Ben Shapiro's end of the year Devil Talk

[FireDragon76]

You can stop with the cheap asides at just about any time now, Hans. I take offense that you've stooped to describing C.S. Lewis as a "second-rate pre-teen fantasy author," and such a description of him, placed as it is in THIS THREAD, is offensive. It's also a cheap form of stonewalling. I'd going even so far as to say that it's a form of gaslighting, one used so as not to have to engage the Ethical and Epistemological and Semantic issues that might go into any one of us having to "deal with the Devil" in various ways. On the whole, The Screwtape Letters is no more an example of "pre-teen fantasy" than is Mary Shelley's, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.

Please stop with the cheap asides and the stonewalling.

Besides, all you're really doing is showing just how applicable chapter 1 of The Screwtape Letters is to your atheistic perception.

Screwtape is actually an allegory, similar to Pilgrim's Progress, on asceticism. In that sense, it isn't merely a fantasy, but it is more of an ascetical text on virtue and vice, in the context of early-mid 20th century broad church Anglicanism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Screwtape is actually an allegory, similar to Pilgrim's Progress, on asceticism. In that sense, it isn't merely a fantasy, but it is more of an ascetical text on virtue and vice, in the context of early-mid 20th century broad church Anglicanism.

Right. It is a form of allegory, one which Lewis says in his preface that it has a rather symbolic play at stake, one in which he says, "... my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."

(Far be it from me to see it as some kind of 'literalist tract for Spiritual Warfare'; although, I suppose there's a touch of that, too, in it.

It almost sounds like Lewis wrote the Letters and kept it in line with a kind of post World War II, Cold War mentality, an allegory for a cultural critique, such as the one which George Orwell was to represent and imply in his writing of Nineteen Eighty-Four several years later. The difference being that Lewis' applies to more than solely a Communistic style culture ... ... ... as is all too readily revealed by him in the preface to "Screwtape Proposes a Toast."

 

[Larniavc]

at he hates is being ignored

Yet Christians keep bringing him up…

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yet Christians keep bringing him up…

And atheists keep suppressing the concern about it all.

 

[Larniavc]

And atheists keep suppressing the concern about it all.

Correctly so. Are you concerned about society not worrying about Hanbi?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Correctly so. Are you concerned about society not worrying about Hanbi?

I suppose that these days society has every concern, or the sole concern, to worry [or not to worry] about the use of a skincare moisterizing serum.

Unless, of course, various contexts DO count for something in all of this.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Definitely. I experience this personally, and this was even truer when I was younger. It's as though being naughty, or counter-cultural, or impertinent is fashionable and promoted by our culture.

What you point out here is something quite irrational but central to modern culture that I have been trying to understand. To conform to it one must pretend to be a nonconformist. Considering oneself to be a rebel by rebelling against a status quo that has long ceased to exist in order to reinforce the current status quo.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Right. It is a form of allegory, one which Lewis says in his preface that it has a rather symbolic play at stake, one in which he says, "... my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern."

(Far be it from me to see it as some kind of 'literallists tract for Spiritual Warfare'; although, I suppose there's a touch of that, too, in it.

It almost sounds like Lewis wrote the Letters and kept it in line with a kind of post World War II, Cold War mentality, an allegory for a cultural critique, such as the one which George Orwell was to represent and imply in his writing of Nineteen Eighty-Four several years later. The difference being that Lewis' applies to more than solely a Communistic style culture ... ... ... as is all too readily revealed by him in the preface to "Screwtape Proposes a Toast."

Whether Lewis intended it as such or not, it is thoroughly relevant to the study of human nature, not in the devices themselves of the demons, but in how the demons must plan and do, concerning humans. Lewis, as always, both pokes fun at humans (particularly concerning their inconsistencies and pretentiousness), and does them a certain degree of honor in their rightful place in God's work concerning them. To me, the book is for more about humans than about demons.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Congratulations, you have just committed the logical fallacy of begging the question. Your irrationality grows with each new post.

Do you not realize the "Screwtape" of this thread is a fiction? The author himself makes no alternative claim.

 

[zippy2006]

Do you not realize the "Screwtape" of this thread is a fiction? The author himself makes no alternative claim.

The demon that you and gaara were talking about was the devil/Satan, and I was of course responding to you. Are you now equivocating and shifting to talk about Screwtape instead? Since your comments about the devil were indefensible?

Those who do not believe that works of fiction are worth discussing are generally not very intelligent people, and I am not going to give you a primer on fictional and allegorical literature, but if threads about works of fiction are not worth taking seriously, then why are you here? Why are you posting in this thread?

