Mark

We had a discussion about this topic, of a metaphorical Satan  I Met the Devil and He is Me  a few years ago that raised many similar arguments to those raised on this thread, many never being fully addressed by Semeia and Iconoclast.

Iconoclast

Like what?

Mark

On that thread, I believe Iconoclast contributed Satan to one side of our own unconscious mind coined “serpent brain”, “reptilian brain” or “survival / fight or flight” mechanism that conflates metaphorical truth and literal truth. The other side of the equation was the “mammalian brain”, I’m not sure if we were suppose to discern truth more clearly with the mammalian side of our brain or what, but if that’s the case we all should consider becoming more virtuous, pious and enlightened with truth by simply succumbing to a lobotomy procedure and surgically remove that serpent.  Yes, lobotomies are making a come back, check it out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/brainsurgery.shtml  or http://www.epilepsy.org.uk/info/surgery.html   

Iconoclast

Hmmm… seems like a very literal interpretation of what I was suggesting. But, perhaps you are just having some fun.

Do you believe that Adam and Eve literally existed some 6,000 years ago?

thanks,

Iconoclast

Haven’t read it. Greg was reading it when we roomed together in Boston this past June. He seemed to like it.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Other-Spirits-Intimations-Transcendence/dp/0195140125/ref=sr_1_1/104-2774616-6532765?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187731988&sr=1-1

Post Edited (PLANIS) : 8/21/2007 4:42:45 PM (GMT-5)

Iconoclast

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

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).

Laika: The gospels are eyewitness accounts.  What about eyewitness accounts of demonic activity, apparitions, inferential evidence, etc?

Semeia:  What eyewitness accounts? “Demonic activity” is always something that is presumed – an interpretation of events – not something that is actually witnessed (as in the “demons” being literal, visible beings). Eyewitness accounts of “apparitions” are hardly compelling, since it seems that anyone who has had a so-called “demonic” experience “sees” and feels something entirely different – so there is no convergent evidence at all that points to a literal “being” behind those experiences. And the inferential evidence strongly points away from literal demons, since nearly all phenomena once attributed to demons have been shown by science to have natural explanations, so much so that the most logical inference to make is that the remaining “unseen agents” also have a natural explanation.

Getting back to the eyewitness accounts for the demons into the pigs story that we have been discussing, there is only one “eyewitness” account to the event, written down many years after the event by Mark, to the best of his recollection, within the worldview that would have framed all of his experiences. Luke’s accounting is not eyewitness, and looks to be a simple repetition of Mark’s words. When there is more than one accounting of a gospel story we often see that the accounts don’t match perfectly, because people don’t remember things perfectly, so the events and words that Jesus speaks are not recorded verbatim. The more witnesses and accounts related to an event, the more convergent evidence we have for it, the more certain we can be that it happened. But we always have to keep in mind the worldview of the witnesses, because that will always color their interpretation and recollection of events. There could be hundreds of “eyewitness” accounts of how the “angry gods” blotted out the sun for a period of time – but of course we know that eclipses are not caused by angry gods, in spite of the fact that ancient people were “witnesses” to that event. A contemporary version of this is racial profiling and prejudice which can strongly color a person’s interpretation of events.

Below is the NRSV translation of Mark’s account. My comments on some of the difficulties with a fully literal interpretation of demons are in blue:

