Hello Eddie!
Do not count me in this college educated group. I am a BA in German Studies, History as well as Philosophy and MA in Biblical Studies; however, I take the Bible quite seriously.
You are right.
One point I was making was that many miraculous events during Jesus’ ministry can be subjected to a whole range of haphazard why-questions which are not easy to answer straightforwardly. I don’t believe such objections are a good basis for rejecting the eyewitness accounts of the Gospel writers. I just don’t see any consistency in your approach of rejecting this particular eyewitness account of Legion (and the huge collection of other biblical accounts that involve bad spirits), just because you find them hard to understand.
In general, I find two objectionable ways of reasoning in your replies (which others such as @Dr.Ex-YEC and @OldTimer have also pointed out) :
(1) “It is hard to understand why collection of events X happened in such a way. Therefore I don’t believe collection of events X happened in such a way.”
(2) “People did harmful things by incorrectly applying belief Y. Therefore belief Y must be false.”
Wouldn’t you agree that pretty much the same type of arguments are used by atheists AND YECs? Atheists fill in for event X = the biblical accounts, for belief Y they fill in Christianity. YECs fill in for collection of events X = deep time + evolution. In belief Y they fill in evolutionism.
So combining these two strategies (1) and (2), you have a magic formula for denying anything you don’t want to accept. Not very useful if your goal is to know the truth.
2 Likes
Thanks Eddie, such words are encouraging! For me, part of the elegance of the BioLogos community is that it aims to maintain a so-called “small-o” orthodox Christianity while also embracing the scientific consensus on deep time and evolution. That position requires nuance, which gives rise to the problem of the “slippery slope”. It is what I was wondering about when I started the thread “How to counter the slippery slope?”. I believe it is one of the greatest “internal” challenges for BioLogos and other Evolutionary Creationists. I see that @Christy just started a topic about this more general problem.
1 Like
The problem I am seeing here is that people are either assuming I am denying that Demons exist, or that possession ever happened at all or they are trying to rationalise the POSSIBILITY that it happens Today. Mostly using bad arguments and mentioning far flung African tribes… No evidence, nothing solid. The simple fact is that if Demons were possessing people and they were having their free will taken away, we would see evidence. Not to mention nowhere after Christ’s ascension do we receive ANY warning about the danger of being taken over by a Demon and having our free will removed. One would think that this kind of thing would be important enough for Paul or the other writers to discuss right? They warn about all myriad of things yet never Demon Possession. I suggest that this is because it wasn’t a problem any longer.
Evidence is required to continue arguing in favour of modern possession. My evidence is all around in all the non-possessed people of the World.
People like Henry need not even respond.
Just brilliant beaglelady! Perhaps we should begin to refer to this kind of defense as a Satan of the Gaps argument.
Therefore to all those here who defend this position — @Eddie, @Dr.Ex-YEC, @OldTimer, @Casper_Hesp, @Henry, @Find_My_Way, @Christy:
(1) What are the symptoms of demonization?
(2) How does it differ from the symptoms of psychopathic personality?
(3) How does it differ from the symptoms of mental illness?
(4) How does it differ from the symptoms of neurological disease such as epilepsy?
If incidences are as OldTimer stated, that demoniac patients and mentally ill patients receive the same treatment, perhaps there is no difference and we are referring to the same psychological conditions.
2 Likes
@BradKramer, @Christy
I was not planning to say anymore here; however, I will make this one statement. Do not compare me to Find_My_Way. He and I agree on almost nothing. I do not know what he is looking for; however, I hope he finds peace. It look at what you are saying this way. We do not know everything. If we did, we would be divine and that we are not. I believe that Satan causes diseases through the natural laws of nature just as God can do good. Evil does it to attempt to turn people from God. Jesus is God the Son and always has been. Since that is the case, he was able to heal, something that we were once not able to do. God has given us medical science to heal diseases including mental diseases. Let me remind you that there is more in this universe than any of us can see. If you claim that you know everything, then you must be the god of the gaps. In any case, why can’t you just let the matter go. None of us are always going to agree on things. It thought this was a Christian Blog. Instead of fighting with each other, this should be a forum of friendly conversation. Brad, I will read what you have to say, then I will go.
@Henry
One person’s friendly conversation is another person’s heated discussion is another person’s vicious argument. We all have different comfort zones for the tone and topics of debate. If any conversation makes you uncomfortable or defensive or angry, you are always free to not participate or bow out. But we cannot moderate the entire forum by any one person’s comfort level or make everyone conform to an acceptable belief system. We have very basic guidelines and anyone can flag posts they feel violate the guidelines. But if they don’t violate the guidelines, they just irritate you, then you just have to ignore them.
