What attitude do we take as faithful Catholics when the headlines periodically swell with tales of credulity and incredulity over such matters as demons and exorcists?
The first thing to remember is St. Paul’s counsel that we “may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming” (Ephesians 4:14). Paul has in mind the various fashions and fads that whip people up with excitement about the Latest Thing.
Sometimes such fads are conscious deceptions by people out for power or a buck. But more often we are faced with people who think they are telling the truth. So, for instance, while Dan Brown was clearly lying when he told us that The Da Vinci Code was based on fact and careful research, it is not at all clear that the millions of suckers who bought the hype were lying when they repeated it around millions of water coolers. (“Joe thinks that there Da Vinci thing is a pretty good read. Says he learned a lot about the Catholic Church. I think I’ll read it.”)
Much the same goes on in the periodic enthusiasms over other spiritual matters. Your friend Bob reads a book about exorcism by an enthusiastic priest. Bob’s a good guy, you figure, and smart, so it must be worth a look. Because Bob’s your pal, you’re already predisposed to trust and defend the book, even when the priest claims to have performed 30,000 exorcisms in a nine-year period. In case you are counting, that’s nine exorcisms per day for nine years. Later, he ups the count to 50,000 exorcisms. This seems rather a stretch, and your atheist co-worker snorts at the book and at your friend. So you get defensive for Bob and for the priest, as though some sacred part of Holy Church is under threat if you don’t buy that 30,000-to-50,000 exorcisms claim, sight unseen.
In fact, it’s okay to listen when your skepticism bells go off, just so long as you are clear about what’s in doubt. The 30,000 exorcisms claim, if shown to be false, doesn’t mean the Church’s teaching is wrong. It doesn’t mean the priest knows nothing about exorcism. It doesn’t even mean Bob is a liar or a fool. There’s only one thing it certainly does mean, if shown to be false. It means that that claim is false, and it suggests that the priest making the claim is human and may not be altogether reliable. Further evidence may come to light showing the priest to be completely unreliable, but until you have the facts, you are getting ahead of yourself. It does not in the slightest mean that demons do not exist and the power of Christ cannot expel them.
In all this, my point is to stress the need for prudence and sound judgment in discussing the demonic. The trouble is: Prudence and sound judgment are in short supply in modern media — which is why I think it inadvisable for Catholics to spend too much time discussing the demonic in the public square. Such discussions tend to generate far more heat than light.
In this, I think I have the backing of Tradition, which tends to give short shrift to Satan, not parade him in lurid tales. Jesus’ exorcisms more or less consist of advising possessors to buzz off. The Lord’s Prayer shunts Old Scratch to the final line and addresses not him, but God the Father (“Deliver us from the evil one.”). Paul scarcely mentions him at all, and only in passing as a hindrance and as a thing Jesus is about to tread underfoot.
In short: If you want to drive Satan nuts, keep your eyes on Jesus.
Mark Shea, content editor at CatholicExchange.com,
blogs at NCRegister.com.
Comments
Post a Comment
“The trouble is: Prudence and sound judgment are in short supply in modern media — which is why I think it inadvisable for Catholics to spend too much time discussing the demonic in the public square. Such discussions tend to generate far more heat than light.”
Could it be that seriously promoting demonic possession opens one up to ridicule because demonic possession is ridiculous?
Tough subject. So many ways to go wrong. Deny exorcism is valid, and you miss the mark. Talk about it and you risk causing confusion. Make wild public claims in terms of numbers, and you risk bringing ridicule to the faith. (BTW, was that number of actual exorcism sessions claimed, or the number of demons chased off? Remember the passage “we are legion.”)
That said, when I watched an interview with the author of the latest book on the topic, I turned to my wife and said, “Nah, doesn’t know the first thing about it.” In which case, your concluding line is the best advice, “Keep your eyes on Jesus.”
Yes,keep your eyes on Jesus, but know that you have an enemy who is real and with whom we are in a battle. Lies about the Lord, ourselves, others, accusations/condemnations, confusion, temptations galore-we see his hand
all around us. We have authority given to us to deal with him, but too often it’s “out of sight, out of mind”. Exorcism is a reality but more than that it’s the everyday battle that affects us. His best weapon is that he’s a myth. When’s the last time you heard about how to deal with him in your everyday life? He’s part of the big 3: world, flesh, and the devil. You better know how to deal with them.
One very good thing about modern priest exorcists and there association: when they decide a case can be exorcised they just do not miss anymore!
The days of mis-diagnosis due to Tourette’s syndrone, rye ergot poisioning (causing hallucinations- primariy in Central europe associated with the great 17th century witch hunts), common schizophrenia and other psychiatric problems are over.
When an Church sponsored priest exorcisms is performed today, it does good!
Brian: It may well be that demonic possession is “ridiculous,” if by that you mean it is nonsensical, absurd, irrational, or stupid. Could you please clarify what this has to do with whether or not the phenomenon actually ever occurs?
Billy: People believe all kinds of ridiculous things, including “demonic possession.” If you (or anyone else) wants to suggest that it actually happens, please bring on the evidence.
Brian,
I encourage you to read the book, “Hostage to the Devil, The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans”, by Malachi Martin. Tell me what part of the book is unbelievable. At least go to Amazon and check out the book reviews. Thereafter read, “An Exorcist Tells His Story”, by Gabriele Amorth, and note what part of the book is unbelievable. And for the finish read, “Interview with an Exorcist”, by Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea, and all the pieces of the puzzle will fit for you.