Jesus Heals the Gerasene Demoniac

26 Then they arrived at the country of the Gerasenes,^* which is opposite Galilee. ²⁷As he stepped out on land, a man of the city who had demons met him. [Notice that the assumption of demons was made before Jesus arrived.] For a long time he had worn^* no clothes, and he did not live in a house but in the tombs. [These are typical symptoms of a homeless, mentally ill person.] ²⁸When he saw Jesus, he fell down before him and shouted at the top of his voice, ‘What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you, do not torment me’— ²⁹for Jesus^* had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man. [The man is shouting at the top of his voice, in answer to Jesus commanding the “unclean spirit” to come out of him. Notice that Jesus initially assumes a singular spirit, not plural. If Jesus “knows” the man is afflicted by “demons” – why does he not recognize multiple demons?] (For many times it had seized him; he was kept under guard and bound with chains and shackles, but he would break the bonds and be driven by the demon into the wilds.) [This is a description of past behavior that would have happened before Jesus was on the scene, so the attribution of the behavior to a demon could again be the worldview of the people at the time. The behavior itself sounds very typical of certain kinds of mental illness; this is what locked psychiatric wards and sedatives and anti-psychotic medication and restraints are for today – when someone has a psychotic break. And again notice that the “unseen agent” is assumed to be a singular “demon” – this is an assumption based on the knowledge of the time, not anything resembling “evidence.”] ³⁰Jesus then asked him, ‘What is your name?’ [Jesus asked the man his name.] He said, ‘Legion’; for many demons had entered him. [The man said “Legion” – the man answered Jesus – he told Jesus that his name was Legion. And the secondary clause in that sentence, “for many demons had entered him” is not in quotations, so it is impossible to tell who has come to the conclusion that many demons had entered him. Is that Mark’s conclusion? The man’s? The townspeople’s? Nothing in the entire passage is a direct quote from Jesus except when Jesus asks him his name, and at the end when Jesus tells him to return home and declare what Jesus has done for him.] ³¹They begged him not to order them to go back into the abyss. [Suddenly the narrative shifts to the “demons” talking, and this is where the problems with a literal interpretation begin to really stack up. First of all, there is no description to let us know if it was the man talking, or disembodied voices, or any indication of how it is determined that it is now the “legions” talking and not simply the mental illness (multiple personality disorder, psychosis, schizoid, bipolar, schizophrenic, etc) making the man sound split-off from himself – which is exactly what many forms of mental disorders do. All this shows is that Mark’s interpretation or assumption or conclusion is that now the demons are talking. But why should we assume without much more evidence that he is correct in his assumption? Nothing in the text verifies that assumption – it is all assumed based on the knowledge of the time that crazy talk and crazy behavior that cannot be explained is the result of demons.

But moreover, the picture it paints of demons is very confusing and not at all in keeping with the view that Satan and demons exist as free will beings similar to humans (only in the spiritual realm) whose free will God somehow can’t revoke, and therefore they run amok screwing up nature and humans on earth. If a belief in Satan and demons is somehow necessary for theodicy, to explain natural evil, then this story doesn’t make sense at all. Because in this story, the demons are begging Jesus to not send them “back into the abyss.” If this is literal, and Jesus/God can send demons into the abyss whenever He wants, then the existence of demons as a cause of evil has absolutely no benefit to theodicy at all! The free-will defense only has teeth insofar as it is not revocable. If God can pick and choose who “demons” afflict (ala the story of Job, or this story) then how can it be said that he is off the hook on the question of evil? And if the answer to that is that somehow the man has to give permission – well, the literal interpretation doesn’t allow for this – because if the man and the demons are really separate entities, it was the man who told Jesus to stop tormenting him. And of course animals cannot give or deny God permission concerning Satan or demons, so we are left with very little in the way of explanatory power for theodicy.]

