externalization of good and evil.

"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves".
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Why not? Once you've ruled out observation as a method of determining anything, what's left?
Except I haven't ruled out observation. I said earlier that we make inferences on the basis of the reality of human experience, and that experience includes empirical investigation. No one relies entirely and solely on observation, not even the most extreme empiricists, because some conclusion about the nature of reality has to be drawn from observations, which therefore involves the use of reason. Observation simply consists of a series of sensations, which are utterly meaningless without the organizing function of reason.

Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, why? It is not directly observed, because it occurred billions of years ago. It is inferred on the basis of certain principles applied to data, which have been derived from observation.

I make inferences based on the reality of human experience. Those inferences rule out an entirely naturalistic explanation for absolutely everything. The logic of the way reality works excludes certain explanations.

So in answer to your question: what's left?

Reason.

And it is by means of reason that we expose false prophets etc...
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not prepared to fully rule out something external, remembering oddly several rejected scientific theories that eventually turned out to be validated: plate tectonics, infection by Helicobactor pylor causing stomach ulcers, and flooding creating the scablands in the USA.

That said, the proof would have to rather persuasive.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why not? Once you've ruled out observation as a method of determining anything, what's left?
First, how did you get from an assertion that empirical naturalism is false/insufficient to the claim that observation cannot determine anything? Second, are you now claiming that observation can determine something, strictly speaking? Is Popper not your hero any longer? Third, metaphysics rests on observation to determine the essential structure of the world. I'm glad that you have become so keen on this, and look forward to your forthcoming metaphysical analysis of change and causation in particular. Fourth, of course the scope of reason extends well beyond observation. We can check the validity of argument, its logical composition and internal coherence, test for alternative explanations of the same matter, and for contradiction from other matters, etc. To give a concrete example, reason can determine that your above response to EE was nonsensical without making any observation at all. All that is needed is understanding that "not only X" is not the same as "no X", which is basic logic.

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You're going to have to make up your mind about whether observing physical reality can demonstrate anything or not. If there's no such thing as a burden of proof, how is anything proven?
This is getting really interesting. Please explain how proof is obtained form observing physical reality, in your opinion.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Why not? Once you've ruled out observation as a method of determining anything, what's left?
First, how did you get from an assertion that empirical naturalism is false/insufficient to the claim that observation cannot determine anything?
From claims like this one.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I make inferences based on the reality of human experience. Those inferences rule out an entirely naturalistic explanation for absolutely everything.
If "absolutely everything" is outside the realm of "entirely naturalistic explanation", that leaves literally nothing with a naturalistic explanation.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
If "absolutely everything" is outside the realm of "entirely naturalistic explanation", that leaves literally nothing with a naturalistic explanation.
Sorry, that was my fault, wording the sentence in a pretty crap way.

What I meant was that not everything needs a naturalistic explanation. Of course, many things can be explained in this way.

My bad. [Hot and Hormonal]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
If "absolutely everything" is outside the realm of "entirely naturalistic explanation", that leaves literally nothing with a naturalistic explanation.
Sorry, that was my fault, wording the sentence in a pretty crap way.

What I meant was that not everything needs a naturalistic explanation. Of course, many things can be explained in this way.

My bad. [Hot and Hormonal]
So, going back to the Popoff example, is there any reason to reject the claim that the evidence was the product of malevolent supernatural forces? If so, why in this case but not others? If not, couldn't anything be 'explained' this way?
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
<cross-post with EE withdrawing, I won't withdraw my withdrawing because of that though... [Biased] >

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If "absolutely everything" is outside the realm of "entirely naturalistic explanation", that leaves literally nothing with a naturalistic explanation.
Fair enough, I withdraw on this point. EE is clearly confused. Of course plenty of things have an entirely naturalistic explanation, if one respects the proper scope of such a statement. (Yes, human understanding is required to arrive at any explanation, but that's not what this statement is about. Yes, all things ultimately rely on the super-nature that is God, but that's not what this statement is about.)

[ 05. February 2014, 19:39: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
So, going back to the Popoff example, is there any reason to reject the claim that the evidence was the product of malevolent supernatural forces? If so, why in this case but not others? If not, couldn't anything be 'explained' this way?
We assess every claim on the basis of reason. You seem to take the view that if a claim does not conform to the demands of a particular philosophy, namely, the philosophy of naturalism, then it cannot be assessed with reference to evidence and reason. In other words, you are guilty of special pleading on behalf of naturalism.

If the observational evidence - which is organized by means of reason - refutes the claims of any self-proclaimed psychic or prophet, then so be it. But that does not mean that all events, that cannot be reduced to an entirely physicalist explanation, must be dismissed as bogus. That is a non sequitur.

