TA, given my respect for you, it is disappointing to see you write so as to nearly explicitly and certainly implicitly reject the core of what I've been trying to communicate: the literal existence of spirits, and in particular demonic spirits.
From my experience, backed up by research, their existence is undeniable short of supposing something much less plausible such as that we live in a Matrix and that the spirit activity I've experienced and read about has been programmed into it, or that benign or neutral spirits pose as malevolent spirits (and even this would not deny the existence of spirits in and of themselves). I've tried to outline in this thread the experiences I've had and the books I've read that best demonstrate this reality, and (Diebert's aspersions on my logic notwithstanding) it's all very solid, which I think a careful reading of my posts will reveal.
I won't reiterate all of that in this post. Instead I will simply respond to a few of your key assertions.
You write that "in order to bring the Gospel accounts of a Jesus who 'casts out devils' into modernity, one
has to do away with all the mystery which will have to be seen and interpreted in modern terms". I wrote something in relation to this in
an earlier post:
I wrote:The peculiar thing, for me, is that the old systems still often seem to "function", by which I mean "represent reality truthfully". This puzzles me, to the point that I've even written on another forum that it feels as though reality "wants" all belief systems to be simultaneously true.
As a rational man, I do believe that the contradictions are resolvable, however, to the extent that "modernity" conflicts with the literal existence of demonic spirits, it is, because of what is undeniable to me for the reasons I've outlined in this thread, modernity that must give way. I do challenge you, though, to explain what
specifically it is in, about or from modernity that disproves the existence of demonic spirits, and why you believe that that aspect of modernity ought to be accepted as true. My belief is that, ultimately, you will find that there is no such disproof; rather, you will be left clutching fundamental
assumptions. And we know the problem with assumptions...
"Every religious system, every epistemological system that allows for a 'God', every orientation that offers an explanation of 'this world' and 'this existence' in a theistic language, must also define 'rules of engagement'. This is the point in Laird's discourse and his desire to see a point-of-view justified where I lose track of what in fact is being talked about". --Talking Ass
I can see how you might have lost track of what I'm talking about, so I'll clarify, because what you suggest here, is, in fact, only partly true:
"The problem, as I see it, in Laird's attempts to justify his experience, is that he relies on an old episteme that only functions within a group who adheres to that episteme".
My starting point is what I've reiterated several times in this post already: the recognition through personal experience of the literal existence of spirits, and in particular (again through personal experience) of spirits with malevolent intent. The experience itself (a perception of malevolent spirits) cannot be denied (at least not by me); my interpretation of it can, of course, be challenged. I have been defending my straightforward interpretation (that I literally perceive literal spirits, as opposed to "hallucinating" them, the "modern" interpretation) since David first raised it, and, again, I won't reiterate my defence, but it is in my eyes solid.
In adding to that solid basis, interpretation plays a bigger role. Based on my experiences with these negative spirits, combined with some of the books I've read (as referenced in my posts), I can justify referring to them as "demons". Consider that Christianity is not the only "episteme" that includes space for spirits by that label or an effectively identical one - many if not most other religions do, Islam and strands of Buddhism included.
That brings us to the point where the demonic has been recognised, and that's as much about my "episteme" as I'd be very confident in asserting as justifiable (by me) truth, especially in the den of atheists that is GF. From there, I evaluate carefully and synthesise what I've read, in particular in Dr Modi's books which recount the recollections of clients who have been hypnotically regressed through past lives and back to the beginning of existence itself. Am I confident enough in this material to assert it as justifiable truth in the same way that I'm confident to assert as justifiable the truth of the reality of the demonic? No, particularly as I have not undergone such an hypnotic regression personally, but I
will say that it is mostly compatible with my experiences, and that a lot of it rings true.
So, where does that leave us with regard to the "old episteme" that you suggest I rely on - I'm guessing you mean some variant of Christianity? Well, my provisional belief is that, yes, there is a lot of truth in Christianity, particularly in the "fundamental" notion of opposing good and evil forces, and also in the notion of Christ as divinely significant redeemer. I would also say, though, that the same is true of many if not most other religions. I believe that they are all strands of the same weave, each with elements of truth and each with distortions and omissions of truth (and that applies to Christianity too), each with its own legitimate spiritual focus.
And so, in relation to all that I've just written, I would respectfully ask you to elaborate on these statements:
"With a more plastic 'theopoetics' one can avail oneself of all different manner of seeing and interpreting 'demonic' beings or energies".
