Is anyone out there terrified of demons/devils IRL?

[Elder-Basilisk]

This rather assumes that "science" is as open-minded about evidence as it pretends to be. The academic establishment isn't. There are avenues of investigation that are assiduously avoided in the quest for "scientific respectability."

I think you may be misunderstanding the stance of science towards the supernatural. Most scientists will tell you that currently, there is no convincing data to suggest that spiritual or supernatural phenomena occur- therefore we must conclude that such things do not exist until such time as further evidence is presented. This isn't dogmatic, its common sense.

To put this in another light- consider the following example. 100 years ago, if someone had said that all matter is composed of tiny men with ropes that hold objects together, there would be no way to disprove this assertion. However with the advent of electron microscopes, we know that matter is composed of atoms and electron orbital interations. To assume the existance of little men holding together matter after this point is sheer lunacy.

The difficulty with this example (other than that nobody asserted that little men hold atoms together with ropes but people have asserted the existence of spirits for all of recorded history) is that it assumes that spirits are in the same, absolutely disproved category as "little men." That's not yet the case. (And it may well never be the case).

My point is that things that would have been considered magic or supernatural just 100 years ago can now be proven scientifically, with more accuracy and less complexity than the assumption of ghosts, demons, spirits, magic, etc. Put another way, the supernatural has always been the way humanity explains the unexplained until such time more concrete evidence is available.

Actually, this strikes me as common progressive mythology. I would like to know exactly what was considered supernatural 100 years ago but is now fully explained by science. There's lots that can now be given a fuller scientific explanation than it could be given 100 years ago but little that was given a supernatural explanation 100 years ago but is currently given a scientific explanation.

As to supernatural explanations being the first explanation humans jump to, there are two relevant responses: first, just because people used to believe something and no longer do doesn't mean that it's false. (People used to believe that Troy was a historic place, modern people decided that Homer's composition was entirely without factual basis, then archaeologists discovered the ruins of Troy and Mycenae).

The second is that, historically, humans have NOT consistently preferred supernatural explanations to natural ones when both were available. (In modern times, people demonstrably prefer naturalistic explanations, however implausible--or even no explanations--to supernatural ones). The pre-socratic philosophers, for instance developed extensive theories about nature (admittedly not empirically based) in order to explain the world. Reformation Protestants (admittedly, that's often considered early modern period by many historians) were quite eager to find naturalistic explanations for Catholic "miracles" and "superstitions." The idea that prior ages were full of superstitious louts who credulously believed any supernatural explanation offered to them while wisdom and enlightenment waited until the late twentieth century (or the 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries depending upon when the story is told) to show their faces is simply chronological snobbery.

Most scientists are open to the fact that there might be things/phenomena popularly termed "ghosts" or "spirits", but without any proof such things do exist (and I mean real physical proof, not anecdotal or eyewitness accounts- human perception is not reliable),

Exactly how one would get physical proof of an incorporeal being is open to question. The best I can tell is that, like much modern physics, any proof would have to treat spirits or ghosts as unobservable postulated entities. (The Barian 2 particle (IIRC) is one such entity in physics. It is a short-lived, non-charged particle postulated in order to explain a gap that appears in the path of certain atomic particles as they break down. As such, the evidence for its existence is not that it has been observed but rather that its existence would explain how the two charged particles later appear in the process of subatomic decay). Any account of spirits would necessarily depend upon case studies and eyewitness accounts--not as evidence that the things described actually occured for the reasons described--but as phenomena in need of an explanation.

it is unacceptable for science to comment on or believe in such things. Its not a dogmatic assertion, its just common sense.

If it's unacceptable for science to comment on (presumably one way or the other) such things, how can science render it impossible to believe in such things?

And when did scientifically provable things become the only things that it is rational to believe in anyway? As far as I can tell, science can't prove free will yet that the idea of free will is the basis upon which western justice systems are founded. (Culpability, guilt, innocence, and fitness to stand trial would be meaningless concepts under a strictly deterministic understanding of humanity). Nor have science and philosophy been able to demonstrate that there is any persistent self. Nor has science been able to demonstrate that people ought to behave ethically. (In fact, a number of game theory experiments seem to indicate--as far as I can tell--that it is actually in the interest of each individual to themselves be unethical (although to retain the appearance of ethical behavior) as long as a sufficient number of others to sustain the social system remain ethical). Even so, it's generally considered rational to believe in all those things--even without scientific confirmation.

