Corey

Okay, so what I'm hearing is that "miracles" are epistemically transcendent, but not ontologically transcendent (they don't actually involve anything beyond the physics inherent in the universe.) "Miracle" is just the label we apply when confronted with something so out of our ordinary experience that we can't begin to explain it naturally; we then posit a supernatural explanation. So "supernatural" is part of our language game, but is not ontologically the case.

Iconoclast

No, that is not what I was trying to say. I think a true miracle is something that is outside of the normal physical processes inherent in the universe - although I would then suggest that humans are also, in at least some aspects, outside of the normal physical processes inherent in the universe in that when we physically die we are still alive.

Given this then it seems to me that there must be some fluid connection between deeper reality (“heaven” if you will) and the physical universe else how could we bridge that gap. So, in that sense there is a deeper physics than what we think of as the normal physical processes inherent in the universe. And it seems to me that that deeper physics must be a superset of our currently understood physics in that it must be able to encompass the physics of the universe. Now, I am not in any way suggesting that this deeper physics is at all mechanical like we tend to see our current physics as - although even this is a big misunderstanding in that quantum mechanics and relativity theory show us that our mechanical thinking about physics totally breaks down. The universe is clearly much more subtle and interwoven than it appears.

Corey

The problem I have here is that we claim knowledge of the ontology. If "miracles" are indeed epistemically very distant or even altogether transcendent, then it would seem that the most appropriate position would be just to humbly proclaim our ignorance as to the ontology behind our labels. What I haven't followed yet is how you have knowledge of the actual ontology.

Iconoclast

I claim no knowledge of the ontology of miracles. I am, of course, just guessing here about what this might be like. Now, I think my guesses are somewhat educated and I do believe that we can at least conjecture to some extent based on what has been learned so far in physics and other areas of exploration along with our conviction that there is life after death in a different “realm” from this physical universe.

Some of this conjecture comes from the work of David Bohm who was a prominent quantum theorist and even more comes from the work of Christopher Alexander who is a building architect and engineer who went to study what makes for good architecture and was ultimately led to a quite astonishing conclusion related to what the “ground of existence” must consist of, at least to some extent. Alexander wrote a four book series called “The Nature of Order”. The last volume is titled “The Luminous Ground”. I won’t even try to go into what he discovered because it just sounds too fanciful without going through the detailed evidence and amazing discoveries he made. Even Alexander was a bit embarrassed (being a dyed-in-the-wool engineer) about what he discovered and took some 20 years to really nail down the argument and evidence before publishing.

Corey

From where I stand it did look like you were making claims as to the ontology of those events (e.g. the suicidal herd of swine): ontologically, there are no personal unseen beings behind the incident. How can we be sure of this? Epistemic distance seems pretty high here.

Iconoclast

I think it is a question of convergent evidence. I am making the argument that the convergent evidence strongly points to the conclusion that the biblical language regarding demons is metaphorical. Yes, Jesus is God and thus has the power to do supernatural miracles. I do not claim to have a lot of evidence for the ontology of exactly what this supernatural power is except to say that one would presume that the Creator would naturally have power over the creation.

How can we be sure of this? We can only be as sure as the convergent evidence leads us to be confident. Clearly the convergent evidence on the earth going around the sun is strong enough that there are very few doubters. I think the strongest evidence against the literal existence of demons is that over the years all those phenomena that people used to ascribe to demons has been shown to be natural forces operating. People have looked in earnest for evidence for demons or poltergeists or what have you and nothing credible has been found.