We know the devil exists because our blessed Lord tells us so. To believe in the devil, we must believe in the words of Christ or else come to this belief by some human reasoning. It follows that those who disbelieve either don’t believe in Christ (in which case we shouldn’t even bother debating it, which would be throwing what is holy to dogs) or don’t have human reason (in which case we argue with fools, which is always unwise). There are devils, but I don’t feel it’s appropriate or fruitful to debate their existence with those who refuse the prerequisite beliefs.
Thanks, Mark, for a good article with a dicussion that perhaps proved it. As devils are invisible, there really can be no empirical argument against their existence. It is a waste of time to debate with the unbelieving over the issue, as it is a matter of revelation that they exist. We should first try to make them believe that Christ is truth and would not lie, only then might they believe. Of course, the existence of the devil is a terrible way to start evangelization, and I suspect it would simply attract those who seek the occult to a twisted perception of the Gospel.
“Tell me what part of the book is unbelievable.”
Sorry, anyone can write words in a book; that isn’t credible evidence at all.
“We know the devil exists because our blessed Lord tells us so.”
Sorry, anyone can write words in a book; that isn’t credible evidence at all.
The 16th century is over, people; demons don’t cause disease.
“The 16th century is over, people; demons don’t cause disease.”
As usual, the argument hinges on a complete misunderstanding of Christianity. John 9:1-3 helps settle the question of where diseases come from (or rather, where they don’t come from).
I’m also not sure how your response to what you quoted of my post has anything to do with what I said. The fact is this: belief in demons, at least in a Christian sense, depends on belief in Christ (although some Jews also believe in demons). If you don’t believe in Christ, I don’t expect you to believe in demons. However, as demons are spirits, we can’t expect empirical science to prove them, nor can it disprove them, so it’s a waste of time to debate this point with someone who doesn’t acknowledge the source of this knowledge.
That said, I must reiterate: the Catholic Church has long established that psychological illness must be ruled out before exorcism may take place. The Church certainly doesn’t teach, as you Imply, that diseases are all caused by demons.
Mr. Westley,
“Sorry, anyone can write words in a book; that isn’t credible evidence at all.” Does this mean you don’t read books? You know what I mean… The pages of the books may not be evidence, but they document substantial credible, physical evidence and eyewitness accounts that you could evaluate and investigate further if you were really interested. And each book addresses the point—emphatically—that most alleged cases of demonic possession are not supernatural at all, but rather due to natural sickness or delusion that are better directed to the field of medicine or psychiatry, not exorcism. But this makes the remaining cases of authentic, undeniable demonic possession all the more compelling, especially when they have been witnessed by scientists, physicians and others who were skeptical beforehand. And there are numerous cases, and they are increasing dramatically in recent times as more and more people disregard the protection of sacramental grace.
But I’m afraid Micah made the better point: the devil should not be the first choice of focus when it comes to conversion. It’s just that—for those who doubt the devil’s existence and the supernatural battle for your soul, there is ample physical evidence of intelligent evil in the experience of every bona fide exorcist, if you demand such evidence.
In any case these arguments become circular. The bottom line is that skeptics like you will never get religion as long as you treat God as a proposition rather than as a Person. If you really want credible, personal evidence of God’s existence then pray to Jesus Christ to help your disbelief (on His terms—not yours), and then hold onto your seat…
“The Church certainly doesn’t teach, as you Imply, that diseases are all caused by demons.”
I didn’t imply that. However, the RCC (and lots of people here) do seem to think that SOME diseases or maladies are caused by demons.
“undeniable demonic possession”
WAHAHAHA!
Your definition of “undeniable” clearly doesn’t match mine.
You may as well recommend sacrificing a goat to cure illnesses.
Brian, you’ll have to provide documented evidence to back up claims that we Catholics believe diseases are caused by demons. Personally, I find your mixture of Catholicism and Shamanism to be a tad bit silly. In any event, the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that demons cause disease, so any Catholic who claims that is going out on a limb. I think it’s a little rude to judge the trunk (or, for that matter, the Vine) by the branches.
“you’ll have to provide documented evidence to back up claims that we Catholics believe diseases are caused by demons.”
Just look at this thread; it’s clear some Catholics believe some maladies are caused by demonic possession.
“the Catholic Church doesn’t teach that demons cause disease”
It teaches that people can still be possessed by demons and that exorcism is a proper “treatment;” the Vatican still has an official exorcist. I’d say that qualifies as teaching that demons cause SOME disease.
Teaching that people can be possessed by demons is ridiculous.
If the only proof you have that the Church believes demons to be the cause of disease is to redefine possession a disease, then I suppose you’ve designed a self-proving argument. Naturally, I’ll have to point out that possession is not a disease and, again, that the Church excludes physical causes such as disease in exorcisms. Diseases have physical causes, possessions do not. So it’s your definition of possession as a disease I challenge. However, you can’t prove that every possession is a disease, so I don’t see how you can win this debate, nor how I can, which brings me back to my original point: we accept the reality thatthere are demons because Christ tells us so, but our beliefs can’t be disproven, so the debate is a waste of time for both of us unless we both agree on the gospel as a truth upon which to base our beliefs.
” Naturally, I’ll have to point out that possession is not a disease and, again, that the Church excludes physical causes such as disease in exorcisms.”