 

[Gothmog]

Elder Basilisk:

This rather assumes that "science" is as open-minded about evidence as it pretends to be. The academic establishment isn't. There are avenues of investigation that are assiduously avoided in the quest for "scientific respectability."

True- not all scientists are as open about discussing the supernatural as they should be- just as many laypeople and clergy are not as open about discussing scientific principles as they should be (for example, evolution). Some people tie a great deal of emotional involvement in what makes their world comfortable and safe for them. While some scientists will loudly and emotionally deny the possibility of the supernatural, from the many scientists I have known over the years and spoken to, most of them are open to the possibility given some sort of proof. The reason paranormal research is avoided is because 1) it won't be funded with grants, and 2) never has any research into the paranormal uncovered any sort of convincing evidence.

The difficulty with this example (other than that nobody asserted that little men hold atoms together with ropes but people have asserted the existence of spirits for all of recorded history) is that it assumes that spirits are in the same, absolutely disproved category as "little men." That's not yet the case. (And it may well never be the case).

True- that wasn't the best example- but it does compare to many beliefs people held in the past about the world. For example, many religions over the years claim that all things, animate and inanimate, contain spirits. Yet these spirits are not able to be seen, heard, or experienced by the vast majority of people. Why believe in these spirits when they are impossible to interact with? Another example would be guardian angels. Why believe that some supernatural agency is watching over you, when it could simply be blind chance that governs how we emerge from bad situations? I think that relying on the existance of supernatural entities to explain some aspects of life overcomplicates the matter, and logically creates a number of HUGE questions that must be answered. Where do they come from? How do they interact with material objects when they are immaterial? What are the physics behind this (because in the end, all things are matter/energy reactions)? etc- the list goes on forever.

Actually, this strikes me as common progressive mythology. I would like to know exactly what was considered supernatural 100 years ago but is now fully explained by science. There's lots that can now be given a fuller scientific explanation than it could be given 100 years ago but little that was given a supernatural explanation 100 years ago but is currently given a scientific explanation.

As to supernatural explanations being the first explanation humans jump to, there are two relevant responses: first, just because people used to believe something and no longer do doesn't mean that it's false. (People used to believe that Troy was a historic place, modern people decided that Homer's composition was entirely without factual basis, then archaeologists discovered the ruins of Troy and Mycenae).

The second is that, historically, humans have NOT consistently preferred supernatural explanations to natural ones when both were available. (In modern times, people demonstrably prefer naturalistic explanations, however implausible--or even no explanations--to supernatural ones). The pre-socratic philosophers, for instance developed extensive theories about nature (admittedly not empirically based) in order to explain the world. Reformation Protestants (admittedly, that's often considered early modern period by many historians) were quite eager to find naturalistic explanations for Catholic "miracles" and "superstitions." The idea that prior ages were full of superstitious louts who credulously believed any supernatural explanation offered to them while wisdom and enlightenment waited until the late twentieth century (or the 17th, 18th, or 19th centuries depending upon when the story is told) to show their faces is simply chronological snobbery.

Ok, an example of something that many Victorian era people would believe was supernatural- telephones. Being able to talk to someone on the other side of the world instantly would seem to many to be on the same terms as conversing with spirits, or at the very least completely mystifying. Or perhaps another example would be some of modern medical technology. For example, using chemotherapy to combat cancer, radiation to destroy tumors in the body, or sound waves to pulverize kidney stones. Although on the surface it sounds like the quackery and half-mystical charlatans that have plagued the world for the last thousand years, these are proven scientific facts. Finally, genetic engineering of things like shoats would likely seem like pure black magic to people from the early 1900's.

Exactly how one would get physical proof of an incorporeal being is open to question. The best I can tell is that, like much modern physics, any proof would have to treat spirits or ghosts as unobservable postulated entities. (The Barian 2 particle (IIRC) is one such entity in physics. It is a short-lived, non-charged particle postulated in order to explain a gap that appears in the path of certain atomic particles as they break down. As such, the evidence for its existence is not that it has been observed but rather that its existence would explain how the two charged particles later appear in the process of subatomic decay). Any account of spirits would necessarily depend upon case studies and eyewitness accounts--not as evidence that the things described actually occured for the reasons described--but as phenomena in need of an explanation.