If not for the biblical language I doubt you or just about anyone in America would believe in the existence of demons. But when you look at the biblical language in the light of recent research on how humans communicate using metaphors there is no reason to believe that this language is actually indicative of literal demons rather than metaphorical language pointing to something more subtle and something more profound. And why isn’t this to be expected? Why wouldn’t it make more sense that the Creator whose creation is so fundamentally complex and subtle would need to use highly metaphorical language in order to communicate the really complex forces at work? A great example of this is the story of Adam and Eve. As a literal story it provides us with very little understanding of what is happening. When interpreted as a highly metaphorical account of the deep issues involved it is a gold-mine of understanding that actually illuminates what is going on. Interpreted as a story with rich metaphorical meaning we can then understand what “eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” really means. It means that rather than simply living with God (the Tree of Life) at our center we seek to live out of ourselves as the center – we make the center of our life our own ability to judge good and evil and thus we separate from God and from each other – suddenly we judge – we accuse God, we accuse each other and we accuse ourselves. And it is exactly this thing we have done that gives rise to “ha-satan” (literally “the accuser” or “the adversary”). Satan can now be understood in the biblical language as the purely evil force that is created when we accuse and become adversaries of God, each other and ourselves.

For me, the convergent evidence is conclusive. The scientific evidence strongly points to there being no literal demons and the biblical text is made more unified, rich, and comprehensible. For example, this understanding shows how the story of Adam and Eve is connected to Jesus’ message regarding judgment: how He went after the Pharisees so strongly and yet showed love and forgiveness to “sinners”. It shows why love (the opposite of judgment / accusation / adversarial relationship) is the power that overcomes evil.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Iconoclast: I think the strongest evidence against the literal existence of demons is that over the years all those phenomena that people used to ascribe to demons has been shown to be natural forces operating.

Tom: Really? This has been demonstrated? I don’t think so. It’s not true that all phenomena ascribed to demonic activity has been shown to be nothing more than natural forces at work. When and where was that shown to be the case? You may think the evidence for their non-existence is conclusive. Cool. But to claim that it’s been demonstrated that they don’t exist? I don’t think so.

You have a problem of methodology, Iconoclast. Part of why you want to dismiss the existence of demons is because the evidence for their existence (the behavior exhibited by so-called possessed persons) can be accounted for by natural forces at work. In other words, since we can explain such behavior/events in naturalistic terms, it's methodologically illegitimate to seek any further explanation. That's the assumption hidden in your argument. But by this same measure you’d have to discount the incarnation, for surely Mary’s conception/pregnancy of Jesus can be explained without appeal to divine activity. We have all the explanation for Jesus’ conception we need in Joseph (or some other man), and so we shouldn’t look any further.

But you believe in the incarnation, and you concede Jesus had the power to do ‘supernatural’ things, and that's what is inconsistent to me about how you're arguing your point here. You adopt one sort of methodology (a naturalistic one) when explaining evidence for demonic activity and another (one that admits supernatural causes) to explain events in the world you believe, like the incarnation, are brought about by God. But once you concede the latter (incarnation as a supernatural event), your rejection of the former (the existence of demons) can have NOTHING to do with the fact that the so-called evidence for the existence of demons can be explained by appealing to natural phenomena. Mary’s conception of Jesus can just as easily be explained by appealing to merely natural phenomena at work, but you don't count THAT as evidence against divine incarnation. But you DO count the availability of naturalistic explanations of so-called demonic activity against the existence of demons. So it doesn't seem to me that you're being methodologically consistent.

Having said that, I don’t think we have to jettison a disciplined scientific approach (so long as scientific doesn’t equal ‘merely naturalistic’) when talking about the so-called supernatural side of things. I think the case for the paranormal, for example, is very strong, conclusive to my mind. And I was in Borders recently looking at a book written by a journalist, not a self-proclaimed believer at all, whose research of the one hundred most convincing exorcisms in America included attending some of the proceedings of the exorcisms. Can’t recall the title, but the author would disagree with you that everything about so-called demonic behavior is best explained in merely naturalisitc terms. And having been involved with some myself, and working for years with others whose ministries have been littered with such encounters, I can’t at all say that “all the phenomena” relevant to these events are explainable naturalistically. In fact, I’d insist that some of the phenomena are definitely inexplicable in naturalistic terms. But—and this is my point about your methodology—even if we could hypothesize plausible naturalistic explanations to all the behavior of so-called possessed and exorcised persons, that could not for theists who concede the category of the miraculous per se count as evidence in favor of merely naturalistic explanations. In the end, you can disbelieve in Satan and demons if you want to, but the fact that the activity/events attributed to them can be explained in merely naturalisitc terms can't have anything to do with why you disbelieve in them.