All that’s doing is calling any unknown condition as “demon possession.”
Teaching that people can be possessed by demons is ridiculous.
“All that’s doing is calling any unknown condition as ‘demon possession.’”
No, unknown conditions that involve manifestations of diabolical activity might be called possessions. If someone has an unexplainable condition (my brother, for instance, has a medical condition doctors haven’t figured out for years), that doesn’t make it possession. It’s the diabolical part, not the “can’t be linked to a known medical/psychological condition” part, that makes it a possession. No medical condition, explained or unexplained, could account for things flying around the room or other things such as supernatural strength long attributed to the possessed.
“Teaching that people can be possessed by demons is ridiculous.”
Which you have yet to prove and, again, can’t prove, unless you intend to show that spirits are subject to empirical methods.
“No, unknown conditions that involve manifestations of diabolical activity might be called possessions.”
Yes yes yes, “diabolical activity”. And unbalanced humors show that your bile is out of whack.
““Teaching that people can be possessed by demons is ridiculous.”
Which you have yet to prove and, again, can’t prove, unless you intend to show that spirits are subject to empirical methods.”
Oh, I agree it’s completely impossible to show superstitious people that their superstitions are wrong, because all they ever do is handwave problems aside and say that I can’t prove that black cats really can’t curse people, that evil dwarves don’t live under the earth, and that demonic possession doesn’t really happen. But such beliefs are ridiculous, which is why people who believe such idiotic tripe are ridiculed.
Okey doke. So Brian has established that he believes sneering is the same as examination of evidence. Moving on….
As Knute Rockne once said, “Never walk away from somebody who tries to tell you something, because he might be asking for help.” May God bless you, Brian.
“Okey doke. So Brian has established that he believes sneering is the same as examination of evidence.”
No, Mark Shea; you have given no evidence to examine. Anecdotes aren’t data. Saying something is caused by demonic possession has the same weight as claiming it’s caused by a voodoo curse. There’s a reason modern medicine advanced when (at least some) people STOPPED believing in demonic possession and started looking into non-superstitious causes.
Others did. And you flung the books they recommended aside with a sneer, which you think is an adequate substitute for thinking. Worship of the intellect is a favorite strategy for those who dislike using it and prefer sneering.
There are two basic questions here. 1. Do demons exist? Nothing in the sciences can prove or disprove that, despite your sneering.
The second question is “Do demons sometimes interact with humans?” One can sometimes disprove false claims of possession or oppression if sufficient evidence is available. With real claims, the most the sciences can do is say, “We can’t explain that weird thing Catholics attribute to demons.” Everything beyond that, whether yea or nay, is of faith or (in your case) sneering.
You don’t like the books proferred. Okay, then. Go find an exorcist and see if you can participate in some first hand observations. If you can’t be bothered, then shut up, because you are then just an ignoramus talking through his butt about things he has neither knowledge of nor experience with. Materialist dogmatism on your part does not constitute a crisis of faith on the Church’s part.
“Yes yes yes, ‘diabolical activity’. And unbalanced humors show that your bile is out of whack.”
If there was ever anyone in need of a clearer understanding of the balance between aggiornamento and ressourcement…
Your understanding of Catholicism is severely lacking. I’d love to help you, but you’re not open to learning.
This reminds me of a debate I once had with a fundamentalist pastor. When his understanding of Catholicism was clearly flawed, I suggested he read the Catechism in order to get the basic info on what we really believed. He attempted to shift the debate by shouting, “I don’t need a catechism, I have the Bible!” It was clear at that point that he wasn’t interested in authentic dialogue. If we didn’t believe in the Bible (which he claimed), then he should find out what we do believe in. He was more interested in winning a debate by bringing it back to the false dichotomy between the Bible and the Catechism and making the Catholic Church look unbiblical. You, sir, are attempting to win a debate, not attempting to dialogue. Consequently, you see fit to redefine terms, insist that I’m saying something I’m not, call to mind archaic notions associated with Catholicism (but nonetheless not a part of the deposit of faith), and do anything you can to insist you know what you’re talking about. There’s another similarity between you and the fundamentalist pastor, though: to the discerning onlooker, you both look foolish, because people can see through the tricks and the rhetoric. As for me, I’ll just walk away and leave you where I left the pastor.
God bless.
“Others did. And you flung the books they recommended aside with a sneer, which you think is an adequate substitute for thinking.”
No, no, claims in books aren’t evidence. Anecdotes aren’t data.
“1. Do demons exist? Nothing in the sciences can prove or disprove that, despite your sneering.”
Same with evil dwarves and voodoo curses causing illnesses.
Yes, it’s easy to just make up complete nonsense and pretend it means something.
” Go find an exorcist and see if you can participate in some first hand observations.”
Oh, you mean exorcisms that sometimes result in the “patient’s” death? Or where children are killed because they’re accused of witchcraft?
“If you can’t be bothered, then shut up, because you are then just an ignoramus talking through his butt about things he has neither knowledge of nor experience with.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Remember, YOU’RE the ones advocating for invisible boogymen, not me.
Superstitious idiots like yourself aren’t doing people with genuine problems any favors by promoting your religious claptrap.
Like I said, real progress in medicine was made when people STOPPED believing in such nonsense.