Given that the philosophy of naturalism is, in itself, metaphysical, and therefore, in the broadest sense, 'super'-natural (i.e. it is not derived empirically from nature, but is imposed on our study of nature - it is an intellectual construct imposed by man from above), then it is absurd to appeal to such a paradigm to make the kind of claims you are making about supernaturalism. There is nothing in the observation of nature which rules out the existence of dimensions of reality beyond empirical detection. In fact, doesn't science postulate such dimensions, hence, for example, Hawking's claim that the normal laws of nature (on which naturalism is based) did not operate in the first instances of the Big Bang? And this is claimed in order to assert a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe. This is an instance of naturalism sawing off the branch on which it sits, and this contradiction rather suggests that there is far more to reality than that which is neatly explained by naturalism.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
So, going back to the Popoff example, is there any reason to reject the claim that the evidence was the product of malevolent supernatural forces? If so, why in this case but not others? If not, couldn't anything be 'explained' this way?
If the observational evidence - which is organized by means of reason - refutes the claims of any self-proclaimed psychic or prophet, then so be it. But that does not mean that all events, that cannot be reduced to an entirely physicalist explanation, must be dismissed as bogus. That is a non sequitur.
Which is neither what I'm arguing nor the question I'm asking. Given the two rival explanations of the evidence against Popoff, namely:

  1. Popoff was caught fraudulently using technology to fake prophecies
    -or-
  2. The evidence against Popoff was conjured into existence by malevolent supernatural entities bent on discrediting his ministry

is there any reason to prefer explanation #1 over explanation #2?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Popoff was caught fraudulently using technology to fake prophecies

-or-

The evidence against Popoff was conjured into existence by malevolent supernatural entities bent on discrediting his ministry

is there any reason to prefer explanation #1 over explanation #2?
Of course, explanation #1 is correct and explanation #2 is ridiculous. This is entirely in keeping with what I have been saying, namely, that we draw conclusions based on evidence and reason.

What is the point you are trying to make here? Are you suggesting that Christians simply appeal to demonic influence as a way of avoiding evidence?

Maybe some Christians do that, but it is certainly not what I am advocating.

The fact is that it is irrelevant to the discussion. It is fallacious to argue that something does not exist because there are people who appeal to it to draw ridiculous conclusions. Should we doubt the existence of the stars, because of the claims of astrology, for example? Or should we argue that God does not exist on the basis that some people appeal to him to justify suicide bombings?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Popoff was caught fraudulently using technology to fake prophecies

-or-

The evidence against Popoff was conjured into existence by malevolent supernatural entities bent on discrediting his ministry

is there any reason to prefer explanation #1 over explanation #2?
Of course, explanation #1 is correct and explanation #2 is ridiculous. This is entirely in keeping with what I have been saying, namely, that we draw conclusions based on evidence and reason.

What is the point you are trying to make here? Are you suggesting that Christians simply appeal to demonic influence as a way of avoiding evidence?
I'm trying to determine the criteria by which you determine that one assertion of demonic activity is "ridiculous" while others are "worthy of serious investigation". There doesn't seem to be any real standard other than a kind of "Devil of the Gaps".
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
I'm trying to determine the criteria by which you determine that one assertion of demonic activity is "ridiculous" while others are "worthy of serious investigation". There doesn't seem to be any real standard other than a kind of "Devil of the Gaps".
There are many "xxxxx of the gaps" explanations, including, I must stress, "naturalism of the gaps".

It is hopeless trying to build an understanding of any topic on the wrong foundation. Any explanation with reference to supernatural agency is, by definition, absurd to one who subscribes to philosophical naturalism. So if you are expecting some kind of empirical rule of thumb by which this diagnosis can be made, you will be disappointed for the reason I have given. A doctor who investigates an illness and declares from the outset that he will never consider a particular diagnosis, cannot then ask others to lay out the criteria by which such a diagnosis can be made. For him there are no criteria, and he is a fool who tries to reason with such a doctor.

All I can say is that I believe - indeed I will go so far as to say that I know - that God is real, and He works in our lives through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives discernment in many difficult situations, and sometimes the presence of evil is detected in certain people and places, and things happen which defy normal explanation. The Bible gives insight into this, and it is clear that the Word of God gives us permission to consider the activity of evil spirits. The naturalistic explanation for moral depravity, based as it must be on behavioural, environmental and genetic criteria, simply does not do justice to the reality being encountered.

I don't expect you to accept this explanation, but as a naturalistic thinker you are never going to accept it anyway. But since you asked the question, I have answered it.
 
Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :
 
This discussion seems to be polarised between the liberal rationalists (I count myself as one) and the those who appear believe in the literal truth of the bible.

Our understanding of mental illness has come a long way since the time of Christ. I am sure we can all agree that for people at that time, the symptoms of mental illness could only be explained as possession by demons. To that extent, the bible is literally true for the people of the time when it was written. But just as we no longer believe that God created the world in seven days, so we no longer believe that the behaviours shown by people with disorders of the mind are caused by demons.

