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…
I never said you could. I also realize that I can ignore them. Perhaps I do not wish to do so. God bless.
Plantinga is great on a number of subjects, especially evil. However, he has convinced me that his Reformed epistemology and presuppositionalism is utterly unwarranted and logically incoherent, not to mention unScriptural.
Thank you Henry, I appreciate your respectful comment. You and I have already interacted on another post and have left each other on good terms—I hope it remains so. Whether having different opinions on a variety of issues, or that issues be critical or not, true Christians should be able to discuss matters and remain respectful toward one another. To be clear, I am not comparing you to @Find_My_Way, he and I don’t agree on much either. You have been courteous with me—he has not. That he has spiritual issues to deal with—that is certain. But I also hope he finds peace. Anyway, the reason I included him among those here who believe in demon possession is because he stated that he believes it did occur in the past.
I think we pretty much do know everything about how our world functions, including human and animal behavior. What remains is the minutiae and subtleties. Of course new discoveries, technological advancements, and medical cures will continue to be tackled, however, these will be based on the “pretty much everything we already do know” about our world—which is the foundational structure of reality. Although we are not divine does not mean we cannot know everything about how our world functions.
But just as “God working through nature” implies cosmological and biological evolution, disease is where matter cannot be conformed to the will of God (destructive mutation). The dualism here is energy and matter. God and Satan in this sense are just “Gaps in our knowledge.”
Exactly… without people (or life in general) there is no evil. In your example, here, certain people themselves (as individual organisms) become “destructive mutations” and turn other people who are “susceptible to destruction” away from God. There is no need for us to summon Satan, or demon, into the equation—only the sociopathic psychopathic narcissistic personality. I agree that Jesus is God the Son (in the sense of the trinity doctrine). However, that He always has been suggests that Jesus the man existed before planet earth was formed. This is not so. The symbolism here is that Jesus (the man) was the Word of God for God. God [Elohim] has always been—Jesus the man was born of a woman (thus had a beginning). John 1:1 refers to the beginning of Adam (the origin of cognitive self-consciousness and the development language—not the beginning of the universe. God [Elohim] the eternal animating force is eternal—man had a beginning. Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 are referring to two different beginnings. Metacognition - Wikipedia
I’m aware that there is more in this universe than any of us can see. And I never claimed that I know everything. However, the foundational structure of the world that I have lived under for over than half a century provides me with more than enough evidence to confirm what I believe. The god of the gaps is the evidence—I’m just the messenger.
Although this is a Christian Blog many do have different opinions because as @OldTimer suggested—different denomination focus on different aspects of the whole Christian story. This might explain the infighting, as does that some here adhere to an atheist position. I also believe that BioLogos should be a forum of friendly conversation—obviously at times this is not the case. As for why I can’t just let the matter go? It’s just too important to let go. The question of demonization is a major link to the whole chain of Christian thought.
In the pursuit of knowledge for the advancement of the human condition observational and deductive evidence is a necessary factor in the forward movement of the investigation just as it is for any other systematic inquiry. Having no interest in such a discussion only provides evidence of a lack of concern for this advancement.
Perhaps science does not speak to the supernatural, however, philosophy does. And since science speaks to the natural, science can ascribe natural processes to phenomena in the physical world. Philosophy, through psychology can and does explain the mental processes that influence the physical processes (and vice versa) through neurology. There is no need for subjecting the supernatural world to testing.
I never used words such as, “backward and ignorant,” and never proposed to ignore anything written in scripture. I only offer alternative explications for what has been written. By the rules of engagement that interest, you do mean what you wrote here, right;
@Christy - Most biblical scholarship consults texts or archaeology outside of the Bible in order to argue for a best interpretation of what is in the Bible. That’s what Bible scholars do.
In this context, your words only provide evidence that scripture is difficult to understand at face value and that external sources are often required to attain a clear picture of the account.
This is exactly why I don’t affiliate with a church at all—“Most biblical scholarship consults texts or archaeology outside of the Bible in order to argue for a best interpretation of what is in the Bible.” BioLogos, as a whole, satisfies this criterion, with the exception of member here who don’t subscribe to this policy.
