Ben Shapiro's end of the year Devil Talk

[QvQ]

Yes, I think your assessment of Shapiro's interpretation of Lewis' Screwtape is fair on this point. Like you, I don't think Lewis was offering a prediction of "things to come." He was merely spelling out what he saw as the modern, 20th century vestigial manifestations of human sin since the time of The Beginning.

I think Shapiro was reading into and lifting Lewis' social commentary and applied it to our present decade here in the 21st century.

But yeah, Lewis' Screwtape Letters wasn't any more "predictive" than was Bertrand Russell's essay, "Our Sexual Ethics," that was written in 1938. Both Lewis and Russell weren't prognosticating, obviously, but their respective writings unfortunately do more or less reflect where we've come in almost 100 years. Shapiro just happened to pick up Lewis and run with him... ...

... still, I think Shapiro does have his own relevant point.

Shapiro noted that reason led to the transcendent. That is the function of those symbols. The symbol of demon is something I, and possibly you, can visualize, even represent as a picture but the character of a demon is as a force of evil.

That could manifest as an actual physical reality but where we encounter the beast is in a transcendent form. Is it reasonable to assume there are gargoyle like creatures darting about? Haven't seen any such lately.

However, it is reasonable to discuss forces of evil which are the forces shaping a society. Was there a force of evil in Nazi Germany that either grew beyond or was greater than the sum of man's capacity to sin?

Even the secularists can see a reasonable assumption of "demon" in that situation.
So, the examination of manifested reality, our reasoning about actual facts, leads to the transcendent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well, you're reasoning is logical, but unfortunately where the nature of the Biblical God is concerned and might meet our epistemological and social expectations for more responsive outcomes, Biblical epistemology sort of turns the modern day expectations on their head. That is to say, that where an instance of God's 'revealing' Himself to any one of us may hypothetically occur, the outcomes of human response to that instance could very well be surpisingly varied.

I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it's what the sporadic epistemic allusions within the Bible, particularly in the New Testament, seem to indicate. And in this, I have to side with scholars like Dru Johnson {among others] when and where Biblical Epistemology is being discussed in relation to both human response and/or morality.

Of course, there's also a new statue [or two] on the political market, a Sam Smith video, a Rihanna performance at a Super Bowl game, and the current cover of Vogue Italia that might give us another clue as to how folks might respond... if Lucifer were to magically appear and say, "Hey, come follow me 'cuz it'll be awesome!"

Reference

John, Dru. (2013). Biblical Knowing: A Scriptural Epistemology of Error. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

Right....always that possibility. Yet I think once the issue of faith is gone and both X and y are tangible choices.....


Why pick hell?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I don't accept this logic. People determine what is acceptable evidence according to their presuppositions. If a big cross appeared in the sky tomorrow, there would always be people that insisted it must have some natural explanation.

Right....but we're gaming out what a devil would do, reveal himself or not.

Implicit in the question is that he can reveal himself to be the devil. I suppose no matter what that means there's a possibility of those who won't believe.

If we're considering the question though....the implication of being able to reveal himself is that he can reveal himself. If no one believes him....then he isn't able is he?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Right....always that possibility. Yet I think once the issue of faith is gone and both X and y are tangible choices.....


Why pick hell?

That's a very pertinent question, Ana. It's a mystery to me why anyone would if a more direct and tangible presence of the devil were to be revealed in the world.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Shapiro noted that reason led to the transcendent. That is the function of those symbols. The symbol of demon is something I, and possibly you, can visualize, even represent as a picture but the character of a demon is as a force of evil.

That could manifest as an actual physical reality but where we encounter the beast is in a transcendent form. Is it reasonable to assume there are gargoyle like creatures darting about? Haven't seen any such lately.

Right. And fortunately, that issue isn't really a needed focus of this particular thread, even if personally, I'd aver that 'Satan' is a rational being rather than simply a collective social force of human evil in the world.

However, it is reasonable to discuss forces of evil which are the forces shaping a society. Was there a force of evil in Nazi Germany that either grew beyond or was greater than the sum of man's capacity to sin?

Even the secularists can see a reasonable assumption of "demon" in that situation.
So, the examination of manifested reality, our reasoning about actual facts, leads to the transcendent.

Right. Even secularists could identify with us Christians the manifestation of what Ted Peters calls 'Radical Evil, such as the kind that was in Nazi Germany.