But how you describe the illness does not detract from the fact that there are cases, both in modern times as well as at the time of Christ, where people have been healed by some means which is not understood by modern medicine.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
I'm trying to determine the criteria by which you determine that one assertion of demonic activity is "ridiculous" while others are "worthy of serious investigation". There doesn't seem to be any real standard other than a kind of "Devil of the Gaps".
It is hopeless trying to build an understanding of any topic on the wrong foundation. Any explanation with reference to supernatural agency is, by definition, absurd to one who subscribes to philosophical naturalism. So if you are expecting some kind of empirical rule of thumb by which this diagnosis can be made, you will be disappointed for the reason I have given.
You haven't given one a reason, just a bare assertion. I accept that you believe in evil spirits, and I further accept that you don't believe evil spirits are responsible for framing Peter Popoff. However you haven't explained why you believe that is the case. Is such a feat beyond their ability? Contrary to their usual behavior? Popoff protected by counteracting good spirits? There are many possible reasons for ruling out demonic intervention, but you haven't given any. Just the bare assertion that you have ruled it out.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
All I can say is that I believe - indeed I will go so far as to say that I know - that God is real, and He works in our lives through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit gives discernment in many difficult situations, and sometimes the presence of evil is detected in certain people and places, and things happen which defy normal explanation. The Bible gives insight into this, and it is clear that the Word of God gives us permission to consider the activity of evil spirits. The naturalistic explanation for moral depravity, based as it must be on behavioural, environmental and genetic criteria, simply does not do justice to the reality being encountered.

I don't expect you to accept this explanation, but as a naturalistic thinker you are never going to accept it anyway. But since you asked the question, I have answered it.
It's not an explanation or an answer, it's a manifesto. You've asserted your belief that demons act in the world, and that you always "consider the activity of evil spirits" as a possibility when assessing a situation, but you've given no reason as to why you consider this an unsatisfactory explanation for the evidence that Peter Popoff was/is a fake.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So if you are expecting some kind of empirical rule of thumb by which this diagnosis can be made, you will be disappointed for the reason I have given. A doctor who investigates an illness and declares from the outset that he will never consider a particular diagnosis, cannot then ask others to lay out the criteria by which such a diagnosis can be made. For him there are no criteria, and he is a fool who tries to reason with such a doctor.
Let's play with this metaphor a little. Suppose a doctor declares from the outset that he won't accept a diagnosis of "imbalance of the bodily humors" as valid. His colleague replies that it is obvious that this particular patient suffers from an overabundance of black bile. You seem to contend that not only is there no way for the humorist doctor to convince his skeptical counterpart that his diagnosis is correct (which I agree with), but that there is also no way he can explain how he reached his diagnosis? It's that last bit I disagree with. The humor-skeptic may not agree that the patient's melancholy is caused by a black bile surplus, but he can comprehend the standard which is being applied.
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There are many "xxxxx of the gaps" explanations, including, I must stress, "naturalism of the gaps".
Actually, it's an 'inverse naturalism of the gaps' - as the scope of naturalism has tended to extend over time.

I would tend to agree with much of what you say - but I don't think the various *** of the gaps explanations are entirely similar.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Let's play with this metaphor a little. Suppose a doctor declares from the outset that he won't accept a diagnosis of "imbalance of the bodily humors" as valid. His colleague replies that it is obvious that this particular patient suffers from an overabundance of black bile. You seem to contend that not only is there no way for the humorist doctor to convince his skeptical counterpart that his diagnosis is correct (which I agree with), but that there is also no way he can explain how he reached his diagnosis? It's that last bit I disagree with. The humor-skeptic may not agree that the patient's melancholy is caused by a black bile surplus, but he can comprehend the standard which is being applied.
I don't really know where you got this idea from that I contend that there is no way that he can explain how he reached his diagnosis. I thought I had already explained this in my last post: there is spiritual discernment given by the Holy Spirit, which is the method by which the spiritual basis of evil is detected. What I think you saw in my post was the idea that there is no way I can explain by naturalistic means how to discern demonic activity. If that is the case, you have a point, but as I have been at pains to point out, the philosophy of naturalism is not the be-all and end-all of our knowledge of reality.

I am explaining how Christians come to the demon diagnosis. I am under no illusion that this will make any difference to the thinking of someone committed to philosophical naturalism.

But let's consider the occurrence of a very great evil: for example, a parent who systematically tortures and then murders his young child (as has sadly happened in my country many times). I may believe that such a parent could not have done this unless he had been under the influence of an evil spirit. That is a theory. The philosophical naturalist would have his theory, which would have to be limited to natural factors, such as environment, upbringing and genetics. The latter theory may seem more credible to many people than the former, but I would suggest that it is just as outlandish (in fact, even more so) than the evil spirit theory. The naturalistic theory is at least as speculative as the spiritual theory. There is absolutely no way that anyone could prove that such unspeakable evil could be the direct result of merely natural factors.