 

[Neutral Observer]

Yet Christians keep bringing him up…

Yes they do. But that's just because people like to obsess about things... lot's of things. Like climate change, or guns, or wokeism, or all manner of ways in which society is going to hell in a handbasket. People love to worry about things.

But then again that just seems to be nature's way. Nature love's conflict, although to be fair it's not really about conflict, it's more about balance. Nature loves to balance an indifferent person with an obsessive person. One person is thinking ehhh... no big deal, while the other one is running around screaming that the sky is falling. These two types of people balance each other out. This way nature keeps us from getting so nonchalant that we ignore danger entirely, while also keeping us from going berserko over every perceived threat. This continual tug-of-war keeps us from sliding too far in either direction. Yup it's a little bizarre, and pretty darn messy, but it's gotten us this far.

So the next time you see someone ranting about the devil, or demons, or some other imagined menace, just remember that there's a method to nature's madness. The emergence of human "intelligence" may have amplified the problem, but it's just nature doing what nature always does... balance things out.

As strange as it may seem, nature has a reason for crazy people. So humor them, but at the same time try not to elect them to public office.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes they do. But that's just because people like to obsess about things... lot's of things. Like climate change, or guns, or wokeism, or all manner of ways in which society is going to hell in a handbasket. People love to worry about things.

But then again that just seems to be nature's way. Nature love's conflict, although to be fair it's not really about conflict, it's more about balance. Nature loves to balance an indifferent person with an obsessive person. One person is thinking ehhh... no big deal, while the other one is running around screaming that the sky is falling. These two types of people balance each other out. This way nature keeps us from getting so nonchalant that we ignore danger entirely, while also keeping us from going berserko over every perceived threat. This continual tug-of-war keeps us from sliding too far in either direction. Yup it's a little bizarre, and pretty darn messy, but it's gotten us this far.

So the next time you see someone ranting about the devil, or demons, or some other imagined menace, just remember that there's a method to nature's madness. The emergence of human "intelligence" may have amplified the problem, but it's just nature doing what nature always does... balance things out.

As strange as it may seem, nature has a reason for crazy people. So humor them, but at the same time try not to elect them to public office.

Nature reasons and wills??? Or are you speaking allegorically?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I shall respond on 4 topics below:

1. The nature of this thread
2. CS Lewis
3. Rationality
4. Personified evil

You can stop with the cheap asides at just about any time now, Hans. I take offense that you've stooped to describing C.S. Lewis as a "second-rate pre-teen fantasy author," and such a description of him, placed as it is in THIS THREAD, is offensive.

That is what he is best known for. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

It's also a cheap form of stonewalling. I'd going even so far as to say that it's a form of gaslighting, one used so as not to have to engage the Ethical and Epistemological and Semantic issues that might go into any one of us having to "deal with the Devil" in various ways.

Which weren't in issue in any recent post. This thread has gone aside from that. (See the first couple pages for the content you wanted to generate. Or one of several other contemporary threads.)

On the whole, The Screwtape Letters is no more an example of "pre-teen fantasy" than is Mary Shelley's, Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus.

Check my post again. "pre-teen fantasy" only refers to the author. I never said "Skrewtape" was pre-teen fantasy. "Narnia" is pre-teen fantasy. Frankenstein is adult horror-fantasy.

Please stop with the cheap asides and the stonewalling.

I can move on to my main response shortly...

Besides, all you're really doing is showing just how applicable chapter 1 of The Screwtape Letters is to your atheistic perception.

You should know by now that the one thing I haven't done is read said text.


Main response:

1. On the nature of this thread.

This thread was like several others in this section over the winter was on the "moral degradation of the west" (or some similar topic). It's prime "hook" was commentary by Ben Shapiro. As a political commentator, he seemed a bit out of place in the "morality" section, but I checked it out anyway. For my efforts I got a 15+ minute rant about america's decaying morality. I watched most of it. (I did hit the "skip 5 sec" button a few times when his rants would get redundant or repetative.)

The OP didn't place the "Screwtape" in context for those of us who aren't "Christian philosophy geeks" (no shame implied either way) and the video didn't do any of Ben's viewers any favors as he didn't put the book in context either. A simple 1 minute overview from Shapiro, or a proper description in the OP would have made a big difference. This was compounded by Ben's poor delivery where it was difficult to tell when he was reading the text and when he was reading his commentary. (Some, perhaps all it is not clear, of the text was put on screen. So at least we know *that* was CS Lewis.) The lack of context meant that every time Ben said "Screwtape says" it wasn't clear if he referred to the character (it seemed to be a character) or the thesis of the book. Some clarification and a better script from Shapiro would have gone a long way.