Micah:
Scratch an atheist, find a fundamentalist. It’s remarkable how similar the personality types often are. Rigid, dogmatic and smug certitude about things they can’t be bothered to take the time to learn even the most elementary things. You feel an urge to just play stupid with them: To the Atheist: “Oh! The body doesn’t have four humors? Wow! Who *are* you who are so wise in the ways of Science?” or to the Fundie: “Oh! You mean the *Bible is the Word of God? I’ve never ever heard such a thing! The Church doesn’t allow us to read or think about the Bible. Tell me more!”
Sheesh!
Speak of the devil, Brian. :)
Yes. It’s well known the Catholic Church forbids the use of this “medicine” you speak of. Doctors are evil. The hospital and medical systems were founded in the Middle Ages by heretics, not Catholics. Our first and only duty as Catholics is to subject all sick people to exorcists and, if that does not work, to put the sick through trials by water and fire rather than go to doctors. Clearly, you totally understand the Catholic approach to science and medicine. Teach us. For wisdom will die with you, Brian.
“can’t be bothered to take the time to learn even the most elementary things.”
About demons. Riiiiiiiiight.
Are elves after demons, or isn’t it alphabetical?
You don’t seem to realize that argument from authority is a fallacy. To argue for demonic possession, you need to show that demons really exist. But “demons” are as real as voodoo curses.
No point of revelation (including the existence of angels or demons) can be proven, though all attempts to refute supernatural revelation can be refuted with reason. Catholics believe in the existence of angels because it is a truth revealed by Christ through the Church. Believing in them (and therefore in the existence of those angels which have abused their free will (which we call “demons”), we acknowledge the possibility (attested by Christ and his apostles) that demons can sometimes possess or oppress human beings and otherwise create mischief in the natural order. Experience attests this as well.
Your reply to this is not an exercise of reason but, simply, a sneer. Duly noted. For medievals, the argument from *human* authority is, as you note, the weakest form of argument. However, the argument from divine authority is regarded as strong. Until you have dealt with the elementary things (i.e., the questions such as the existence of God, the deity of Christ, etc.) quibbling about things like whether the existence of angels and demons are part of divine revelation is pretty low on the totem pole.
But that requires more than sneering.
“No point of revelation (including the existence of angels or demons) can be proven”
Yes, yes, hide in ignorance and mindlessly repeat that your religion is right.
Oh, and anyone who uses phrases like “an ignoramus talking through his butt” has no grounds to complain about “sneers.”
Your demons are on equal footing with voodoo curses.
It’s not ignorant to point out that supernatural revelation cannot be proven by natural reason. It’s simply a statement of fact. If you used your intellect instead of merely worshipping it, you would familiarize yourself with St. Thomas a bit and find out why this is a fact.
“It’s not ignorant to point out that supernatural revelation cannot be proven by natural reason.”
No, but that wasn’t what I was referring to. Believing in demon possession is ignorant. You can do all your magical handwaving you like, but promoting the idea that demonic possession causes some maladies is both ignorant and dangerous. It has the same basis as saying maladies are caused by voodoo curses; none.
Promoting ignorance like demonic possession causes harm.
“Our first and only duty as Catholics is to subject all sick people to exorcists and, if that does not work, to put the sick through trials by water and fire rather than go to doctors. Clearly, you totally understand the Catholic approach to science and medicine.”
Someone get me a scale and a duck!
Believing in demon possession is ignorant.
Only if you have definitively shown that all maladies are explicable from natural causes and that there are no such things as demons. Otherwise, believing in the possibility of demon possession is what used to be called “open-minded.”
Here is G.K. Chesterton, on the peculiarity of your refusal to use your intellect and your strange insistence on worshipping it. He is speaking miracles but the same thing applies to things like demonic activities:
Somehow or other an extraordinary idea has arisen that the disbelievers in miracles consider them coldly and fairly, while believers in miracles accept them only in connection with some dogma. The fact is quite the other way. The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them. The open, obvious, democratic thing is to believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a miracle, just as you believe an old apple-woman when she bears testimony to a murder. The plain, popular course is to trust the peasant’s word about the ghost exactly as far as you trust the peasant’s word about the landlord. Being a peasant he will probably have a great deal of healthy agnosticism about both. Still you could fill the British Museum with evidence uttered by the peasant, and given in favour of the ghost. If it comes to human testimony there is a choking cataract of human testimony in favour of the supernatural. If you reject it, you can only mean one of two things. You reject the peasant’s story about the ghost either because the man is a peasant or because the story is a ghost story. That is, you either deny the main principle of democracy, or you affirm the main principle of materialism—the abstract impossibility of miracle. You have a perfect right to do so; but in that case you are the dogmatist. It is we Christians who accept all actual evidence—it is you rationalists who refuse actual evidence being constrained to do so by your creed. But I am not constrained by any creed in the matter, and looking impartially into certain miracles of mediaeval and modern times, I have come to the conclusion that they occurred. All argument against these plain facts is always argument in a circle. If I say, “Mediaeval documents attest certain miracles as much as they attest certain battles,” they answer, “But mediaevals were superstitious”; if I want to know in what they were superstitious, the only ultimate answer is that they believed in the miracles. If I say “a peasant saw a ghost,” I am told, “But peasants are so credulous.” If I ask, “Why credulous?” the only answer is—that they see ghosts. Iceland is impossible because only stupid sailors have seen it; and the sailors are only stupid because they say they have seen Iceland.