So we are all faced with a mystery. I try to make sense of this mystery in accordance with my worldview, and you presumably do the same within your view of reality.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You haven't given one a reason, just a bare assertion. I accept that you believe in evil spirits, and I further accept that you don't believe evil spirits are responsible for framing Peter Popoff. However you haven't explained why you believe that is the case. Is such a feat beyond their ability? Contrary to their usual behavior? Popoff protected by counteracting good spirits? There are many possible reasons for ruling out demonic intervention, but you haven't given any. Just the bare assertion that you have ruled it out.
I'm not EE, but if I may... If I find one morning that my cereal is gone, I assume that this is because I have eaten it all up and need to buy new cereal. I do not assume that my wife sneaked into the kitchen at night to pour out all the remaining cereal into the garbage can. Why do I not assume the latter? Is she not capable of doing this? She most certainly is physically capable of doing it, it is in her power. But it would be too far out of her character for me to consider this possibility seriously, in particular since such an easy alternative explanation - that I just munched through it all - is readily available. I may revise this judgement if I note that she gets up at night, that there is lots of cereal in the garbage bin, or if I see other evidence that makes such odd behaviour more likely.

However, if you were to press me hard on how exactly I know what my wife would and wouldn't do, it would get vague and foggy rather quickly. People are complicated entities, and the predictive models we maintain for them in our heads are not exactly powered by mathematical laws of physics. In fact, a lot of this surely is sub-rational "gut knowledge". That doesn't mean it is wrong or stupid though. But if we wanted to formalize it, then it would be more like some incredibly advanced classifier operating online on big data; it would not be a neat and tidy PDE.

Back to the demons then. They are, basically, like people, and for most of us more like people we have heard of through rumors and perhaps observed in brief instances than with whom we have lived for a long time. So it's more like me trying to predict what the strange neighbour down the road everybody is talking about might do. Admittedly, my predictive abilities will be rather limited then. But once more, if I find my cereal gone, I will not immediately assume that this strange neighbour broke into our house to steal my cereal. That is still a lot less likely than that I ate it all up myself.

So if a guy is caught doing what very much looks like cheating, then probably he was cheating and not being framed by demons. That is supported strongly by my extensive knowledge about what other human beings are like, and mildly by my shaky knowledge about what demons are like. There is no way for me to construct some empirical "proof" for this, but then this is true for most of my interactions with people (and even other complicated things, like animals or stock markets). Yet that does not mean that me following my "gut" on this is irrational. My mind is to a very large degree "designed" (by evolution, if you wish) to deliver highly accurate predictions and action plans about ill-determined complex situations. We call this living our lives...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There is a practical point to make about people who commit evil deeds - I would be wary about giving them an exorcism.

I haven't worked with murderers, but I have worked with a variety of borderline and rather crazy people, who are destructive, self-destructive, sadistic, violent, and so on.

I would think that an exorcism might be one of the worst things you could give to them, since they are people who can be easily unhinged, or can react irrationally or wildly.

So I am not talking about the truth about evil spirits, but the practical approach to evil people, if you want to call them that.

I'm not saying either that all psychiatric and psychological approaches are correct.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
I have worked/ministered alongside all these categories of people and wholeheartedly agree with your entire post.

I hate to say it, but I think John Wimber had a good rule of thumb: if someone thinks they are demonised, chances are they aren't.

And my belief in demons certainly doesn't excuse personal responsibility.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I was just remembering with some amusement, various clients who would have been delighted to take part in an exorcism, and in fact, would have been delighted to be told they had a demon inside them. The melodrama of it! One problem is that they would have played up to it no end.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I was chatting to my wife about this, and she made the important point that many people come to counselling and therapy already convinced that they are bad or evil. The last thing they need is to have a professional talk about evil spirits - in fact, this is psychological abuse.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But let's consider the occurrence of a very great evil: for example, a parent who systematically tortures and then murders his young child (as has sadly happened in my country many times).
Okay, if you insist. Let's consider this one.

quote:
Police have now charged two women with murder in the deaths of two children in Germantown and say the defendants were attempting to perform an exorcism.

On Saturday morning, the childrens' mother, Zakieya Latrice Avery, 28, was charged. Monifa Denise Sanford, age 21, was arrested and charged after she was released from the hospital.

On Friday, Montgomery County police officers responded to the 19000 block of Cherry Bend Drive where they discovered four children had been assaulted. Two of the children were pronounced dead on scene and the other two were transported to an area hospital.

Avery and Sanford have both been charged with two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Zyana Z. Harris, 2, and Norell N. Harris, 1, and two counts of attempted first-degree murder of the other two children, Taniya Harris, 5, and Martello Harris, 8, who both remain hospitalized.
So are we to assume that the children were, in fact, possessed by demons? They would seem to fit your criteria in that a Christian used her Spirit-sense (or whatever you call it) to "discern" the demonic presence. On the other hand you seem to be arguing that the fact that Ms. Avery murdered her children (a naturalistic determination, BTW) is evidence that she is the one possessed. Or does it not count as murder if the victim is possessed?