2. CS Lewis

To the general public, if he is known at all, CS Lewis is known for the "Narnia" book(s?). "Narnia" is fiction for adolescents in the fantasy genre which makes CS Lewis a "pre-teen fantasy writer". He been outpaced by his rough contemporaries like Tolkein (Hobbit, LOTR is not "pre-teen") and Dahl and a generation or so later the space-fantasy Star Wars and a further generation or so by Harry Potter. Does that make him "second rate"? I don't know, perhaps more "largely forgotten". I only read the chunk of Narnia in our 6th grade reader and had no inclination to read anymore while I went on to read Dahl, early DC (Batman & Superman), Asimov, Clarke, etc.

Until a few years ago I'd not even known he wrote Christian stuff. (And lest you accuse me of gaslighting you again, I believe the book I've heard about is call "Mere Christianity" a book of apologetics, a topic which holds no interest to me.)

3. Rationality

Your irrationality grows with each new post.

Rationality, from a non-technical point of view as I am not a philosopher, is just coming to conclusions based on the evidence available to you and your assessment of the quality of that evidence.

Is it irrational for a housewife to suspect her husband of cheating on her with his secretary when he comes home late smelling of beer and cigarettes with a lipstick smudge on his collar? No, it is not, but she should obtain more information as it may have just been his pals taking him out to celebrate a big sale after work and an overly affectionate waitress. If it is, then she needs to reassess her conclusion to remain rational. [I don't know why my example works best in a time frame when "housewives", "smoking in bars", and "secretaries" were still a thing. Perhaps it is this thread.] In short "rationality" is not about having the "right" conclusion, but one based on the evidence available to you.



So am I being irrational about
4. Personified evil, or demons?

Let's consider the evidence available to me. What evidence is there relating to personifications of evil or demons? How good is that evidence?

1. Claims from the religions of many cultures about the existence of demons.
2. Various reports of personal experiences plus associated accusations of possession.
3. Ability of human psychology and sociology to explain the vast majority (if not all) evil deeds.
4. The general incompatibility of non-physical or supernatural entities with the results of physics.

Since personified evil is not necessary (3) to explain the "evil" we see in the world there isn't really any need to include such beings in my worldview. That I don't find the evidence of types 1 & 2 convincing does not override that. (4 is just the kicker.)

I'm also not saying it is irrational to believe in demons. If you put more weight to #1 than I do (particularly ones own culture) then you may rationally come to the conclusion that they do exist. But your conclusion does not mean that I have to give the concept that I have now rejected an serious consideration.

Because it seems to come up, the implication that my "atheistic worldview" has made me reject demons, it is not the case (and closer to the reverse.) I never believed in demons, nor ghosts, nor the gods of other religions. What made me an atheist was when I realized that my conclusions about other gods and supernatural beings also applied to the god a had believed in. It no longer satisfied my reasons to think it was real.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The demon that you and gaara were talking about was the devil/Satan, and I was of course responding to you. Are you now equivocating and shifting to talk about Screwtape instead? Since your comments about the devil were indefensible?

You were rambling on about imagined spies and I replied:

How seriously do you think we should take a thread about a fictional demon?*

Did you not read my footnote?

*So I finally searched and skimmed the Wikipedia article about CS Lewis' book. Apparently "screwtape" is a fictional demon. The thread makes a little more sense now, but I have no interest in the writings of a second-rate pre-teen fantasy author.

(Sorry "Void" I had to post the full footnote with it's jab at your favorite author.)

Those who do not believe that works of fiction are worth discussing are generally not very intelligent people,

I know the measurement and assessment of intelligence is a area fraught with problems, but I've never heard this technique for measuring it.

and I am not going to give you a primer on fictional and allegorical literature, but if threads about works of fiction are not worth taking seriously, then why are you here?

I got sucked in by a Ben Shapiro video (I know he's awful, but it still worked) into what started like a discussion (like others) on modern morality, but now has apparently devolved into a discussion of demons.

If I had known it was going to be a discussion about allegorical fiction, I would have just skipped it, but (as I said earlier today) the opening of the thread did not adequately warn me off before I got sucked in. (And yes, I don't have any interest in discussing literary fiction. I finished my Lit requirements 30 years ago and would like to leave that in the past. I've got way better things to do.)

Why are you posting in this thread?

Ask The Church Lady.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't sense much seriousness at all from you. Do you believe in spies or moles? When someone talks about spies do you say, "Oh yeah! People who intentionally hide their existence and/or identity! 'Not believing in spies is the work of spies' smh. 'If a mole has done their job right, people won't be sure they've done anything at all.' Plenty of humans are effective in plain sight. Why would anyone hide their existence?"