***
You are constrained by a dogma. I’m not. I’m *free* to suppose that the best explanation for a certain phenomenon might be a demon, though I don’t *have* to think that (and I seldom do). You are forbidden by your suffocating creed of materialist atheism from *ever* supposing something might be due to a demon, even if the evidence were staring you in the face.
But remember, Christians are the ones who are afraid to follow the evidence whereever it might lead due to their mindless slavery to dogma.
“Until you have dealt with the elementary things (i.e., the questions such as the existence of God, the deity of Christ, etc.) quibbling about things like whether the existence of angels and demons are part of divine revelation is pretty low on the totem pole.”
Precisely the point of my first response! It’s like telling a fundamentalist that 2 Maccabees supports purgatory before convincing him of the canonicity of the deuterocanon. Brian, science can’t disprove demons. Faith tells us that demons exist. Until you have faith, I don’t expect you to believe in demons. Nevertheless, you can’t ridicule me for believing it, because you can’t disprove it. The only reason you say it’s false is that it seems unappealing to you, but it can’t possibly seem unreasonable (empiricism aside), because no valid argument can be used against it. Your empiricism, of course, requires that you reject all that isn’t proven positively from human reason alone, but that’s the weakness of empiricism: there’s a middle ground of things you can’t prove and can’t disprove. What to do, what to do?
And, of course, the joke on Brian is that even empiricism requires certain unprovable acts of faith (as that the faith that a universe exists exterior to our minds or that this universe is intelligible or that the law of non-contradiction is valid). The wonderful thing about all forms of heresy is that they take some piece of Faith, assume that article of Faith to be self-evident, and then use it to attack other things for being articles of faith.
Seriously, Brian should read the replies of Ye Olde Statistician here. Setting yourself up as a semi-professional atheist polemicist is one of the fastest ways I know to make yourself ignorant. Brian’s substitution of jeering for thought is a laboratory example.
Yes, I couldn’t be an atheist, I don’t have the faith for it!
What the skeptics think they gain in allowing only scientifically proven premises in their world view—-to try to eliminate too much dependence on faith, they lose by the utter incompleteness of their metaphysical theories. Their meaning-of-life puzzles are so incomplete as to be incoherent and present no persuasive picture at all. This is why Brian is spinning.
There is no such thing as a belief-system, religious or not, that doesn’t rely on at least one mysterious premise—on at least one supreme article of faith at its foundation. The atheistic materialist’s belief in uncreated matter as the origin of all, for example, is not only without proof but inconceivable, and therefore a matter of “faith”. Think about it.
Let’s say that the universe originated from some sort of “Big Bang” or similar start. To think that God had a hand in this—that an uncreated Creator could create something out of nothing, “ex nihilo”, is inscrutable and therefore a matter of faith. Fair enough. But is the atheistic concept of a God-less “Big Bang” or similar beginning any less unfathomable? What would the materialist claim to be the essential source of the “Bang”? What actually exploded all on its own? Microscopically small matter? Only gases? Fine. But consider that no matter how elementary the element, no matter how small the particle of matter—even if in a gaseous state, such microscopically minute matter would still be something and not nothing. Some form of matter would have to have existed from time eternal—“uncreated”—in the mind of the materialist skeptic who insists on dismissing belief in an eternal Being as the Creator. Absolute nothingness—both spiritual and physical—is not an option. Quoting Chesterton: “It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything”.
This is just one example of the materialist’s reliance on “faith”, and there are many others. It always comes down to faith: a faith rooted solely in eternal “uncreated” matter, or faith in an eternal, uncreated Creator. Is one more inconceivable than the other? Every irreligious skeptic, then, is also a “faith-based” person whether they admit it or not. They may claim fewer articles of faith they rely on, but this in itself is nothing to brag about since as a result their belief-systems are pathetically incomplete, morally incoherent, and incapable of answering questions about life’s mysteries, even questions from—and perhaps especially from children. The skeptics are so focused on trying to avoid anything that cannot be scientifically proven with physical evidence that they miss the meaning of life! In any case, a lack of scientific proof is oftentimes temporary, and may be an indication of man’s ignorance and the (present) limits of scientific knowledge rather than an indication of actual implausibility.
It is one thing to disallow supernatural mysteries in discussions about the physical sciences, for—after all, they are super-natural, and may be beyond the boundaries of study for the natural sciences. But it is quite another thing to misappropriate this mindset outside the laboratory—to metaphysical theories about religion and the meaning of life, where some supernatural mysteries rightfully belong, man’s present inability to provide scientific proof notwithstanding.
Brian Westley
claims in books aren’t evidence. Anecdotes aren’t data.
.
YOS
Shoot. There goes the entire field of history.
+ + +
Brian
argument from authority is a fallacy.
.
YOS
It is only an informal fallacy. A great deal depends on the nature of the authority. If, for example, Hawking makes a statement in physics, I will take it as authoritative; but if he makes a statement in philosophy, I am entitled to laugh. An authority in a field is not guaranteed to be correct, but he is guaranteed to know what he’s talking about.
+ + +
Brian
Your demons are on equal footing with voodoo curses.
.
YOS
Not equal. The class of {X| Brian does not believe in X} need not consist of equivalent things.
+ + +
Hope this helps:
.
What is principally intended by God in creatures is good, and this consists in assimilation to God Himself. And the perfect assimilation of an effect to a cause is accomplished when the effect imitates the cause according to that whereby the cause produces the effect.