So either at least one of you is wrong in your "discernment" of demonic possession, or you're both right and this was a case of demon-on-demon violence.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I may believe that such a parent could not have done this unless he had been under the influence of an evil spirit. That is a theory. The philosophical naturalist would have his theory, which would have to be limited to natural factors, such as environment, upbringing and genetics. The latter theory may seem more credible to many people than the former, but I would suggest that it is just as outlandish (in fact, even more so) than the evil spirit theory. The naturalistic theory is at least as speculative as the spiritual theory. There is absolutely no way that anyone could prove that such unspeakable evil could be the direct result of merely natural factors.
The obvious answer is that the fact that it happened demonstrates that it can happen, and seems to be the result of a confluence of natural factors, such as the sharpness of knives and the relative fragility of the circulatory system of the typical toddler.

I can naturally see the attraction of the "no human being could possibly be that evil" position. Most of us are humans ourselves and take comfort from thinking of ourselves as good beings incapable of evil on the level you describe. But this kind of Flip Wilson theology ("the Devil made me do it") seems to special plead away most of human history.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was chatting to my wife about this, and she made the important point that many people come to counselling and therapy already convinced that they are bad or evil. The last thing they need is to have a professional talk about evil spirits - in fact, this is psychological abuse.
That's quite an accusation to level at Jesus though isn't it? Even indirectly. Unless Jesus gets special dispensation as a mere amateur of course.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was chatting to my wife about this, and she made the important point that many people come to counselling and therapy already convinced that they are bad or evil. The last thing they need is to have a professional talk about evil spirits - in fact, this is psychological abuse.
That's quite an accusation to level at Jesus though isn't it? Even indirectly. Unless Jesus gets special dispensation as a mere amateur of course.
Well, I wasn't really seeing Jesus as a professional counsellor, working in a professional environment.

I would say, autres temps, autres moeurs. Different times, different customs.

I would think many church workers would be careful today not to assert to somebody going through a bad time, that they are demonically possessed, wouldn't they? I certainly hope so.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
So are we to assume that the children were, in fact, possessed by demons? They would seem to fit your criteria in that a Christian used her Spirit-sense (or whatever you call it) to "discern" the demonic presence. On the other hand you seem to be arguing that the fact that Ms. Avery murdered her children (a naturalistic determination, BTW) is evidence that she is the one possessed. Or does it not count as murder if the victim is possessed?

So either at least one of you is wrong in your "discernment" of demonic possession, or you're both right and this was a case of demon-on-demon violence.
Well, on the basis of this type of argument, I assume you will acknowledge that atheism is a load of rubbish, thanks to the evil acts of some of those who championed it. A certain "Uncle Joe" springs to mind.

You must surely know that "the argument from the evil acts of those who espouse a certain point of view" is a tired, old and ultimately futile approach, given that it can be applied to any belief system.

Heck, there are even people in this world who think that the United States of America exists, but they must surely be wrong, because some of them do some truly terrible things...

quote:
The obvious answer is that the fact that it happened demonstrates that it can happen, and seems to be the result of a confluence of natural factors, such as the sharpness of knives and the relative fragility of the circulatory system of the typical toddler.
Thank you. Your answer demonstrates that the action of fingers on a keyboard can produce pixels on a computer screen. I always wanted to know that.

And your point is?

quote:
I can naturally see the attraction of the "no human being could possibly be that evil" position. Most of us are humans ourselves and take comfort from thinking of ourselves as good beings incapable of evil on the level you describe. But this kind of Flip Wilson theology ("the Devil made me do it") seems to special plead away most of human history.
Thanks for as good as admitting that naturalism has no explanation for the reality of evil.

I thought as much...
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You must surely know that "the argument from the evil acts of those who espouse a certain point of view" is a tired, old and ultimately futile approach, given that it can be applied to any belief system.
That's not what I'm arguing. I'm questioning the contradiction between the two criteria you advanced, one which would indicate this was a good act (exorcising ostensibly demon-possessed children) and one which posits it to be an act so evil you claim it's beyond human capability to commit (parents murdering their children).

Quite frankly, if we accept the premise you've offered (demons exist, can be recognized by Christians, and should be exorcised), doesn't that mean Ms. Avery's actions are justified?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
The obvious answer is that the fact that it happened demonstrates that it can happen, and seems to be the result of a confluence of natural factors, such as the sharpness of knives and the relative fragility of the circulatory system of the typical toddler.
Thank you. Your answer demonstrates that the action of fingers on a keyboard can produce pixels on a computer screen. I always wanted to know that.

And your point is?
That you're trying claim that people don't murder or abuse their kids when there's a mountain of evidence to the contrary. That the only plausible explanation for such actions is demonic possession, not that some people are just total bastards.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
"Naturalism has no explanation for evil." (EE).

Hmm, could that be because naturalism does not describe evil? For example, in most of the psychological disciplines, I doubt if 'evil' figures as a diagnostic category.