The physical sciences describe the processes of the natural world around us. The social sciences are concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within our society;
The main social sciences include economics, political science, human geography, demography and sociology. In a wider sense, social science also includes some fields in the humanities such as anthropology, archaeology, jurisprudence, psychology, history, and linguistics. The term is also sometimes used to refer specifically to the field of sociology, the original ‘science of society’, established in the 19th century. Social science - Wikipedia
With these facts to back up our worldview—which philosophy has provided through its administration and organization of the various sciences—philosophy’s aims can be said to have been accomplished;
Philosophy has two important aims. First, it tries to give a person a unified view of the universe in which he lives. Second, it seeks to make a person a more critical thinker by sharpening his ability to think clearly and precisely [World Book Encyclopedia—Philosophy].
Therefore, the fact that Jesus and the apostles make repeated references to demonic powers is “dealt with” by offering a “philosophical” interpretation of those accounts that dismiss them as not demonic but rather as the condition of psychopathy, mental illness, or neurological disease (epilepsy).
Another important point is the difference in worldview between the Sadducees and the Pharisees;
“For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both” [Acts 23:8 KJV].
Here is an interesting discussion regarding the two groups Bible Study
How do we explain that the Sadducees and the Pharisees had opposing views on demonology, and yet, the two group had the same Hebrew Scriptures? And which worldview did Jesus and the prophets actually hold to?
When I first accepted the truth of the Bible it was also because I believed it was God’s special revelation—science came into my life later as a confirmation of that special revelation when I began to use my reason to evaluate its validity—anyone who doesn’t use their reason in this exercise is just accepting blind faith. However, the basic face value special revelation that you talk about is only a part of the whole story. This is the special revelation that mainstream Christian religious organizations teach and discuss—they don’t get to the deeper core issues (although the main principals are there).
Sure, I agree that the Bible speaks to issues concerning our world and the human condition, however, that no amount of studying natural theology will make this clear is a false statement.
Natural theology, once also termed physico-theology, is a type of theology that provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. This distinguishes it from revealed theology, which is based on scripture and/or religious experiences, and also from transcendental theology, which is based on a priori reasoning. Natural theology - Wikipedia
Our ordinary experience of nature includes the five basic emotions; love, joy, anger, fear, and grief that men and women participate in. The combination of two or more of these basic emotions gives rise to all the other feelings and sentiments that we experience—appreciation, kindness, jealousy, hatred, etc… The knowledge and understanding gained through the human condition provides wisdom and insight into the WHY questions regarding spiritual things. This is the source of revealed theology and transcendental theology. Religious experience is dependent upon pure thought and closeness to one’s higher self [Yahuwah].
No, natural science does not speak to those things, natural science speaks to the facts about the material world. Philosophy however—through theoretical science and social science—can speak to those things and its voice will get a lot louder concerning the facts of revealed theology, religious experience, and transcendental theology regarding the truth about God, the human condition, and Christ’s coming Kingdom.
If you are content without having a “natural” explanation for these things, and that is fine with you, then good for you—I bid you well. However, for the rest of us, to listen to and accept what is taught in the churches (where different Christian denominations have bits and pieces of the whole puzzle) without a rational explanation, it is just not acceptable. Therefore, we go further in our studies and research to get to the heart of the matter.
I’ve also already premised all my major faith claims on the validity, trustworthiness, and authority of supernatural revelation without consulting science at all. However, through this supernatural revelation I wanted to be able to explain it in philosophical and scientific terms so that others, who for the same reason as myself—because of religious delusion had left the faith—might be brought back on the straight and narrow path.
Which “external sources” matter though. Consulting Wikipedia entries on social science and saying “wah-la!” is not biblical scholarship. If you have first century texts that shed light on the cultural context in which these interactions with spiritual powers took place or if you can offer linguistic evidence about the semantic domains of ακάθαρτο πνεύμα or ο πονηρός, or ο διάβολος, have at it. I am personally not interested in how “philosophy” or “sociology” explain the Bible. I kind of doubt we have any common ground necessary to have a productive discussion, because I reject almost all of your premises (you tend to assert your personally made-up beliefs and opinions as authoritatively true, but they aren’t for me) and we have opposing goals in the first place.