I actually have no interest in this kind of “prove it to me” discussion.
Science does not speak to the supernatural, and there is no way of compiling evidence, or subjecting the supernatural world to testing.
What does interest me is the rules of engagement when it comes to Scripture. People here identify in many different ways with various Christian groups. I identify with Evangelicals (though not very loudly these days) and we have rules we agree to play by when it comes to the Bible. Taking a passage and saying, “This doesn’t mean what it seems to mean, because… science” is not considered valid exegesis in Evangelical circles. You have to deal with the actual text and offer an explanation of how the text could arguably mean what you are proposing it means. You also don’t get to say, “Well this is backward and ignorant, so I’m going to ignore it.”
Now, I sympathize with people who say they don’t want to play by these rules. Plenty of mainline churches will be happy to welcome such folks, or they don’t have to affiliate with a church at all. But for those of us who still want to claim some kinship with Evangelicals, the fact that Jesus and the apostles make repeated references to demonic powers isn’t “dealt with” by offering a “scientific” interpretation of those accounts that dismisses them as not demonic. It’s still in the Bible. All over the place.
I don’t accept the Bible’s truth because science or reason back it up. I accept it because I believe it is God’s special revelation and it speaks to issues no amount of studying natural theology will make clear. Science is never going to speak to things like the Incarnation, the virgin birth, miracles, prayer, demons, angels, the Resurrection, Pentecost, the Holy Spirit, atonement, sanctification, or Christ’s coming Kingdom. By definition these are supernatural things, so why would I look for a “natural” explanation? Plus, I’ve already premised all my major faith claims on the validity, trustworthiness, and authority of supernatural revelation without consulting science at all.
2 Likes
Well said.
Ironically this would make it easy for you to become a Young Earth Creationist.
You need more than an a priori acceptance of biblical authority, though. You need a linguistically untenable view of how meaning is constructed and communicated via language, so I’m safe.
There is a difference too, in taking the Bible’s word for it on things science doesn’t speak to (the supernatural) and insisting on pitting the Bible against science on things science does speak to (the age of the universe, weather, solid firmament, heliocentrism, the brain as the center of emotion, etc.) I don’t have a problem trusting science on matters that science speaks to. I’m sure many instances that have been labelled demonic possession are explainable in terms of chemical imbalances and mental illness. But I don’t think science explains the whole of reality on this topic, so I’m not going to automatically dismiss people’s experiences that don’t fit into a natural explanation paradigm as definitely counterfeit and unbelievable.
1 Like
A lot more people really need to take a Philosophy 101-102 course sequence It would save on a lot of tedious reviews of the fundamentals of epistemology and the rise of natural philosophy in Western thought. (An P203/M313 Intro to Logic course with emphasis on logical fallacies wouldn’t be a bad idea as well.) The philosophers who developed the Scientific Method understood its value but realized that it couldn’t be applied to every question. Today we can’t count on that understanding, even among many academics.
Tunnel vision and the Kruger-Dunning Effect are not at all unique to Young Earth Creationists. It’s a surprisingly common human foible to which we are all susceptible when outside our areas of study.
Sorry to miss the fun but I’m otherwise occupied for a while and probably unable to access satellite Internet.
2 Likes
That’s ok, because once you’ve stated your view isn’t based on science or reason, you can simply make it all up as you go along. Logic can go out the window, and language doesn’t matter, because reason has been abandoned. It doesn’t need to make sense, you just need to believe.
Yes that’s true, and that’s a good way to make the distinction.
I think the Bible explains the whole reality on this topic, so I don’t automatically dismiss people’s experiences that don’t fit into a natural explanation paradigm “as definitely counterfeit and unbelievable”. I dismiss them when they fail to pass the test of what the Bible teaches. I have no need of science when addressing the subject of demonic possession. The best disproof of demonic possession is the claims and actions of those who believe in it, as opposed to what the Bible says (and even as opposed to what such people believe).
1 Like
Again, there is a distinction between saying, “my faith isn’t based on reason” (it isn’t) and insisting reason is completely irrelevant or untrustworthy. I freely admit to believing a whole bunch of a-rational stuff. But even a-rational beliefs should be warranted and not irrational.
2 Likes
If they’re warranted then I don’t see how they are a-rational.
True. I could have worded it better. Take two: Even beliefs that are not produced by reason should be warranted.
1 Like
I would say beliefs that are not produced by reason are less valuable than beliefs produced by reason. I am always suspicious of beliefs which are not produced by reason.
1 Like
Ever read Plantinga on warranted belief and the sensus divinitatus? Not that I understand half of what he is talking about, lowly French lit major that I am…