Now, God produces the creature by His intellect and will. Hence the perfection of the universe requires that there should be intellectual creatures. Now intelligence cannot be the action of a body, nor of any corporeal faculty; for every body is limited to “here” and “now” [whereas the intellect is not]. Hence the perfection of the universe requires the existence of an incorporeal creature.
Further, it is impossible for an intellectual substance to have any kind of matter. For the operation belonging to anything is according to the mode of its substance. Now to understand is an altogether immaterial operation, as appears from its object, whence any act receives its species and nature. For a thing is understood according to its degree of immateriality; because forms that exist in matter are individual forms which the intellect cannot apprehend as such. Hence it must be that every intellectual substance is altogether immaterial.
—Summa theologica, Pt I. Q50. art 1&2. respondeo
Cautions: a “substance” is the combination of matter with form. A thing is what it is by virtue of its form. E.g. Sodium and Chlorine are both made of the same matter: to wit, protons, neutrons, electrons. But they differ in their forms: the number and arrangement of their parts. And it is this arrangement that makes one a metal and the other a gas.
“Matter” is what a substance is made of. A wall is made of bricks, the bricks are made of clay, the clay is made of… etc. A book has a “subject matter”. This is the original usage. Hence the distinction between incorporeal (non physical) and immaterial (subsisting only of form). We deal with such things all the time in math. We can consider “three-sidedness” (a pure form) independently of any matter (i.e., of any particular triangle made of felt, or chalk, or phosphors on a screen, etc.)
Beings of pure form fit neatly into the lattice between form-less matter (pure potency) of the hule prote, the combined matter-+-form of the compound bodies of natural experience, the matter-less form of angels and demons, to the wholly Actualized Form of the Godhead.
IOW, it is not at all irrational to suppose such things. Already in the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas warned clerics in cases of apparent possession not to leap to a supernatural explanation when a purely natural one was sufficient.
In this regard, the respondeo of II-1. Q80. Article II is instructive:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2080.htm#article2
Believing in demon possession is ignorant
“Only if you have definitively shown that all maladies are explicable from natural causes and that there are no such things as demons.”
The burden of proof is on you.
Oh, but you’ll just try and twist it around, that somehow NOT believing in demons or voodoo curses or evil dwarves living underground takes MORE faith than believing in any sort of superstitious nonsense.
Seriously, how much nonsense should I believe in? Demons? Angels? Djinn? Vampires? Werewolves? Elves? Dwarves? Dragons? Evil spirits? Curses? Ghosts?
Once you start believing in things without evidence, there’s no stopping point.
The burden of proof is on you.
You don’t really seem to understand the words you use, a common malady for those who worship the intellect instead of using it. It is not “ignorant” to believe in the reality of angels and demons. It may be mistaken, superstitious, magical or accurate. But it is not “ignorant.” Your deployment of that word, without once having shown any evidence of the scientific experiment which definitively disproved the existence of angels is, itself, a remarkably ignorant thing for a champion of atheistic materialism to do.
Oh, but you’ll just try and twist it around, that somehow NOT believing in demons or voodoo curses or evil dwarves living underground takes MORE faith than believing in any sort of superstitious nonsense.
I don’t think that at all. But ignorant polemicist have to say that sort of thing in their attempts to shout down ideas they dislike. Voodoo curses can be empirically measured. So can evil underground dwarves. Incorporeal spiritual intelligences, not so much.
So, for instance, real scientists who really used their intellects instead of merely worshipping them did not approach the question of spontaneous generation of insect life in rotting meat by saying, as you do, “BWAHAHAHAHA! How ignorant to believe such a thing!” Instead, they constructed an experiment to see if insects where spontaneously generated by rotten meat.”
You can’t construct an experiment to test for the presence of an angel, just as you can’t construct an experiment to test for the validity of the Law of Non-Contradiction. That doesn’t mean neither exist. It means that science is not the sole way of knowing about reality.
Seriously, how much nonsense should I believe in? Demons? Angels? Djinn? Vampires? Werewolves? Elves? Dwarves? Dragons? Evil spirits? Curses? Ghosts?
Yes. Catholic faith clearly bids us to believe in all these things. Boy, are you a devastating debunker of Catholic claims.
Once you start believing in things without evidence, there’s no stopping point.
If that we true, then your own evidence-free faith in the law of non-contradiction would oblige you to go on believing in everything you ever heard. Happily, the Catholic intellectual tradition, which uses the intellect instead of merely worshipping it as you do, recognizes that the acceptance of certain faith propositions like “The universe exists outside your mind and is intelligible by it” or “the law of non-contradiction is valid” does not commit us to believing anything and everything. When you start learning to think and not merely to sneer, you might consider finding out a bit about it.
“You don’t really seem to understand the words you use, a common malady for those who worship the intellect instead of using it.”
No, really, the burden of proof is on you. You claim demons, it’s up to you to show some evidence.
“Voodoo curses can be empirically measured. So can evil underground dwarves. Incorporeal spiritual intelligences, not so much.”
But your supposed treatments of demonic possession CAN be measured. Standard double-blind trials could show if exorcisms have any curative powers.
So where are such trials? Oh, the same place as voodoo curse measurements.
Seriously, how much nonsense should I believe in? Demons? Angels? Djinn? Vampires? Werewolves? Elves? Dwarves? Dragons? Evil spirits? Curses? Ghosts?
“Yes. Catholic faith clearly bids us to believe in all these things. Boy, are you a devastating debunker of Catholic claims.”