See- thats the problem. People require logical, empirical explanations for everything else in life, but throw those same expectations out the window when the paranormal is involved. If something is immaterial, it simply means it is something that is not detectable by humans with their natural senses. Gamma rays are immaterial, but they still interact with matter (especially organic matter) in gruesome ways. The postualted existance of the Barian 2 particle isn't a problem for science, since its predecessor and final product ARE observable- sometimes reactions occur too quickly for instumentation to record. In that case, theoretical constructs are proposed that explain what might happen to matter during the interim time. That isn't a problem for science, since it is based on empirical data. What is a problem is assuming the existance of spirits based off absolutely NO convincing data. What are they made of? How do they interact with matter? etc, etc, etc. Relying on human senses to empirically explain an occurrance is completely ridiculous- experiments have time and again shown us that human perception and memory is flawed (and can be modified by drugs, stress, sleeplessness, anxiety, etc), and often unconsciously processed by the person to fit into their world schema.

If it's unacceptable for science to comment on (presumably one way or the other) such things, how can science render it impossible to believe in such things?

And when did scientifically provable things become the only things that it is rational to believe in anyway? As far as I can tell, science can't prove free will yet that the idea of free will is the basis upon which western justice systems are founded. (Culpability, guilt, innocence, and fitness to stand trial would be meaningless concepts under a strictly deterministic understanding of humanity). Nor have science and philosophy been able to demonstrate that there is any persistent self. Nor has science been able to demonstrate that people ought to behave ethically. (In fact, a number of game theory experiments seem to indicate--as far as I can tell--that it is actually in the interest of each individual to themselves be unethical (although to retain the appearance of ethical behavior) as long as a sufficient number of others to sustain the social system remain ethical). Even so, it's generally considered rational to believe in all those things--even without scientific confirmation.

Science realizes that in the vast majority of cases, there is no purpose in trying to explain the paranormal since it is a subjective, emotional experience, and therefore unable to be observed by a third party. The sad truth is that anything that occurs in a subjective experience is always in question, which includes senses, thoughts, beliefs, etc. While many people believe in free will, can it be proven? No. And free will may just be a myth anyway- how do you know that your existing brain structures, neurochemical processes, and experiences that have shaped you don't preclude you from doing certain things, or make other behaviors more likely? You don't. I think that in many cases free will, and likewise many ideas about the paranormal, are romanticized notions that help people to deal with reality in such a way to preserve their existing beliefs on the world, and help them cope with stresses of life.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

While some scientists will loudly and emotionally deny the possibility of the supernatural, from the many scientists I have known over the years and spoken to, most of them are open to the possibility given some sort of proof. The reason paranormal research is avoided is because 1) it won't be funded with grants, and 2) never has any research into the paranormal uncovered any sort of convincing evidence.

I think you're discounting the influence of reputation. I know that my thesis advisor recommended staying away from certain topicsas a matter of career planning; I expect that is common in the sciences as well.

I believe you're also exaggerating the futility of research into the so-called paranormal. Several decades ago, for instance, near death experiences were viewed with great suspicion. Now, their occurence is widely accepted.

Why believe that some supernatural agency is watching over you, when it could simply be blind chance that governs how we emerge from bad situations? I think that relying on the existance of supernatural entities to explain some aspects of life overcomplicates the matter, and logically creates a number of HUGE questions that must be answered. Where do they come from? How do they interact with material objects when they are immaterial? What are the physics behind this (because in the end, all things are matter/energy reactions)? etc- the list goes on forever.

Here you can see the very large emotional as well as rational investment that many people have in a strict physicalist view of the universe. Once you admit the possibility of immaterial agents, it challenges the entire physicalist scheme--maybe there's something other than matter/energy reactions. It takes a simple, neat, understandable, and controllable world and opens up the possibility that we don't really understand everything.

It also opens up a number of other possibilities that some people find very distasteful. Hume may have been right to argue that the even the presence of a Designer would not demonstrate anything about the designer's character or interest in us. However, even the much weaker proposition that there is more in the world than mass/energy and/or there are nonphysical entities is still often seen as strongly implying the presence of a divine being who might be "watching over us." And that possibility is often taken to have significant moral implications--even if they don't constitute sufficient logical reasons to believe.

Ok, an example of something that many Victorian era people would believe was supernatural- telephones. Being able to talk to someone on the other side of the world instantly would seem to many to be on the same terms as conversing with spirits, or at the very least completely mystifying. Or perhaps another example would be some of modern medical technology. For example, using chemotherapy to combat cancer, radiation to destroy tumors in the body, or sound waves to pulverize kidney stones. Although on the surface it sounds like the quackery and half-mystical charlatans that have plagued the world for the last thousand years, these are proven scientific facts. Finally, genetic engineering of things like shoats would likely seem like pure black magic to people from the early 1900's.