In some way, that tells us something important about these disciplines - that they have secularized processes such as confession, and have stripped out moral condemnation (and approbation). The aim of a counsellor or therapist is not to improve someone morally.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Quite frankly, if we accept the premise you've offered (demons exist, can be recognized by Christians, and should be exorcised), doesn't that mean Ms. Avery's actions are justified?
Not at all. It is absurd to argue that just because someone calls him- or herself a Christian, God is then automatically a tool in their pocket, which can be used under their control, quite irrespective of their moral condition.

Believing that you are exorcising demons does not mean that you are. It's a work of God, not a work of man. I believe in the influence of evil spirits, but I have never been led by God to get involved in an exorcism. And likewise, just believing in the possibility of demon possession and then deciding to cast out a demon (in a violent way which is utterly unbiblical, since Jesus never did it like that) does not make it real or valid.

You seem to take the view that we should cast doubt on the legitimacy of something if it is abused or leads to negative consequences. Or if I acknowledge that a legitimate practice can be abused, you then complain that there is no way to differentiate between the true and the false. From a naturalistic point of view there is no way to discern the difference, because we are not dealing with a natural reality here, but a spiritual reality.

Of course, you could argue that the lack of demonstration of this practice to the satisfaction of any person - Christian or otherwise - simply undermines its credibility. Of course it does - in the mind of the naturalistic thinker! But I am under no illusion that I could ever convince a naturalistically minded person that this practice is valid. In fact, if I could achieve that, and that person remained naturalistically minded, I would seriously wonder what I had done wrong! I am simply explaining why many Christians believe in the validity of the deliverance ministry.

If perhaps you are trying to convince me that I should give up my 'delusion' (as I am sure you see it) and embrace naturalistic explanations for the reality of evil, then do please provide the evidence that should convince me. I have never yet seen such compelling evidence. For example, which drug cures violent psychopathy?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
"Naturalism has no explanation for evil." (EE).

Hmm, could that be because naturalism does not describe evil? For example, in most of the psychological disciplines, I doubt if 'evil' figures as a diagnostic category.

In some way, that tells us something important about these disciplines - that they have secularized processes such as confession, and have stripped out moral condemnation (and approbation). The aim of a counsellor or therapist is not to improve someone morally.
I am not sure whether you agree with me that naturalism is limited in its description of reality, or whether you believe that it is not, and therefore evil is an illusion.

Perhaps you may like to clarify that point.

If evil is an illusion, then I wonder why 80%+ of our secular news directly involves moral issues. It seems rather strange that the world should exercise itself so much over something entirely false!

[ 06. February 2014, 17:52: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Quite frankly, if we accept the premise you've offered (demons exist, can be recognized by Christians, and should be exorcised), doesn't that mean Ms. Avery's actions are justified?
Not at all. It is absurd to argue that just because someone calls him- or herself a Christian, God is then automatically a tool in their pocket, which can be used under their control, quite irrespective of their moral condition.
Maybe you should try explaining all those qualifiers to this guy.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I don't really know where you got this idea from that I contend that there is no way that he can explain how he reached his diagnosis. I thought I had already explained this in my last post: there is spiritual discernment given by the Holy Spirit, which is the method by which the spiritual basis of evil is detected.
So Christians get spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit, except when they don't, which has something to do with their "moral condition". I'm guessing "moral condition" is something else which you can decide via "discernment" as well?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Believing that you are exorcising demons does not mean that you are.
Doesn't mean you're not either, according to you. If "exorcising demons" is a valid thing, how would we determine whether or not that is what Ms. Avery was doing?

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You seem to take the view that we should cast doubt on the legitimacy of something if it is abused or leads to negative consequences. Or if I acknowledge that a legitimate practice can be abused, you then complain that there is no way to differentiate between the true and the false.
Isn't that last bit a legitimate concern, especially given your premises? For example, you seem to have reached the conclusion that Ms. Avery wasn't really exorcising demons from her children (however ineptly). Why should we take your word over hers? Or hers over yours, for that matter?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Why should we take your word over hers? Or hers over yours, for that matter?
Who are 'we' in this context?

Atheists? All and sundry?

If you have already decided that there is no God and no spiritual reality, then what Ms Avery says or what I say makes no difference to your opinion anyway.

I have given you the factor which decides which is the true practice and which is not. That factor is God Himself. But it seems rather daft for those who do not even believe in this arbiter, to demand to be convinced. As I said in an earlier post: you cannot build on a false foundation. You demand naturalistic evidence for a spiritual phenomenon. That, of course, is an irrational demand.

quote:
So Christians get spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit, except when they don't, which has something to do with their "moral condition".
Correct.

quote:
I'm guessing "moral condition" is something else which you can decide via "discernment" as well?
Yep, the kind of discernment even atheists use to make moral judgments. I tend to think that most people would regard Ms Avery's actions as morally suspect, given the result.

Those who live in rebellion against a moral God can't expect much cooperation from Him. I would have thought that was pretty obvious.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Why should we take your word over hers? Or hers over yours, for that matter?
Who are 'we' in this context?