 

[QvQ]

Lewis wrote that book in the late 30's, early 40's when the forces of evil were definitely loosed on the land.
The restraining forces of institutions and social constructs that Shapiro said are breaking down now may have been breaking down or had broken down in a similar manner before the war.
It may not be a prediction as the heading indicates.
It very well could be a mirror image, another gathering of the "force" so to speak.
IT is an interesting video commentary.
Thanks for posting it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Right. And fortunately, that issue isn't really a needed focus of this particular thread, even if personally, I'd aver that 'Satan' is a rational being rather than simply a collective social force of human evil in the world.


Right. Even secularists could identify with us Christians the manifestation of what Ted Peters calls 'Radical Evil, such as the kind that was in Nazi Germany.

Were Nazis really "Radical Evil"? How about the many western states that turned away Jews fleeing Germany, when they could have easily done otherwise? Do we blame the rabid dog for being rabid, or do we blame the people that made the dog rabid in the first place, and then let the neighborhood kids be assaulted by it?

I would suggest "radical evil" is within each and every human person.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Were Nazis really "Radical Evil"?

Yes. Yes, they were.

How about the many western states that turned away Jews fleeing Germany, when they could have easily done otherwise?

As I've mentioned in other threads, all nations have theor own share of evil. As to whether or not the evil has reached radical levels has to be looked at and evaluated. The Nazis were an obvious, wide-scale case, just like the Communist takeover was in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.

Do we blame the rabid dog for being rabid, or do we blame the people that made the dog rabid in the first place, and then let the neighborhood kids be assaulted by it?

I'm not sure that a rabid dog is a fitting analogy since we're referring to human beings in relation to all of the "Screwtape" that I think they have to wade through in life. Most human beings can make better choices, even informed choices. The Nazis could have made better, informed, vastly more moral choices. They weren't "rabid" despite the fact that other nations contributed to the German's economic plight and enabled Hitler to rise to the stage.

I would suggest "radical evil" is within each and every human person.

MMMmmm. MMMMM. I'm not sure about that, FD. However, I am sure someone like Kerri Rawson would disagree with you.

I'd disagree as well. Not all of us are radically evil. We can be sinful and evil at times, though.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes. Yes, they were.

As I've mentioned in other threads, all nations have theor own share of evil. As to whether or not the evil has reached radical levels has to be looked at and evaluated. The Nazis were an obvious, wide-scale case, just like the Communist takeover was in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.

I'm not sure that a rabid dog is a fitting analogy since we're referring to human beings in relation to all of the "Screwtape" that I think they have to wade through in life. Most human beings can make better choices, even informed choices. The Nazis could have made better, informed, vastly more moral choices. They weren't "rabid" despite the fact that other nations contributed to the German's economic plight and enabled Hitler to rise to the stage.


MMMmmm. MMMMM. I'm not sure about that, FD. However, I am sure someone like Kerri Rawson would disagree with you.

I'd disagree as well. Not all of us are radically evil. We can be sinful and evil at times, though.

Dennis Rader's daughter? I've been thinking about Rader alot recently, how a guy could pass off as normal and respectable so easily (he was even a church council president... in my own religious denomination to boot). I think it says more about deficits in our culture and consciousness, and our own ignorance about the mind, than it does necessarily about the notion that evil can be particularly radical.

Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer said the most salient feature of the Nazis wasn't that they were evil, but how they had an infectious cult of stupidity, which doesn't scare us enough as compared to evil.

Bonhoeffer's "theory of stupidity": We have more to fear from stupid people than evil ones

Bonhoeffer's "theory of stupidity" posits that we have more to fear from stupidity than evil. The latter is easier to defeat than the former.

bigthink.com

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Dennis Rader's daughter? I've been thinking about Rader alot recently, how a guy could pass off as normal and respectable so easily (he was even a church council president... in my own religious denomination to boot). I think it says more about deficits in our culture and consciousness, and our own ignorance about the mind, than it does necessarily about the notion that evil can be particularly radical.

I'm sure we can guess at it, but I usually like to see what evidence we can find first hand where testimony and witnesses are relevant. In regard to Radical Evil, I think Kerri Rawson's book, A Serial Killer's Daughter: My Story of Faith, Love, and Overcoming would fill us in on some details better than our armchair surmisings.

Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer said the most salient feature of the Nazis wasn't that they were evil, but how they had an infectious cult of stupidity, which doesn't scare us enough as compared to evil.

Bonhoeffer's "theory of stupidity": We have more to fear from stupid people than evil ones

Bonhoeffer's "theory of stupidity" posits that we have more to fear from stupidity than evil. The latter is easier to defeat than the former.

bigthink.com

Yes, that was a salient feature. At the same time, it's kind of difficult to assume that Volk like Martin Heidegger or Gerhard Kittel were simply being stupid rather than beknighted idealistically and metaphysically by the Nazi pomp and circumstance.