Iconoclast: If not for the biblical language I doubt you or just about anyone in America would believe in the existence of demons.

Tom: So what? If it weren’t for the biblical language, no one in the world would believe in the Trinity, the incarnation, or the resurrection. And if we’re only admitting American evidence, then so much the worse for our conclusions. And I’m certainly one of those who would, apart from the biblical language, postulate some supernatural forces at work in the world just based on my experience and the experience of first-hand reports of colleagues I know and have no reason to mistrust.

Gotta run,

Tom

Post Edited (PLANIS) : 8/16/2007 9:13:35 AM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/16/2007 3:33:02 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/16/2007 8:01:10 PM (GMT-5)

Tom

You have a problem of methodology, Iconoclast. Part of why you want to dismiss the existence of demons is because the evidence for their existence (the behavior exhibited by so-called possessed persons) can be accounted for by natural forces at work. In other words, since we can explain such behavior/events in naturalistic terms, it's methodologically illegitimate to seek any further explanation. That's the assumption hidden in your argument. But by this same measure you’d have to discount the incarnation, for surely Mary’s conception/pregnancy of Jesus can be explained without appeal to divine activity. We have all the explanation for Jesus’ conception we need in Joseph (or some other man), and so we shouldn’t look any further.

Iconoclast

I don’t think this is accurate. I am basing my argument on the evidence we have. There is compelling evidence that God exists – the Creator of the universe. There is compelling evidence that Jesus is God. Clearly God has “supernatural” powers and thus any supernatural event that is caused by God is easily explainable. If the biblical text says that Mary’s conception was caused by God’s intervention then I see no problem accepting that.

The only evidence we have for demons is the following:

1. Early humans attributing phenomena that was not understood to demons.
2. The biblical text regarding Satan and demons.
3. Personal experience.

I think you would agree that the majority of phenomena that was attributed to demons say 2000 years ago is now easily understood as natural phenomena. Thus, the evidence that early people assumed demons existed based on their lack of understanding is not good evidence at all.

I do not believe that the biblical text is evidence for the literal existence of demons for the following reasons:

1. It is possible to understand the biblical language regarding demons as being entirely metaphorical. There is actually no way to distinguish whether it is or isn’t – as opposed to the language regarding Jesus being God. Jesus actually died and rose again. This language is direct and cannot be understood metaphorically.
2. The metaphorical understanding of the biblical language regarding demons actually contains more meaning than a literal interpretation. And this meaning is more consistent with the rest of the biblical text and also illuminates more of the biblical text.

I also tend to discount personal experience as evidence because once you have a belief in demons then the mind is good at “filling in the gaps” when seeing phenomena that one does not yet have an understanding of. Our beliefs, our conceptualizations, shape what we see. Moreover, it seems to me that if demons existed and were having an impact on this world it would be measurable and yet, no one has come up with any way to measure it that can be reliably duplicated. To me this is no different than UFO's or aliens. Many reliable people have insisted that they have had personal experiences that confirm the existence of aliens. But everytime this has been investigated there is simply no reasonable evidence that it is true. The majority of cases have been firmly debunked.

Tom

Really? This has been demonstrated? I don’t think so. It’s not true that all phenomena ascribed to demonic activity has been shown to be nothing more than natural forces at work. When and where was that shown to be the case? You may think the evidence for their non-existence is conclusive. Cool. But to claim that it’s been demonstrated that they don’t exist? I don’t think so.

Iconoclast

What category of phenomena is there (other than God doing miracles) that you believe cannot be explained except by appealing to demons?

thanks,

Iconoclast

Laika

Why would a guy with very little spiritual background (or currency)  be talking about voices in his head unless he really was hearing voices?