You are correct that I do not take seriously the possibility of a devil actually existing. “Well, he might be of a nature that isn’t immediately detectable especially to a materialist” isn’t a better explanation for his failure to appear than “he’s not real.” Obviously this isn’t proof he doesn’t exist. I don’t really need that. Do you?

What benefit would it be for an "immortal of near-infinite power" to reveal themselves to humanity? How would revealing themselves best serve their purposes? Why would you think immaterial beings need to "hide" to remain undetected by materialists? What does it even mean to have "near-infinite power"? All questions you obviously need to think about.

You and Hans seem to have erected a particularly irrational echo chamber.

No, I don’t think any of this warrants much thought until I’m given reason to believe such a being might exist. There’s valid criticism here of my flippant attitude toward this subject when no one’s forcing me to participate, but old habits die hard.

 

[zippy2006]

3. Rationality



Rationality, from a non-technical point of view as I am not a philosopher, is just coming to conclusions based on the evidence available to you and your assessment of the quality of that evidence.

Is it irrational for a housewife to suspect her husband of cheating on her with his secretary when he comes home late smelling of beer and cigarettes with a lipstick smudge on his collar? No, it is not, but she should obtain more information as it may have just been his pals taking him out to celebrate a big sale after work and an overly affectionate waitress. If it is, then she needs to reassess her conclusion to remain rational. [I don't know why my example works best in a time frame when "housewives", "smoking in bars", and "secretaries" were still a thing. Perhaps it is this thread.] In short "rationality" is not about having the "right" conclusion, but one based on the evidence available to you.



So am I being irrational about
4. Personified evil, or demons?

Let's consider the evidence available to me. What evidence is there relating to personifications of evil or demons? How good is that evidence?

1. Claims from the religions of many cultures about the existence of demons.
2. Various reports of personal experiences plus associated accusations of possession.
3. Ability of human psychology and sociology to explain the vast majority (if not all) evil deeds.
4. The general incompatibility of non-physical or supernatural entities with the results of physics.

Since personified evil is not necessary (3) to explain the "evil" we see in the world there isn't really any need to include such beings in my worldview. That I don't find the evidence of types 1 & 2 convincing does not override that. (4 is just the kicker.)

I'm also not saying it is irrational to believe in demons. If you put more weight to #1 than I do (particularly ones own culture) then you may rationally come to the conclusion that they do exist. But your conclusion does not mean that I have to give the concept that I have now rejected an serious consideration.

Because it seems to come up, the implication that my "atheistic worldview" has made me reject demons, it is not the case (and closer to the reverse.) I never believed in demons, nor ghosts, nor the gods of other religions. What made me an atheist was when I realized that my conclusions about other gods and supernatural beings also applied to the god a had believed in. It no longer satisfied my reasons to think it was real.

The point at issue is the sort of cynicism and emotional appeal I noted here. You were engaging in partisan rhetoric, not rational argument. From the proposition that the devil wishes to remain covert you inferred that Christians are desperately reaching. This is nothing more than partisan rhetoric. It is not a rational approach, and it does nothing to adjudicate the core disagreement. You don't seem to appreciate the applicability of my spy analogy, for it functions as an exact parallel to your own response. If spies exist then they will be covert. The fact that spies are not readily apparent is not evidence of their non-existence, and those who take it as evidence are actually committing rational errors. On the other hand, those who rhetorically mock and gaslight people who believe in spies are engaging cynically, not in good faith.

 

[zippy2006]

There’s valid criticism here of my flippant attitude toward this subject when no one’s forcing me to participate, but old habits die hard.

That's fair. This seems like a good place for me to leave off, then.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The point at issue is the sort of cynicism and emotional appeal I noted here. You were engaging in partisan rhetoric, not rational argument. From the proposition that the devil wishes to remain covert you inferred that Christians are desperately reaching. This is nothing more than partisan rhetoric. It is not a rational approach, and it does nothing to adjudicate the core disagreement. You don't seem to appreciate the applicability of my spy analogy, for it functions as an exact parallel to your own response. If spies exist then they will be covert. The fact that spies are not readily apparent is not evidence of their non-existence, and those who take it as evidence are actually committing rational errors. On the other hand, those who rhetorically mock and gaslight people who believe in spies are engaging cynically, not in good faith.

Your argument reduces to "X must exist because, if X exists and X wants to remain hidden and is good at hiding then the failure to detect X is because it wants to remain hidden and has hidden successfully demonstrating that X exists."