This is exactly what I was talking about. The actually was invented in the late 19th century and the telephone was invented not long thereafter. And had people been able to do yet no-one sought "magical" or non-scientific explanations for those devices then just like few if any people seek non-scientific explanations for the anomolous results of the initial cold-fusion experiments. It has become very common for moderns to assume that knowledge and rationality were born with us (in fact, it seems that every "modern" age has done so since at least the Victorian age) but they weren't.

See- thats the problem. People require logical, empirical explanations for everything else in life, but throw those same expectations out the window when the paranormal is involved. If something is immaterial, it simply means it is something that is not detectable by humans with their natural senses. Gamma rays are immaterial, but they still interact with matter (especially organic matter) in gruesome ways. The postualted existance of the Barian 2 particle isn't a problem for science, since its predecessor and final product ARE observable- sometimes reactions occur too quickly for instumentation to record. In that case, theoretical constructs are proposed that explain what might happen to matter during the interim time. That isn't a problem for science, since it is based on empirical data. What is a problem is assuming the existance of spirits based off absolutely NO convincing data.

As far as I know, speech, and behavior are generally considered empirical data--they're at least empirical enough for much psychology. They're generally considered to be sufficient for seriously historical studies too.

So, take this case for instance: an individual is clearly displaying multiple personalities, is taken to an exorcist and in the process of the exorcism, the individual (in one of his distinct personas) threatens to enter another person if cast out. The exorcist commands the spirit to leave and the abberant behavior ceases or at least one apparent personality dissappears. At the same time, the second individual named during the exorcism begins to exhibit multiple personalities--including the same apparent personality--at a location separated from the exorcism by several miles.

In that case, I think the multiple personality disorder in both cases as well as the personalities displayed could be considered empirical data. The threat could be considered empirical data. So could the timing of the incidents.

Whether you think that the best explanation is to postulate a spirit that accounts for the manifestation of the personality in both instances or prefer to live without an explanation (and call it a strange coincidence) will depend upon how committed you are to the physicalist/materialist point of view.

What are they made of? How do they interact with matter? etc, etc, etc. Relying on human senses to empirically explain an occurrance is completely ridiculous- experiments have time and again shown us that human perception and memory is flawed (and can be modified by drugs, stress, sleeplessness, anxiety, etc), and often unconsciously processed by the person to fit into their world schema.

True. However, we don't need to rely upon people's interpretations of their own direct perceptions to believe accounts of spirits. If properly accounted for, they can occupy the same epistemological ground as the barion 2 particle.

And, while the non-repeatable nature of "paranormal" experiences means that a larger

And, as for unconsciously processing events to fit into a worldview, that counts as much for such experiences as against them. The worldview generally accepted as rational does not allow for the possibility of such events. Which means that it's as likely that people force falsifying events to fit within a physicalist universe as that people twist ordinary events to fit into a supernatural mold. The professional, cultural, and psychological incentives not to mention such experiences or to lie about them if asked also might lead one to believe that they are under-reported rather than over-reported. (That is, of course, unless you begin the investigation with the unjustified assumption that all reports are, a priori false and therefore must be over-reported).

Science realizes that in the vast majority of cases, there is no purpose in trying to explain the paranormal since it is a subjective, emotional experience, and therefore unable to be observed by a third party. The sad truth is that anything that occurs in a subjective experience is always in question, which includes senses, thoughts, beliefs, etc.

It's a very long step from saying that subjective experiences are less reliable to saying that they can never be believed.

For that matter, it's probably not possible to live any kind of enjoyable life exclusively on the basis of things that enjoy empirical confrimation. While that doesn't mean that science is irrelevant but, like it or not, we have to make choices that don't have empirical justification. The choices necessary to lead an ethical life for instance--are not generally held to admit scientific evidence one way or the other. Yet, we can't go through life without making them.

While many people believe in free will, can it be proven? No. And free will may just be a myth anyway- how do you know that your existing brain structures, neurochemical processes, and experiences that have shaped you don't preclude you from doing certain things, or make other behaviors more likely? You don't. I think that in many cases free will, and likewise many ideas about the paranormal, are romanticized notions that help people to deal with reality in such a way to preserve their existing beliefs on the world, and help them cope with stresses of life.

The implication of irrational reasons for belief in the paranormal (romanticized notions that...help people deal with reality...preserve their existing beliefs...help them cope with stresses...) go equally for refusing to believe in anything that might contradict a thoroughly physicalistic worldview. I don't think that physicalism has any privileged position that enables it to impugn the credibility of other worldviews and renders it immune to the same criticisms.