Iconoclast

I would guess that he really is hearing voices. However, there is compelling evidence that those voices are sub-conscious processes within his own mind. There is a whole realm of investigation called Cognitive Science. One branch of this learning is what is called Neuro-Linguistic Programming or NLP for short. The two books that document this in detail are called “The Structure of Magic I” and “The Structure of Magic II”. Why did the authors title them that way? Because what a skilled practitioner can do with this learning appears to be magic by those who are unaware of it. This is the knowledge that hypnotists use to manipulate people’s sub-conscious processes. And I would guess that we are all aware of the amazing things hypnotized people are capable of doing. Things that we don’t normally think humans can actually do at all.

One aspect of this learning is that over 95% of our thought processes are sub-conscious. And it turns out that these sub-conscious processes act in similar ways to our conscious processes – they “think”, they makes decisions, they communicate with each other and with our conscious processes – where do you think all that “talk” in your head comes from? Typically someone hearing voices in their head means that they have a sub-conscious process that is not integrated with the rest of their sub-conscious (or conscious) processes – or it just means that they don’t recognize that some of that “talk” coming into their head is really coming from themselves – they attribute it to someone or something else for whatever reason. Good therapists are able to help people re-integrate their sub-conscious processes – or help them deal with whatever issue is preventing them from recognizing the source of that “talk”. One aspect of how NLP became documented was that the authors studied a famous therapist who was exceptionally good at re-integrating the fractured psyche of people with multiple-personality disorder. They were able to decode exactly what she did within the framework of an understanding of how our cognitive processes work and thus reliably reproduce her results.

These folks were also quite good at debunking people claiming to do any sort of exorcism by showing how what they were doing was explainable within their cognitive framework and thus allowing any skilled practitioner to reproduce their results. And usually they showed how to get even better results as they were “conscious competents” rather than “unconscious competents”.

I studied this stuff in-depth for a few years and so if you are interested in a list of good books on the subject I would be more than willing to provide it. This was a large area of learning that convinced me that there was no such thing as literal demon possession. That, in fact, the belief in demon possession would naturally arise in people given the nature of how our sub-conscious processes operate.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Tom

The idea that if I concede the existence of a personal Satan I'll start blaming him for everything and stop taking responsibility for my own choices seems false.

Iconoclast

I agree. I never meant to suggest this. I simply said that to the extent the belief in Satan causes one to see evil coming from out there rather than in here is the extent to which it is a problem. I never said anything regarding how much this actually happens. That it is a problem for at least some people to some extent seems very likely to me. That it is a big problem for everyone is clearly not the case. Nor is that the primary reason why this question is even important to me. The primary reason it is important to me is that this understanding makes the biblical text more coherent. It makes the problem (judgment) and the solution (love) much more clear and thus more actionable. It certainly makes the problem of natural evil much simpler to understand if not a whole lot more boring. I mean what could be more boring and straightforward than we simply have to work hard to overcome entropy for ourselves and each other. But isn’t this what love is – helping others to overcome the entropy all around them? Giving a child a glass of water?

Tom

The only possible argument for the non-existence of a personal Satan and literal demons that has any interest to me at all is Iconoclast's "metaphorical" argument, and I don't find that compelling. IF I had other compelling reasons to disbelieve in them, THEN I'd want to come up with some explanation of their part in the biblical story and perhaps the metaphorical approach would save me. But I wouldn't find the metaphorical argument a motivation in itself to abandon belief in a personal Satan and literal demons.

Iconoclast

If it is true that your belief in demons is fundamentally grounded in your belief that the biblical text is literal then what you are saying here is almost like a tautology. It seems to me this is the same thing as saying “if I didn’t believe in demons then I could probably make the metaphorical argument work for me.” But if it is true that your belief in demons is fundamentally grounded in your belief that the biblical text is literal then you have no solid reason to believe in demons.

The only other possibility for your belief in demons that I can think of is your personal experience. But if it is possible that your personal experience can be colored by a pre-existing belief in demons (both from the biblical text and from the human inclination to see sub-conscious processes and other unexplained phenomena as demons) then how can this be good evidence?