"There are quite a number of 'competing epistemes' which can be brought to bear on this problem".
---
Diebert,
I would encourage you to reflect on your own words: "There's hardly ever a middle way!". In my reading of this dialogue, I am hard pressed to see where you have talked about a middle way until now. About the only statement I can think of that even hinted at it is one that I'll return to later in this post, a reference to "high probabilities". Can you see why, given that, I came to the conclusion that you are extreme in your denial? If that's the wrong conclusion, then I'm pleased to welcome your thoughts on what the middle ground might be, because until now, you haven't offered them.
"I'm replying on the lack of logic I perceive".
Except that you're not really pointing out any lack of logic, are you? You're simply asking repeatedly, "But what if what
really happened was [insert some less plausible explanation]?", and applying this questioning process to each event in isolation. This isolation of events is why I tried to introduce you to a probabilistic analysis, to show you the weakness of your approach.
On this analysis, cousinbasil earlier asked where the 0.9 comes from, and recently wrote: "And there's my sticking point. In order to assign the relative numbers, there must be some criteria
and someone ultimately responsible for making them", so in responding to him, I will recap:
In
one of his earlier posts, Diebert wrote:
'"True positives" are very rare and very difficult. At best one can have a "highly probable" explanation'.
These "highly probable" explanations (Diebert's words) are what motivated my analysis: a probability of 0.9 seemed a reasonable one to represent "highly probable", and yet I also took account in my analysis for probabilities as low as 0.1. The point being that, as the analysis shows, Diebert's tactic of isolating events and applying doubt to each one of them in support of his scepticism is flawed, because when one asks the question, "What is the probability that
none of these events has a supernatural explanation?" given that each of them "highly probably" (or even at a probability as low as 0.1, as my analysis shows) has a supernatural explanation, it doesn't require too many of them before that probability is, for all intents and purposes, 0.
Of course, all of this is predicated on Diebert denying any possibility of any supernatural explanation whatsoever at any time, which it seemed to me from his behaviour he was doing, but I welcome any clarification from him as to his actual position.
I take the point made by several people that this analysis assumes that each explanation in some way points to a common phenomenon, that to which we refer with the word "supernatural", but I don't think that that's at all difficult to achieve. At worst, we might need to separate explanations by category, such as "supernatural communication", "physical effects with a supernatural cause", "miraculous healings by the power of the invocation of divinity", etc.
A few other things:
guest_of_logic: You've left out the fact that, immediately after writing that, he[Beo1] explicitly answered your question.
Diebert: Now it's time to give the quote and you don't. Disappointing. I don't believe there came any explicit after that.
But Diebert, I'd already quoted it in an earlier post, not to mention that you're perfectly capable of confirming it for yourself given that
you too had already quoted from the post in question! That you "don't believe there came any explicit [sic] after that" and yet failed to
check is, in fact, the disappointment! Nevermind, I will do your research for you -
here is the post, and this is the exchange from it:
Beingof1 wrote:Me: I have seen a bullet pass through a mans body without leaving a mark
Diebert: Then how do you know if the bullet actually attempted to go through the body if there was no mark or other trace? Maybe it went another way or didn't leave the gun at all? It's very hard to research these things outside controlled circumstance. It's quite unlikely you have been able to research all the possibilities.
I really do not want to get into the validation exercise of 'maybe it did, maybe it didn`t'. As you well know my wise friend, that is a rabbit trail.
To answer your question; there was a hole in the center of the back of the chair where this man was sitting. We found the bullet later.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And are you really here at the Genius Forum defending a claim by an unknown anonymous person about how he saw once bullets passed through a body before his eyes.
But Diebert,
you yourself described him as "sincere"! Of course I would never assert with certainty the truth of another man's claim that lies outside my personal experience - I'm simply asking why, given your recognition of his sincerity, and his ability to satisfactorily answer the questions you put to him, you don't consider his story to be credible.
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:And all as prime argument to prove all us over-rational thinkers wrong?
"Prime argument"? Come on, mate, you have to know you're stretching the truth beyond what's reasonable there. It wasn't even part of my original defence. Even to call it secondary evidence would be a stretch, it was more like tertiary evidence (
evidence, not
argument). Really, you ought to be more careful. Stretching the truth like that does your own credibility no favours.