 

[Gothmog]

Elder Basilisk:

I believe you're also exaggerating the futility of research into the so-called paranormal. Several decades ago, for instance, near death experiences were viewed with great suspicion. Now, their occurence is widely accepted.

Interesting thought, but near death experiences can be recreated in a lab by passing current into certain areas of the brain (notably areas of the prefrontal cortex and occipital cortex). Its simply a brain reaction that occurs naturally when the brain is starved of oxygen and neurons fire in those areas (or when you artificially pass current into those areas). Thats why it is a more accepted phenomena now. Yeah, I know- too much detail, but I'm a neuroscientist and psychologist by training.

It takes a simple, neat, understandable, and controllable world and opens up the possibility that we don't really understand everything.

Oh, I'm not claiming that science says it understands everything, or that some things are impossible for us to explain at this time. Science does say that given sufficient knowledge and empirical data of a phenomenon, we can explain anything though.

However, even the much weaker proposition that there is more in the world than mass/energy and/or there are nonphysical entities is still often seen as strongly implying the presence of a divine being who might be "watching over us."

This is one of the places where science and belief differ. Science relies on inductive reasoning, where a series of data is obtained empirically, and from that data, postulates and conclusions are reached. Belief relies on deductive reasoning, where a set of postulates is assumed to be true, and the problem is worked such that given the postulates a conclusion is reached. Neither method is without its faults, but deductive reasoning tends to produce more widely variant answers that are not supported by fact (since the postulates are assumed rather than measured). Implying that there might be a supernatural agency is no reason to believe that such a thing exists.

This is exactly what I was talking about. The actually was invented in the late 19th century and the telephone was invented not long thereafter. And had people been able to do yet no-one sought "magical" or non-scientific explanations for those devices then just like few if any people seek non-scientific explanations for the anomolous results of the initial cold-fusion experiments. It has become very common for moderns to assume that knowledge and rationality were born with us (in fact, it seems that every "modern" age has done so since at least the Victorian age) but they weren't.

You're right on this one- I gave a bad example. Perhaps I should have said in the last 200-250 years. In this case its mostly a matter of time, but modern reasoning started after the Renniasance, when science and logical thought were not suppressed by the church, and those who wanted to keep the masses in a superstitious state. As science began to flourish, the need for superstition and blind faith declined because the answers were being provided in a factual, empirical context rather than on belief. And like it or not, empirical data is more reliable than deduction and belief.

As far as I know, speech, and behavior are generally considered empirical data--they're at least empirical enough for much psychology. They're generally considered to be sufficient for seriously historical studies too.

So, take this case for instance: an individual is clearly displaying multiple personalities, is taken to an exorcist and in the process of the exorcism, the individual (in one of his distinct personas) threatens to enter another person if cast out. The exorcist commands the spirit to leave and the abberant behavior ceases or at least one apparent personality dissappears. At the same time, the second individual named during the exorcism begins to exhibit multiple personalities--including the same apparent personality--at a location separated from the exorcism by several miles.

In that case, I think the multiple personality disorder in both cases as well as the personalities displayed could be considered empirical data. The threat could be considered empirical data. So could the timing of the incidents.

Whether you think that the best explanation is to postulate a spirit that accounts for the manifestation of the personality in both instances or prefer to live without an explanation (and call it a strange coincidence) will depend upon how committed you are to the physicalist/materialist point of view.

Interesting points here. Behavior is only considered empirical data in a controlled environment, and speech cannot reliably be considered empirical, since there is always the chance of deception. These are considered eimpirical for fields like social psych (where the environment cannot be absolutely controlled), but that same lack of control means there might be confounding variables affecting the person that are not taken into account- so such research isn't as highly regarded as controlled lab data where outside variables can be controlled.

The example you give is interesting too. First, there is considerable debate among the psychological community that MPD is anything else other than a learned behavior such as hypnotism. There have been numerous hoaxes, and disturbed individuals who have attempted this, but never to a degree that satisfies the criteria of the experts in the field.