I came to disbelieve in demons only after I delved into Cognitive Science and came away with an understanding of how our sub-conscious processes work and what they are capable of. Once I realized that personal experience was not good evidence for demonic activity then I was more open to looking at this question. And then once I looked into the nature of how metaphors operate and connected that with Bonhoeffer’s interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve it was very hard for me to see how literal demons could possibly be true.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 8/20/2007 2:21:08 PM (GMT-5)

Iconoclast,

Any skeptic could say as much about your belief in a personal living God:

The only evidence we have for demons The Holy Trinity is the following:

1. Early humans attributing phenomena that was not understood to demons The Godhead
2. The biblical text regarding Satan and demons The Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
3. Personal experience.

Mark

Any skeptic could say as much about your belief in a personal living God:

The only evidence we have for demons The Holy Trinity is the following:

1. Early humans attributing phenomena that was not understood to demons The Godhead
2. The biblical text regarding Satan and demons The Father, Son & Holy Spirit.
3. Personal experience.

Iconoclast

I agree that #1 above is not good evidence for God. Early humans attributed all sorts of things to gods that none of us (or at least few of us) still believe in today. I doubt many people still believe that there are gods that control the weather and such. I would guess that most Christians do not believe in these sort of gods either although perhaps what you are really saying is that these are not actually “gods” but are really demons.

And I agree that #3 is not compelling evidence either.

The evidence for the existence of God is actually quite compelling – especially when you consider it next to the evidence for demons:

1. Metaphysics. It is hard to get around the metaphysical concept of a “prime mover”. The evidence seems pretty clear that there must be a Creator. Science simply cannot get behind the metaphysics to explain anything about how the Big Bang actually occurred. So we call the Creator God. Now, compare this to Satan. Is there any metaphysical necessity for some evil being opposed to the Creator? No. Actually the whole notion of “dualism” has major metaphysical problems. So, while metaphysics calls for the notion of a Creator it definitely does not call for the notion of a Satan.
   
   
2. The biblical text. The gospels are strong evidence for the literal existence of a person named Jesus who performed miracles, claimed He was God and was crucified and came back to life. There are multiple independent sources that were written very soon after the actual events. These sources agree with each other enough, but not too much, which shows us they are independent and so on and so on. By any evidentiary standard for historical accounts these accounts are very, very strong evidence. But notice how different this is from the biblical text regarding Satan and demons. Nowhere do we see any obviously literal accounts of Satan and his doings. The references are either in mythical accounts (for example the meta-story within the story of Job) or used metaphorically (for example Jesus calling Peter Satan or the serpent in the Garden of Eden – assuming one presumes that this is a reference to Satan).

Mark

Furthermore, a literal interpretation of the text maintains Jesus innocence since demons cannot possess anyone against their own volition, while I don’t belief we can say the same about freed convicts.

Iconoclast

“maintains Jesus innocence” – “since you and Semeia posited Jesus to deceive demonized people” – not sure where you get this but it certainly doesn’t reflect what we are trying to say.

Also - where does the notion that demons cannot possess anyone against their own volition come from? If this is true then wasn’t it against the free will of the man possessed by demons for Jesus to cast the demons out of him? If Jesus was really talking to literal demons when talking to the man then the man never gave Jesus permission to cast the demons out. And it sure didn’t seem like the demons wanted to go anywhere given a choice. If demons cannot possess someone against their free will then isn’t this just like alcoholism or pedophilia – free will choices that people become entrapped in? If so, can Jesus just cast these things out of people without their actually making a free will choice to change?

Also, why did Jesus allow the demons to go into the pigs? It seems to me that a literal interpretation needs to answer this question at least somewhat plausibly to make any sense. Why wouldn’t Jesus say no to the demons and just make them go elsewhere? I see no other examples of demons that are cast out going into other animals. And one would presume that Jesus would know that the demons would kill the pigs and then just go elsewhere so what was the point?

And why did the demons cause the pigs to kill themselves? Again, how does this make any sense if demons are literal?

thanks,

Iconoclast

Post Edited (Iconoclast) : 8/21/2007 12:11:10 AM (GMT-5)