No, you missed my point. If you want me to believe in demons, should I also believe in werewolves? Djinn? Ghosts? Angels? Curses?
Anyone who can read competently could tell I wasn’t saying that Catholics have to believe all those things; I was asking how much nonsense am I supposed to believe in? If you expect me to believe in demonic possession, even though you admit there’s no good evidence for it, how much other nonsense should I be gullible enough to swallow?
Brian:
I take it you have not read Ye Olde Statistician’s reply to you above. You are not taking the issues in order. You said that believe in demons and angels was “ignorant”. You also swept all historical testimony away by declaring the written word to be utterly irrelevant. Now you want “proof” despite the fact that no point of supernatural revelation can be proven. You don’t seem to know what you want.
The Church cannot “prove” any point of supernatural revelation. If supernatual revelation could be proven by natural reason, it would not need to be supernaturally revealed. The existence of demons and angels can’t be proven by natural reason. However, arguments against supernatural revelation can be rebutted by reason. In your case, you have not offered any reasonable objections, just sneers.
As YOS shows, the existence of angels comports with reason (though it is not provable by reason). In the case of claims of demonic possession, one could construct the experiment you propose. However, since demons are personal intelligences, one would need to bear in mind that the experiment partakes of all the problems you face when dealing with personalities as distinct from things. Moreover, you would never really be able to prove *scientifically* that a demon was involved. Why? Because no point of supernatural revelation can be proven by natural reason. Science will get you to the edge of mystery. It won’t ever get you to the supernatural.
I didn’t say there’s no good evidence for the supernatural. I merely said that science is not able to study that evidence, just as it can’t study the law of non-contradiction (you do know what that is, right?)
“I take it you have not read Ye Olde Statistician’s reply to you above. You are not taking the issues in order. You said that believe in demons and angels was “ignorant”. You also swept all historical testimony away by declaring the written word to be utterly irrelevant.”
Hey, there are millions of words written about all kinds of nonsense.
“Now you want “proof” despite the fact that no point of supernatural revelation can be proven.”
Uh, no. You don’t even understand science (but you try to ridicule the use of it).
I want EVIDENCE. “Proof” is not what science deals with.
But you don’t even know that much. I doubt you know the difference between the terms.
“I didn’t say there’s no good evidence for the supernatural. I merely said that science is not able to study that evidence”
If that’s true, you’ve just admitted that any “cures” for demonic possession can’t be studied by science. Since double-blind trials would work for ANY treatment that produces a statistically significant result, you’re admitting that exorcising demons has the same measurable rate of success as doing nothing at all—because if it DID have a success rate better than doing nothing at all, normal scientific trials would measure that. But you state science can’t even detect a better success rate—so exorcism works just as well as doing nothing.
At least that’s a statement we can agree upon.
“The burden of proof is on you.”
Proof is irrelevent. As I said, there are some things which can neither be proven nor disproven. In such instances, there can’t be a burden of proof. From pure human reason unaided by grace, we’re at an impasse. Faith gives us what we need in order to believe that which you will not believe because you don’t accept grace.
“Oh, but you’ll just try and twist it around, that somehow NOT believing in demons or voodoo curses or evil dwarves living underground takes MORE faith than believing in any sort of superstitious nonsense.”
In all seriousness, that was just an old joke I recycled.
“Once you start believing in things without evidence, there’s no stopping point.”
No, that’s not true. I can’t believe in logical inconsistencies, such as a square circle or a rock so heavy God can’t lift it. Faith isn’t irrational, it’s superrational. I can believe in things that have no (empirical) evidence, but I can’t believe in those things within that category that cannot exist. As I pointed out above, it’s illogical to believe that only those things which can be empirically proven are true, since if there are spiritual realities, they would by nature not be provable empirically. As it is illogical to hold that opinion, it is only logical that I may believe in spiritual realities (although, from human reason alone, I don’t have to).
It would be more true to say that once you stop believing in anything without evidence, there’s no stopping point to doubt. When do you retire to the only truly safe reality of your own interior world, not trusting your perceptions, but trusting only those things you know from within yourself?
“If that’s true, you’ve just admitted that any “cures” for demonic possession can’t be studied by science. Since double-blind trials would work for ANY treatment that produces a statistically significant result, you’re admitting that exorcising demons has the same measurable rate of success as doing nothing at all—because if it DID have a success rate better than doing nothing at all, normal scientific trials would measure that. But you state science can’t even detect a better success rate—so exorcism works just as well as doing nothing.”
One may scientifically study the effect of exorcism on the expressed symptoms of possession (of course, at least in theory, a demon could simply pretend to have given up and choose not to manifest, which would skew the results). However, science cannot study more than the symptoms. The demon isn’t measurable, nor are the spiritual effects.
Hey, there are millions of words written about all kinds of nonsense
In the words of Malibu Barbie, “History is hard.”
Historical testimony is evidence. You dislike that. Now you want double blind studies. Such studies (which you are free to construct and conduct) will not tell you whether demons exist, because demons are supernatural beings and science can’t measure the supernatural. The most such a study might show is that there is some sort of correlation (or not) between claims of demonic possession and claims of release from possession by means of exorcism. Science can’t comment on the existence of demons. It’s built to measure nature, not supernature.
But you state science can’t even detect a better success rate—so exorcism works just as well as doing nothing.