Atheists? All and sundry?
All and sundry. Or at least the sundry that read this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I have given you the factor which decides which is the true practice and which is not. That factor is God Himself.

<snip>

I tend to think that most people would regard Ms Avery's actions as morally suspect, given the result.
Most people would, but not you apparently. You maintain that people are unable to tell what's a "true practice" of exorcism and what isn't. Only God can decide such things, so I guess you're rather upset about the Montgomery County Police Department trespassing in God's domain. In any case harping on naturalistic things like "results" (double homicide) is the wrong way to look at these situations, according to your analysis.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
"Naturalism has no explanation for evil." (EE).

Hmm, could that be because naturalism does not describe evil? For example, in most of the psychological disciplines, I doubt if 'evil' figures as a diagnostic category.

In some way, that tells us something important about these disciplines - that they have secularized processes such as confession, and have stripped out moral condemnation (and approbation). The aim of a counsellor or therapist is not to improve someone morally.
I am not sure whether you agree with me that naturalism is limited in its description of reality, or whether you believe that it is not, and therefore evil is an illusion.

Perhaps you may like to clarify that point.

If evil is an illusion, then I wonder why 80%+ of our secular news directly involves moral issues. It seems rather strange that the world should exercise itself so much over something entirely false!
I don't see morality as an illusion. But clearly naturalistic philosophy has generally stated that moral judgments or normative statements cannot be described in naturalistic terms.

The most famous expression of this is Hume's ought/is problem, or in crude terms, how can you derive an ought from an is? Hume concluded that this was impossible.

This was echoed in G. E. Moore's notion of the naturalistic fallacy, which again in crude terms, argued that moral properties cannot be equated with natural properties.

Of course, these arguments have been disputed also, see for example, Sam Harris's book 'The Moral Landscape', which has however been criticized rather fiercely.

But these arguments don't render morality an illusion; but they do seem to render it subjective, unless that is, one sets out a kind of objectively based morality, as theism often attempts to do.

But the psychological disciplines are of interest in this regard, as they have generally eschewed moral issues, at least in the traditional sense. Well, there is some kind of moral dimension to this work, but it's not about a moral crusade.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Here's my analysis. Mrs Avery is quite clearly a hateful nut-job from some weird tin-pot African deliverance cult. You average Diocesan exorcist isn't, and this will be very clearly shown by comparing and contrasting their theology and praxis.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's my analysis. Mrs Avery is quite clearly a hateful nut-job from some weird tin-pot African deliverance cult. You average Diocesan exorcist isn't, and this will be very clearly shown by comparing and contrasting their theology and praxis.
But there are all kinds of people around doing exorcisms, aren't there? They're not all from African deliverance cults, as far as I can see.

Doesn't the idea of demonic possession potentially run the risk of demonizing mental illness, and making things worse?
 
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on :
 
Glad to see Barnabas62 throwing his sensible hat in here. I haven't had time to read the rest of the thread yet, so please excuse me if what comes now has already been said.

For anyone who (like me, once upon a time) regarded exorcisms as the preserve of the almost criminally insane, I would recommend F.Scott Peck's "The People Of the Lie." I resisted going anywhere near this because of the crazy spoiler blurb which gave a totally erroneous picture of this very good man. He makes it very clear how difficult the process of exorcism can be for everyone concerned, and his account should deter anyone who thinks a DIY exorcism is as easy as buying MDF from B&Q.

I didn't agree with everything he said, but he successfully challenged many of my misinformed preconceptions. As for exorcism on-line, all I can say is I bet it's very profitable - and I hope my remarks above convince you that I'm not a cynic.

[Edited to correct "sinsible" to "sensible" [Devil] ]

[ 07. February 2014, 16:46: Message edited by: pimple ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's my analysis. Mrs Avery is quite clearly a hateful nut-job from some weird tin-pot African deliverance cult. You average Diocesan exorcist isn't, and this will be very clearly shown by comparing and contrasting their theology and praxis.
But there are all kinds of people around doing exorcisms, aren't there? They're not all from African deliverance cults, as far as I can see.

Doesn't the idea of demonic possession potentially run the risk of demonizing mental illness, and making things worse?
There are all kinds of people selling burgers too. It doesn't take genius to work out that GBK makes a better burger than Grotty Jonnie's Burger Van. It's called discernment.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Most people would, but not you apparently. You maintain that people are unable to tell what's a "true practice" of exorcism and what isn't. Only God can decide such things, so I guess you're rather upset about the Montgomery County Police Department trespassing in God's domain. In any case harping on naturalistic things like "results" (double homicide) is the wrong way to look at these situations, according to your analysis.
You, yet again, have misunderstood what I have been saying, as I certainly do not accept the validity of Ms Avery's approach. You have conjured an accusation against me out of thin air without any evidence whatsoever. We can see that she was wrong by the effect of her actions, and there is nothing in the Bible to justify a violent method of deliverance.