32 Now there on the hillside a large herd of swine was feeding; and the demons^* begged Jesus^* to let them enter these. So he gave them permission. [Again, there is nothing in this passage to reveal who is interpreting or assuming or concluding that the “voice” begging Jesus is a legion of demons. There is no direct reference from Jesus (and even if there were it would not be clear if it were meant literally or figuratively). All we know is that Mark’s version attributes the voice to demons, but without any description that might reveal how one discerns psychotic talk from demonic talk. Furthermore, if this passage is taken literally then one would have to conclude that God/Jesus has total control of demons, to the point of giving them permission to go into a herd of swine or sending them into the abyss. I suppose one could argue that God could also cure all blindness, since Jesus healed the blind, and yet he doesn’t. But to me that comparison only works if “demons” are metaphorical shorthand for any negative process that is not understood – an “unseen agent.” Because that puts it into the realm of entropy and the natural world and necessary epistemic distance – which God does not interfere with – in order that we have free will. If demons are in fact free will creatures, then why wouldn’t Jesus be healing them? Why wouldn’t he be preaching to them? Why wouldn’t he be dying for them? You see Jesus is either showing the demons not enough compassion or too much compassion. If they are free will beings capable of being saved then He isn’t doing enough for them, but if they are free will beings who are utterly lost already then He is showing too much compassion for them at the expense of everyone else they might destroy – like the pigs. And why in the world, if the demons were free-will beings, would they want to go into the pigs? Why would they beg Jesus to go into the pigs?] ³³Then the demons came out of the man and entered the swine, and the herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and was drowned. [Why would the “demons” beg Jesus to go into the pigs, only to run them off a cliff and be drowned? Demons be dum–dums, I guess. And once again, there is no corroborating description that shows any reason to believe that this is anything but an interpretation/conclusion based on the knowledge of the time, which was very limited. If the demons in this passage are literal, then this is a plot shot full of holes that a truck could drive through. Why did the demons need permission to leave the man? Why would they want to go in the pigs? Why would they then kill the pigs? Why would Jesus give permission for them to leave? Why wouldn’t he just send them into the abyss? Why would he let demons go, demons who were capable of destroying a man’s whole life, to the point that he was wandering around naked trying to hurt himself? If the answer is that the demons were free will beings, then why wouldn’t Jesus try to heal the demons? If they were free will beings why did they need Jesus’ permission in the first place?

If the demons in the story are literal, none of it makes any sense. If the demons are actually phenomena resulting from the man’s fractured psyche – symptoms of mental illness, in other words – the story actually starts to make sense.  It makes sense why the man wouldn’t like to let go of them – in the same way an alcoholic is afraid of letting go of the bottle even as it destroys his life. The psychological element of mental illness is often a destructive pattern that nonetheless “works” for a person in some way – a way that is often very hard to give up. It also explains Jesus’ behavior – why he would “cast out” the demons – because a destructive mental process of one person does not have the power to “infect” someone else as a volitional being. And the death of the pigs may have been a necessary cathartic act for the man to truly believe that his “demons” were destroyed – humans tend to need a physical expression of change to begin anew: to be “born again” or to “turn over a new leaf” or to “burn bridges” etc.]

34 When the swineherds saw what had happened, they ran off and told it in the city and in the country. ³⁵Then people came out to see what had happened, and when they came to Jesus, they found the man from whom the demons had gone sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind. And they were afraid. ³⁶Those who had seen it told them how the one who had been possessed by demons had been healed. ³⁷Then all the people of the surrounding country of the Gerasenes^* asked Jesus^* to leave them; for they were seized with great fear. So he got into the boat and returned. ³⁸The man from whom the demons had gone begged that he might be with him; but Jesus^* sent him away, saying, ³⁹‘Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.’ So he went away, proclaiming throughout the city how much Jesus had done for him. [If demons are free will beings that roam around tormenting people and causing a world that would have been full of bunnies to be full of tigers and eagles, then this is an even odder story, indeed. Because this would have been a great opportunity for Jesus to teach people about demons and what to do about them. If God is at war with Satan and his legions (which is an odd concept if God is love) then why wouldn’t he show people what to do about them? Why wouldn’t he show the crowd how to do an exorcism? Or show the crowd how to pray for the man’s release? Or show the crowd how to jump up and down singing “I’m going to stomp that devil right under my feet” with some catchy backup music? Jesus doesn’t do that. He heals the man, and then tells him to “Return to your home, and declare how much God has done for you.” Why wouldn’t he say instead, “Return to your home, and warn people about demons!”