No. I didn’t say anything about the success rate of exorcisms, for the simple reason that I have no idea if anybody has ever attempted to measure such a thing. Somebody could try. Somebody may already have tried. I’m not very confident that such an experiment would yield much useful data, just as I’m not very confident that scientific measurements of other intractable human psychological phenomena from humor to love are worth very much. That’s most because I’m dubious about the utility of science in such situations, not because I think demons don’t exist. But you are welcome to try to measure it if you like.
I note that you still haven’t dealt with the fact that you take the law of noncontradiction on faith and without any basis in evidence. When are you going to deal with that flaw in your simple-minded empiricism? Are or you just going to keep up the bluster?
I want EVIDENCE. “Proof” is not what science deals with.
But you don’t even know that much. I doubt you know the difference between the terms.
Sorry. Us dumb Christians get confused when Brights say things like “The Burden of Proof is on you.” Silly me. I thought you were demanding proof. Is my face red!
“I take it you have not read Ye Olde Statistician’s reply to you above. ... You also swept all historical testimony away by declaring the written word to be utterly irrelevant.”
Brian
Hey, there are millions of words written about all kinds of nonsense.
YOS
And millions of words written about all kinds of sense. You are the one who declared that “anecdotes” and “words in books” are not evidences, and I wondered how that impacted the study of history ... or testimony in the courts of law, for that matter. In an effort to throw out the bathwater of superstition, you are throwing out the baby of rational scholarship.
#
Brian
You don’t even understand science (but you try to ridicule the use of it).
.
YOS
Now I want EVIDENCE. Where has Mr. Shea ridiculed the use of science? Within its proper sphere - the abstracted properties of physical bodies - it is quite powerful; and it gives us knowledge of all sorts of things from quarks to quasars. But it is not the only kind of knowledge: there is knowledge of justice and truth and beauty, of mathematics, and so on. The methodologies differ, of course. You cannot insist on empirical demonstrations of mathematical truths, for example.
#
Brian
I want EVIDENCE. “Proof” is not what science deals with. But you don’t even know that much. I doubt you know the difference between the terms.
.
YOS
Ooh. Argumentum ad semantics. The word “proof” means “test” in its original sense, as in Aberdeen Proving Grounds, where they test weapons systems, or the proof of the pudding, which lies in the eating; or the exception proofs [i.e., tests] the rule.
.
In common parlance “proof” is used loosely to cover what natural science does as well as what mathematics and metaphysics do. It tests or probes.
.
More technically, mathematics proves things with absolute certainty. But science proves facts with certainty: the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the earth is 32 ft/sec^2, the blood is pumped by the hearth through the arteries and returns through the veins, white light is composed as a spectrum of colors, and so on.
.
But science also proposes laws of behavior, such that a freely falling heavy body covers a distance of s=0.5gt^2 in t seconds. Like facts, these are known with certainty up to the precision and resolution of the measurement system. But we do not regard an improvement in precision as a falsification.
.
Science further proposes physical theories. These are quasi-metaphysical stories or narratives that “make sense” out of the facts and from which the laws may be derived and the facts predicted. Theories can be falsified. (This is why Popper said Darwinism was not a scientific theory.) But it would be more to the point to say that they are neither true nor false, only useful. If at some point they are no longer useful, they are… clung to with ferocity by the old guard while the young turks wait patiently for them to die.
#
Brian
Since double-blind trials would work for ANY treatment that produces a statistically significant result, you’re admitting that exorcising demons has the same measurable rate of success as doing nothing at all—because if it DID have a success rate better than doing nothing at all, normal scientific trials would measure that. But you state science can’t even detect a better success rate—so exorcism works just as well as doing nothing.
.
YOS
This does not even make sense as a logical proposition. You write as if you knew what a “statistically significant result” is. But there have been many tests that failed to detect the signal that was there. Tobacco smoking and lung cancer is a famous example. It was not any single clinical trial that established the connection; many of the trials failed to do so, for a variety of reasons of which Ye Olde Statistician is cognizant.
.
Exorcism is not a cure for a disease, since possession, oppression, and infestation are a) not a single kind of phenomenon and b) are individual. Clinical trials are predicated on the belief that the disease being tried is the same disease for all concerned. That is, measles is measles whoever contracts it; but possession is not possession in every case, since the entity allegedly involved will be different in each case. Imagine doing a clinical trial if each case of measles was caused by a different agent!
.
From some of your prior remarks, you may be confusing “exorcisms” carried out by amateurs or by cults with the true quill. Recall that 800 years ago, the Church was already warning practitioners that not all cases of apparent possession or “obsession” [a word that has changed meaning since then: we now say “oppression”] are the real thing and that most such cases have natural causes. IOW, the first body to be skeptical of demonic possession was… the Church. However, unlike radical skeptics, who will disbelieve anything at the drop of a hat, she retains the possibility that there are a few genuine cases out there.
“Exorcist Groupies” would be a new phenomenon that I put in the category of new age angelology and “apparition chasers” (speaking strictly of those who gravitate from one unapproved apparition to another, not those that are approved)
Catechesis on the angels - good and bad - is needed, but within moderation. I too am becomming concerned with the craze suddenly being manifested. Mark my words, exorcism and related materials will become an industry unto itself just like new age angels and unapproved apparitions. When you think about it, these things seem to have some connection.
Exorcists are those whom have always in the past functioned with the silence of the holy angels. The degree of holiness required to shield them in their close work with demons ought not be fed with fame which can lead to various temptations.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.