According to Claudia Koonz, there was a bit more at work than mere stupidity among the German masses.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm sure we can guess at it, but I usually like to see what evidence we can find first hand where testimony and witnesses are relevant. In regard to Radical Evil, I think Kerri Rawson's book, A Serial Killer's Daughter: My Story of Faith, Love, and Overcoming would fill us in on some details better than our armchair surmisings.

I'll have to put it on my reading list.

Yes, that was a salient feature. At the same time, it's kind of difficult to assume that Volk like Martin Heidegger or Gerhard Kittel were simply being stupid rather than beknighted idealistically and metaphysically by the Nazi pomp and circumstance.

I think there was a level of stupidity, in the same way that people thought, closer to our own time, they could ride around on the MAGA bandwagon, trying to steer it in this direction or that, without consequences.

There are all sorts of reasons short of pure evil one might dine with the Devil, but it's sheer stupidity to not bring a long spoon.

 

[QvQ]

The evil of the second world war was evil greater than the sum of the parts.
It comforts us to divide and assign then we can understand but only in part.
The total was beyond any human control or understanding.

(Firedragon, to assign all the evil to the west denies the atrocity of the east. If that is subtracted then the sum is lesser in part, easier to understand and comforting to the beholder.)

 

[QvQ]

I'd disagree as well. Not all of us are radically evil. We can be sinful and evil at times, though.

I disagree that there are "demons" who possess people as Dennis Radar claims.
"the devil made me do it" is not what I am referring to.
John Steinbeck said there were waves in history.
The entire wave, the sum total of WWII, was evil but the individual, caught in the wave, trying to sink or swim, had limited choices as to how to behave.
Dennis Rader was an absolutely free agent, not caught in a historical wave of that magnitude.
Dennis Rader committed evil acts of the ordinary garden variety without any demonic intervention.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's a very pertinent question, Ana. It's a mystery to me why anyone would if a more direct and tangible presence of the devil were to be revealed in the world.

Well as an atheist...I think it's easier to conceive of a hell than a heaven. I cannot imagine any sense of joy or even contentment at the idea of an eternity singing God's praises....so heaven must be something else. What it is though...is beyond comprehension. It requires me to not be me...to not desire....and to be content. It seems fundamentally a part of what makes humanity human must be removed for heaven to be possible.

Hell on the other hand is entirely conceivable. Agony, without end, which cannot be relieved....is not a condition our minds can adapt to. It's simply an existence without any joy or hope or possibility of either.


I would suggest that if you are like minded....then it's rather clear that I don't actually need a promise of heaven in such a scenario....I would only need a fear of hell.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I disagree that there are "demons" who possess people as Dennis Radar claims.
"the devil made me do it" is not what I am referring to.
John Steinbeck said there were waves in history.
The entire wave, the sum total of WWII, was evil but the individual, caught in the wave, trying to sink or swim, had limited choices as to how to behave.
Dennis Rader was an absolutely free agent, not caught in a historical wave of that magnitude.
Dennis Rader was evil but the ordinary garden variety without any demonic intervention.

Dennis Rader's daughter? I've been thinking about Rader alot recently, how a guy could pass off as normal and respectable so easily (he was even a church council president... in my own religious denomination to boot). I think it says more about deficits in our culture and consciousness, and our own ignorance about the mind, than it does necessarily about the notion that evil can be particularly radical.

Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer said the most salient feature of the Nazis wasn't that they were evil, but how they had an infectious cult of stupidity, which doesn't scare us enough as compared to evil.

Bonhoeffer's "theory of stupidity": We have more to fear from stupid people than evil ones

Bonhoeffer's "theory of stupidity" posits that we have more to fear from stupidity than evil. The latter is easier to defeat than the former.

bigthink.com

Yes. Yes, they were.

As I've mentioned in other threads, all nations have theor own share of evil. As to whether or not the evil has reached radical levels has to be looked at and evaluated. The Nazis were an obvious, wide-scale case, just like the Communist takeover was in Russia, China, Vietnam, etc.

I'm not sure that a rabid dog is a fitting analogy since we're referring to human beings in relation to all of the "Screwtape" that I think they have to wade through in life. Most human beings can make better choices, even informed choices. The Nazis could have made better, informed, vastly more moral choices. They weren't "rabid" despite the fact that other nations contributed to the German's economic plight and enabled Hitler to rise to the stage.


MMMmmm. MMMMM. I'm not sure about that, FD. However, I am sure someone like Kerri Rawson would disagree with you.