As for your comment about the Police Department, well, words fail me. Where you got that idea from beggars belief, as it suggests that I don't care about the prosecution of criminals.

You seem to take the view that if someone believes something to be true and then acts on it in such a way as to cause harm, then that suggests that the thing believed is not true. This is, of course, fallacious thinking, and taken to its logical conclusion would actually mean that the philosophy of naturalism is not true, given that Stalin, for example, believed it and applied it to the great cost of many people.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Here's my analysis. Mrs Avery is quite clearly a hateful nut-job from some weird tin-pot African deliverance cult. You average Diocesan exorcist isn't, and this will be very clearly shown by comparing and contrasting their theology and praxis.
But there are all kinds of people around doing exorcisms, aren't there? They're not all from African deliverance cults, as far as I can see.

Doesn't the idea of demonic possession potentially run the risk of demonizing mental illness, and making things worse?
There are all kinds of people selling burgers too. It doesn't take genius to work out that GBK makes a better burger than Grotty Jonnie's Burger Van. It's called discernment.
But if you someone is in a bad way, are you expecting them to be able to discern an authentic exorcist from a duff one? How would they be able to do that?

I'm just curious as to how you can discern that someone is correctly identifying evils spirits in someone, and is casting them out. Are there a set of criteria that are used to make this discernment, or is it a gut feeling?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Sorry, that should be, 'But if someone is in a bad way ...'
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I'm just curious as to how you can discern that someone is correctly identifying evils spirits in someone, and is casting them out. Are there a set of criteria that are used to make this discernment, or is it a gut feeling?
No, it is not a gut feeling, but spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit.

If someone doesn't believe in the reality and work of the Holy Spirit, then obviously this answer would make no sense to him. So the real question is: do we actually believe that God - and therefore the Holy Spirit - is real, or not? And if real, then do we believe that He works in our lives by, among other things, giving us spiritual discernment?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I'm just curious as to how you can discern that someone is correctly identifying evils spirits in someone, and is casting them out. Are there a set of criteria that are used to make this discernment, or is it a gut feeling?
No, it is not a gut feeling, but spiritual discernment from the Holy Spirit.

If someone doesn't believe in the reality and work of the Holy Spirit, then obviously this answer would make no sense to him. So the real question is: do we actually believe that God - and therefore the Holy Spirit - is real, or not? And if real, then do we believe that He works in our lives by, among other things, giving us spiritual discernment?
Well, you seem to be conflating belief in God with belief in evil spirits and demonic possession, as if one involves the other. I suppose that is an orthodox Christian position?

So if someone believes in God, they will also believe that God will equip them with the ability to discern evil spirits.

I suppose the worrying thing there for me, is the existence of mental illness. Does God give you the ability to distinguish that from demonic possession?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I suppose the worrying thing there for me, is the existence of mental illness. Does God give you the ability to distinguish that from demonic possession?
Why not? He is the God of all truth, who leads us into the truth.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Well, you seem to be conflating belief in God with belief in evil spirits and demonic possession, as if one involves the other.
I must say that that is a rather perplexing and incoherent response to my comment.

If God says that there are evil spirits and He will give discernment concerning them, then how is that "conflating belief in God with belief in evil spirits and demonic possession"?

It's a bit like saying that if we should assert that the best tool to use to find certain types of buried treasure is a metal detector, that is "conflating belief in metal detectors with belief in buried treasure".

[Confused]
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
I suppose the worrying thing there for me, is the existence of mental illness. Does God give you the ability to distinguish that from demonic possession?
Why not? He is the God of all truth, who leads us into the truth.
Well, it's just that I trained for about 5 years, and had to do supervision for the next 30, in order to be able to work with people who are suffering from some sort of mental disturbance or illness. I suppose I could have not bothered and trusted to God instead!
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Cautiously sticking a toe in--I think in some ways it does come down to a gut feeling (what I suspect is actually from the Holy Spirit instead), but of course any "feeling" has to be checked six ways from Sunday, preferably with several professionals, before acting on it. Still, I do know that there appears to be a different "smell" about purely human evil than about something where other stuff is active. (the case I'm thinking of is one where I was describing a murderous situation--one where the murder (thankfully) never did occur, but we came way too close for comfort; the shrink I was describing it to asked me if I was saying X was possessed? and without even pausing, I said immediately, "Oh no, it smells purely human" though dreadfully evil, of course. That did in the end turn out to involve a psychotic break, and the person was cured.)
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl
Well, it's just that I trained for about 5 years, and had to do supervision for the next 30, in order to be able to work with people who are suffering from some sort of mental disturbance or illness. I suppose I could have not bothered and trusted to God instead!
So I assume that you think that God subverts the human mind and disciplined study, yes?

If so, that is certainly not a view I share.

And can I assume that demons are not allowed to exist, on the basis that their presence and activity undermines your career?

Nowhere have I suggested that the deliverance ministry is a simple solution to the problem of mental illness. If it were, there would be no need for discernment.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0