If demons are merely “unseen agents” like physical and psychological diseases, then it makes sense that a man afflicted with them can be “healed.” If demons are free-willed spirit beings that can possess humans and change nature, then to speak of a man being “healed” of them is to speak metaphorically – to use the language of sickness and disease to describe a volitional act of one free will being on another. But if one can say that that language is metaphorical, then one must admit that it may in fact be the other language about demons being volitional that is the metaphorical language!]

Laika: I was thinking more along the lines of those famous houses that are haunted by a particularly described apparition.  I don't have any examples off the top of my head but you know those places.  They'll say that this house is haunted by an eight year old girl.  They say that because a number of people have seen and heard a girl around the age of eight over the years.  They'll be a history of a murder of an eight year old in that house many years ago.

Are these all auto-suggestion?  It's hard to believe that all such cases are that.

Of course, many sailors have seen narwhals and manatees and there's this whole convergent history of mermaid sightings.......

Semeia: Oh, ghosts… well of course I believe in ghosts, doesn’t everybody? That’s completely different. Actually, I’m only half kidding, because I do believe that people have life after death, so it doesn’t seem impossible to me that there isn’t some kind of overlap.

But the idea that Satan and demons are volitional beings has never had any force for me. That doesn’t mean that I reject the idea of a spiritual realm – I just don’t think it is a realm populated by cartoon bad guys whose raison d’être is less well thought out than your average Hollywood western, or Bollywood western, for that matter. I also tend to think God is not a dunce, and no matter how I slice it, a world beset by a big beast behind the scenes mucking up things from the Big Bang onward is just, well, dunce-like.

I do think evil is a force, and that that force can build into something that seems very much like a being. It is why there is such a thing as a “mob mentality” or a zeitgeist or a gestalt. It is why an entire nation can be seduced into great evil by the Hitlers and the Stalins of the world. But it is entirely explainable by human psychology and human weakness and human evil. Complex Adaptive Systems theory shows how sometimes smaller forces can explode into larger ones in a very short period of time.

I understand why a Young Earth Creationist would hold to a literal view of Satan and demons; I have a hard time understanding why anyone else would. To use Satan or demons as an explanation of natural evil is to me a rejection of God’s creation. It comes from the very human desire for utopia. Unfortunately, every attempt in that direction on this earth has resulted in a form of totalitarianism, so perhaps God knows something about perfection that we don’t.

The idea that nature is evil, that nature is a result of the world being fallen, is appalling to me. It explains nothing. It’s a terrible theory. I have no energy to investigate the existence of Satan or demons, because nothing in science or in the Bible leads me in that direction. The metaphorical meaning has far greater depth of meaning for me – just as the metaphorical meaning of Genesis has far greater meaning than a literal interpretation.

So I guess I just don’t get it. I read the Bible and it says something very different to me than it says to many people. I feel that every minute spent talking or thinking about Satan or demons or, even worse, the idea of nature as somehow evil, is a minute wasted. I love God, I love physics, I love psychology, I love the extremely irritating people and cats who populate my life, I love the natural world even though it can be violent, and I accept that being alive comes with a lot of pain and not a lot of certainty. But I feel that the bit of life that we are given here is best used by learning how to love, and how to improve the lot of the people around us – or as House would say, the people we find in the room with us. I think that spending time being against Satan is kind of like spending time being for the family – what does that even mean? The former is religious blather and the latter is political blather, but they are blather all the same. Nobody has ever been able to tell me what that means.

But hey, there is a great book out called The End of Poverty which really is about ending poverty, and about why certain parts of the world have been left out of the massive build-up of wealth and technological progress of the last century. There are economic reasons that if understood, can be changed. That is really interesting to me.

Thanks,

Semeia

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword?  As it is written:
"For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered."
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.  For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers,  neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/24/2007 7:46:29 PM (GMT-5)