I'd disagree as well. Not all of us are radically evil. We can be sinful and evil at times, though.

I think it's rather clear from the writings of everyday nazis that neither evil nor stupidity were the problem.

I would say the issue was cowardice.

Pressure to comply to conformity....peer pressure....in group/out group dynamics....deference to authority....

We like to imagine these are small matters....easily overcome with a minor effort of individual will....but they aren't. These are tremendous monsters....that stand on each side of us....and push us to rationalize our way through behavior we would otherwise condemn. To be able to be the only one in the room and declare all others wrong, at risk to everything that comes with that act....is indeed bravery. You would be declaring yourself stupid to the crowd, not a part of their group, and one who doesn't believe or do as they do. It's a target held up to one's own chest....it can have dire or fatal consequences.

In regards to nazis....we like to imagine ourselves as more like Oscar Schindler than the everyday nazi....but in reality, it's the other way around. It's an abnormal sort of bravery most don't possess that makes a Schindler.....and an everyday cowardice most do possess that makes most nazis. Nazis were a political minority when they grabbed power....and then after outlawed all other political groups and opinions....we could say that all were nazis.

But were they truly? No. I doubt most sincerely believed everything the nazis stood for. They simply were afraid....for no other voices were allowed to speak....no other opinions allowed to be heard....and in such an environment, it seems you are alone and the only strategy to survive is to go along with the crowd. Standing up and declaring all others wrong seems like foolishness and certain death....or at least punishment....and the cowardice of most people leads them step by step into atrocities.

There's a nazi who was stationed in Nanking that most people never heard of....and never will. We keep our view of them as simple....because it's easier to imagine them evil than just like us. Anyway, this nazi was in Nanking during its infamous sacking by the Japanese. He used his position as a nazi and supposed ally....to save hundreds of local Chinese from the rape, torture, and death that would have otherwise befell them. He did so...at great personal risk....and with no other protection than his mere status as a nazi. He was hailed as a hero by the locals by the time he returned to Germany.....and reviled for the rest of his days as an evil nazi by everyone else in Germany and the rest of the world. Yet, he stood up...and possessed the same great bravery as Schindler....but no movies glorifying a nazi will likely be made. It was a very "Hotel Rwanda" type situation....and very few even know about it.

There's no lesson here....no advice I could give to anyone that would help them overcome the fear of nonconforming to a dangerous mob....but I would say that the mob is always dangerous when it demands the silence of opposition. This demand exists for such ideologies which cannot hold up to scrutiny or criticism.

 

[Neutral Observer]

To be able to be the only one in the room and declare all others wrong, at risk to everything that comes with that act....is indeed bravery. You would be declaring yourself stupid to the crowd, not a part of their group, and one who doesn't believe or do as they do. It's a target held up to one's own chest....it can have dire or fatal consequences.

Hmmm... I do this all the time, only in my case it's not bravery... it's apathy.

 

[QvQ]

..because it's easier to imagine them evil than just like us. Anyway, this nazi was in Nanking during its infamous sacking by the Japanese. He used his position as a nazi and supposed ally....to save hundreds of local Chinese from the rape, torture, and death that would have otherwise befell them.

Man and His Symbols
The entire war has been reduced to one point, Nazi, one symbol Swastika, which is only invoked as a morality tale or a rubber stamp for political opponents.

No other social or political import.

I suppose that is a function of time. It has been almost 100 years.

 

[Bradskii]

Even Dietrich Bonhoeffer said the most salient feature of the Nazis wasn't that they were evil, but how they had an infectious cult of stupidity, which doesn't scare us enough as compared to evil.

There but for the grace of God...

If you asked 100 people if they would have done what the Nazis did, or even simply turned away, what number would you think would say they'd do the same?

And in passing, I am physically unable to listen to Shapiro.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hmmm... I do this all the time, only in my case it's not bravery... it's apathy.

I'm curious about the context and stakes involved in the examples you're thinking of.


My example was metaphorical....but I picked it because I think it's brave in front of a crowd who disagrees....and there's a very real possibility of reprisal.

Scott Adams made the news for doing this recently....and it's anyone's guess if he'll be punished or what the punishment will be....but I would have to imagine he was well aware that popular culture and the broader society has decided he isn't supposed to say those things....even if he believes them true.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Man and His Symbols
The entire war has been reduced to one point, Nazi, one symbol Swastika, which is only invoked as a morality tale or a rubber stamp for political opponents.

No other social or political import.

I suppose that is a function of time. It has been almost 100 years.

On the issue of war, I think it's likely that a certain degree of symbolism and dehumanizing is necessary for the goals to be met.