The "spy analogy" works out to something like "Spies must exist because if spies exist and want to remain undetected and good spies are good at hiding then that is proof that spies exist (and they are good spies because they have hidden successfully)."

The analogy fails because what we don't have is a group of people claiming "no spies exist", nor do we (actually) have anyone claiming that "non-detection of spies is proof of spies". We know spies exist, so this example is poor. Could we find a narrower application of the "spy analogy"? (I don't think so, but I'll see if I can find one.) What about spies in a specific place? Is the failure to detect spies operating from the US Embassy in Moscow or Russian Embassy in Washington proof that they exist there? No. The fact that no one at those embassies has been caught as a spy neither proves nor disproves the existence of spies there. If there is a fact that tips the scales, it is that both embassies have been identified as spies leading both nations' counterintelligence to suspect that there are currently spies in their midst (and likely both have identified some already).

Since everyone knows about those spies (in their general nature), what about a different nation state. Suppose the African nation of Mali denies that it has any foreign spies (intelligence officers operating in other countries.) No Malian spies have ever been caught on foreign soil. If Mali's spies are effective, the remain hidden. Is the failure to detect Malian spies proof that they exist? What if I dogmatically insist they exist but they are really good at staying hidden? Is that plus the failure to detect them proof? No, it isn't. (I don't have any knowledge of Malian intelligence operations. I used their country as an example.)

But, you might say, effective spies must stay hidden individually. This is true generally (though there are uses for a spy with a blown cover), so let's consider the case of Julie Doe. Julie has applied for a diplomatic visa from Russia so that she may work as a deputy agricultural attache at the US Embassy in Moscow. She has a degree in crop genetics from Iowa State and worked for Dekalb and Monsanto before joining the USDA who are now sending her to Moscow on a diplomatic passport. When she gets to Moscow the FSB puts a tail on her even though they have strong evidence that her educational and employment history are real. Her position with the US mission in Russia brings her into contact with government officials, agribusiness executive, farmers, and ag researchers in various places throughout Russia. It is a perfect profile for a CIA officer under official diplomatic cover. The FSB tracks her for a year and can't demonstrate she is a spy. If the presuppose Julie is a spy, but they can't find direct evidence is that proof that she is a spy? (No.) Now maybe she is a really good spy, or she's playing it straight until her real mission starts or the FSB give up on tracking her. Maybe her main mission is to collect a USB drive of data intermittently from a waiter at the tea house 2 blocks from her Moscow apartment and the FSB has just been distracted by her travels and meetings with government officials and agribusiness oligarchs to notice. Or, maybe she isn't a spy, but an actual expert on cereal genetics interfacing with Russians to advance US interests. You just can't tell based on non-detection if a candidate spy is actually a spy.

Overall, none of the "spy" allegories work, not just because there aren't people insisting that "spies don't exist", but because the structure of the argument is poor.

Since you want to talk about demons, and I find no reasons to think there are such things, let's take the example of Julie Doe again. Instead of being a suspected spy, what if she is accused of being a demon, possessed by a demon, or having sex with a demon (a witch)? She denies the accusation of being or being associated with a demon. The accuser rejects the denial and claims that the denial is proof of the allegation because demons want you to not believe they are real. Does that mean she is a demon, or possessed by a demon? I think you should agree that it doesn't prove anything. (I am slightly concerned that you won't.)

Generalizing a bit on the "demons convincing people that they don't exist which proves that they do exist" argument which "defeats" any "lack of evidence" counterclaim, it's just not a good argument. It's built on a presupposition (demons convince people the don't exist) and ultimately has the form of "Heads I win, tails you lose." It is an argument you "win" by claiming the rules such that you always win. (Just like Calvinball). You are free to find the argument convincing by accepting the presupposition, but I would ask that you realize that those of us who do not make the assumption of the presupposition will not only not find it unconvincing but will find it hard to take seriously when repeated.

Since I didn't know this thread was about demons, but rather thought it was about morality, the injection of "demons" into the conversation caught me off guard. If what you want to discuss is what immorality or sins demons want to cause, then it is just theology and I have no interest in that at all.

I might be open to an argument that Ben Shaprio doesn't exist because no ones voice could be that annoying.

 

[Larniavc]

I suppose that these days society has every concern, or the sole concern, to worry [or not to worry] about the use of a skincare moisterizing serum.

Unless, of course, various contexts DO count for something in all of this.

Don’t be obtuse.

 

[Larniavc]

"second-rate pre-teen fantasy author," and such a description of him, placed as it is in THIS THREAD, is offensive.

While not a hack his writing is pretty shallow and obvious.