Working with exorcisms is a whole other complexity. Again, no case of possession has ever been documented as defined by psychological experts. Another fact to consider is that only religious people get possessed, and exorcisms only seem to work if the people to be exorcised are religious in nature- otherwise they are powerless. However, if given drugs that block behavior that seems like a possessed person (often schizophrenia produces such behavior and delusions)- the "possessed" person recovers or makes improvement. This indiciates that "possession" is in fact a neurochemical abnormality that is a subset delusion of a real psychiatric disorder. So in the cases of possessions, no, such occurrances could not be considered empirical, since no measurements can be taken, and anecdotal evidence depends strongly on the interpretation of the perciever- whose perceptions might be flawed or emotionally charged. Also, if the exorcism stops the abberant behavior- it is a simple treatment effect. If the person believes it is no longer there, then they will imporve. Simple placebo effect or psychosomatic disorder. Also, some people who practice voodoo WANT to be possessed by voodoo gods- its considered to be a sign of favor.

True. However, we don't need to rely upon people's interpretations of their own direct perceptions to believe accounts of spirits. If properly accounted for, they can occupy the same epistemological ground as the barion 2 particle.

Not completely true. While both the barion 2 particle and spirits are theoretical constucts to explain phenomena, in light of conflicting evidence, scientists will discard the barion 2 theory in favor of a more accurate and simpler theory. Most people who believe in spirits have their belief based in emotion rather than rational analysis of data- therefore not likely to discard it in the face on conflicting evidence.

The implication of irrational reasons for belief in the paranormal (romanticized notions that...help people deal with reality...preserve their existing beliefs...help them cope with stresses...) go equally for refusing to believe in anything that might contradict a thoroughly physicalistic worldview. I don't think that physicalism has any privileged position that enables it to impugn the credibility of other worldviews and renders it immune to the same criticisms.

Given that humans don't understand everything in the universe, uncertainty causes almost all people emotional discomfort, and at some point everyone has to make a decision how much uncertainty they can live with. The scientist is willing to admit he has no idea why certain things happen (for example, death, natural disasters, cruel human behavior, etc) which leads to a less comforting worldview. Most people choose to soften this blow by allowing themselves to believe in explanations which cannot be proven, because it is more comforting to have some belief about life after death and why bad things happen than to have to live with the uncertainty of not knowing at all. People get very attached to and defensive of their comforting beliefs, because they do make life easier as long as they are not challenged. All people hold both views to some degree, no one has an asolute empirical or faith-based worldview.

Anyway, good debate Elder Basilisk. I don't think either of us will change the other's mind, but it is fun to discuss.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

And like it or not, empirical data is more reliable than deduction and belief.

As a mathematician I disagree with you here. Mathematics is at the top of the epistemological food chain and it is a deductive science.

 

[Acquana]

Demons

Hey, why not? I've heard of plenty of other stuff (I've been hangin out in Savannah, GA too long) in a town where just about everybody believes in something. I've even run into a few people who believed in demons more than forces of good. But they were Goth so who gives a crap?

Anyhoo, I agree with the stradle the fence idea. Sure there's plenty of natural ways to explain things, but why take all the mystery out of it? Besides, if they are real, then being called "superstition" is exactly what they'd want, right?

One way or another, no need to really fear them. Just fear the humans they have influenced. Those are scary.

 

[Numion]

Some of these things comes from a strange tradition in my blood-line. My grandmother and my mother were people who claims to actually able to SEE and/or HEAR ghosts or ghostlike beings.

Not surprising IMO is that many of you have developed these skills to see or experience paranormal things from somewhat strange childhoods. If my mother had claimed to be able to do all sorts to of crazy things, I sure as hell wouldn't be as balanced as I'm now.

Wasn't it some famous psychologist who said that most of our adult life is decided by childhood memories and experiences? Nothing new in this thread about that theory. F-ed up childhood means difficulties in later life.

 

[hellbender]

It doesn't matter if you believe in demons or devils, non-belief doesn't dismiss the existence of anything. The question is, do they believe in you.

hellbender

 

[Mark Chance]

E You're right on this one- I gave a bad example. Perhaps I should have said in the last 200-250 years. In this case its mostly a matter of time, but modern reasoning started after the Renniasance, when science and logical thought were not suppressed by the church, and those who wanted to keep the masses in a superstitious state. As science began to flourish, the need for superstition and blind faith declined because the answers were being provided in a factual, empirical context rather than on belief.

This is, quite simply, false.

The very thing that made the Renaissance's achievements in science possible was the rigorous logic of the medieval Catholic church, especially Scholasticism as practiced and taught at the University of Paris in the 13th century.

Superstition, especially the practice of so-called magic, flourished in the Renaissance.

 

[Buttercup]

A belief in demons presupposes a view of reality that I don't subscribe to.

But for people who do subscribe to that view of reality, belief in demons makes perfect sense. And if one did believe in them, fear would probably be an appropriate response.