Ben Shapiro's end of the year Devil Talk

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

So, I'm crazy???

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

You mean, Lewis is shallow and obvious like some atheists are when they botch their assessments of religion, especially assessments made of Christianity and of Ethics?

 

[zippy2006]

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."

What a silly strawman. You won't find me making that argument anywhere in this thread or on CF generally.

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)."

No one has argued for the necessary existence of anything, including demons or spies. You are grasping at straws to try to compensate for the inadmissible statements you made earlier in the thread.

We know spies exist, so this example is poor.

The fact that you believe spies exist is a necessary presupposition of the argument that I have made. Your argument against someone who believes demons exist is just as absurd as someone else's argument against your belief in spies. That's the point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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

I understand that, but the fuller context is that regardless of Lewis' actual apologetic ability, he was a professor at Oxford...who was an atheist turned Christian and just happened to have written a somewhat successful series of children's books in addition to presenting a somewhat prolific number of apologetic works.

Obviously, C.S. Lewis won't be meaningful to everyone and I know that while the fuller contexts around who he was doesn't imply that you have to personally value him any more than you do a cricket on your porch, it still remains a fact that he achieved what he achieved, was who he was, and wrote all of what he wrote. Some of it has been useful and helpful for Christians; some of it less so for others.

Personally, I'll admit that I haven't read much more of Lewis than a handful of his books, but The Screwtape Letters is one book of his that has meant a lot to me over the years.

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.)

For my purposes, this thread reduces down to a discussion of the social, ethical, and ultimately spiritual issues which Lewis, in his Screwtape Letters, asserted are at play in society. I merely intend for this to be a sort of Public Service Announcemnt for your hopeful benefit.

Shapiro is merely an envelope for Lewis and his book, just as Lewis' book is an envelope for the issues that I believe are at stake in the midst of human existential life.

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.

I'm glad you can discern the difference.

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


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.

Fine. I'll try to remember that I need to spend some time and effort in creating a more "professionally" orchestrated OP for a thread that will essentially be dismissed and ignored ................................... anyway.

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.)

I know. And I find it very strange that what "holds interest" for you is to land upon a Christian Forum and push for scientific literacy. To me, that's about as nearly futile of an interest as it would be for me to go to Ex-Christian.net and tellr Ex-Christian (mainly atheists) folks there to become better educated about contending with a demonically ridden world. And of course they won't; what's more is that we all know they'll take their hard cover copies of something like Carl Sagan's book, The Demon Haunted World, and duly swat me into a senseless delerium.

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, you're open to blunting Ockham's razor against a granite rock via a kind of Gettier Problem? ...if so, you're more open than I thought you would be.

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.)

That's where various kinds of studies in epistemology come in.

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.

You'd be correct. But some of us simply care that you're dismissing the overall concern. For some of us who take the "Christian" position on existence, my focus isn't on politics but rather on personal salvation.

I understand that many people such as yourself don't care one bit about religion or about the possibility of survival after death, but I do and I tend to lean in Pascal's direction where discouraging apathy and encouraging empathy about all of this is important. It just so happens that for Christians, some form of acknowledgment about diabolical forces is a part of the package of faith.

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.

That's a sad thing for me to have to contemplate, Hans. But as an Existentialist myself, I can understand it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

4. The general incompatibility of non-physical or supernatural entities with the results of physics.

I'm curious if you maybe meant something more along the lines of non-physical or supernatural entities not explainable by physics (or even science). I don't see "incompatibility at all". Science and physics have no way to deal with the question. They don't deny the existence of demons or angels, nor even God.

 

[Neutral Observer]

So, I'm crazy???

Mind you it's not a binary scale, it's somewhat subjective, and it's heavily weighted toward the negative side... but yes, in my opinion you're leaning that way.

Now this assessment may come across as being extremely judgmental on my part, and indeed it is, but in general I don't have a problem with crazy. Absent radicalism crazy is just a different way of looking at things. And there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having a different way of looking at things, even if it's somewhat less rational than I might prefer. In fact a lot of humanity's greatest achievements have been made by individuals who had a markedly different way of looking at things.

Nature didn't start out with a blueprint that said thinking this way is good and thinking that way is bad. In humanity's case it just selected for thinking, and then chose the types of thinking that had the greatest propensity to persist over time. And crazy certainly does seem to be persistent.

To my way of thinking humanity needs crazy just as much as it needs rational. One to charge in where angels fear to tread, and the other to cling to the cold hard tried and true.

So yeah, in my mind you're leaning a little bit towards crazy. But like Sundance said, "You just keep thinkin' Butch, that's what you're good at".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mind you it's not a binary scale, it's somewhat subjective, and it's heavily weighted toward the negative side... but yes, in my opinion you're leaning that way.

Now this assessment may come across as being extremely judgmental on my part, and indeed it is, but in general I don't have a problem with crazy. Absent radicalism crazy is just a different way of looking at things. And there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having a different way of looking at things, even if it's somewhat less rational than I might prefer. In fact a lot of humanity's greatest achievements have been made by individuals who had a markedly different way of looking at things.

That's good and dandy for me to be aware of. I'll let my psychologist know that you've pitched in to help her with her work the next time I visit her...

Nature didn't start out with a blueprint that said thinking this way is good and thinking that way is bad. In humanity's case it just selected for thinking, and then chose the types of thinking that had the greatest propensity to persist over time. And crazy certainly does seem to be persistent.

You could be right, but I'm not sure human morality can be reduced all too simply what you're saying about it in evolutionary terms.

We don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's "only" the behavior which won out through a long process, even a conceptually amorphous process, of "natural selection." It's just the inclined interpretation we hold of the essential data that we think we have at our disposal. We don't know that an All-knowing Creator wasn't involved at least here and there in the processes of moral development over vast periods of time among populations.

Maybe He was. Maybe He wasn't.

To my way of thinking humanity needs crazy just as much as it needs rational. One to charge in where angels fear to tread, and the other to cling to the cold hard tried and true.

So yeah, in my mind you're leaning a little bit towards crazy. But like Sundance said, "You just keep thinkin' Butch, that's what you're good at".

Shucks! I was hoping to lean more in the direction of having an ever growing aptitude for rationality. That's kind'a why I earned the degrees that I did.

Boy, did I seriously goof in that endeavor, or what?

 

[Ana the Ist]

God isn't so much hidden as certain people have just reckoned they can get along without God, or any analogous concept.

People have had spiritual beliefs for at least 40,000 years, if not longer (it's quite likely so), but suddenly in the last 300 years a few "enlightened" individuals decide it's all nonsense. Maybe this is just temporal chauvenism, and not a reflection of enlightenment.

You know....that. or we thought about it and came to different conclusions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Is there anything more than cynicism and emotional appeals in these posts? Postulating for the sake of argument that the devil does exist, would it or would it not be in his interest for the developed West to disbelieve in him?

Well....to game theory this out....I'd generally say he would remain hidden. Actually I can think of a few reasons he wouldn't...but they aren't very good. Revealing himself honestly would probably cause a lot of people to flock to Christianity.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The Singularity has been called "the Rapture for nerds".

It's all religious mumbo-jumbo. Actual scientists like Noam Chomsky say that the underlying science behind machine learning is not analogous to how language actually works. True enough, most of these algorithms like Dall-e don't even understand something as simple as "draw a red box on top of a blue box" (and I tested that myself, having a Dall-e account, and Chomsky is correct).

I think a biblical analogy would be Pharaoh's magicians. They ultimately are talking up alot of BS to convince those in power to give them even more power, and try to direct our civilizations agenda towards their own conceptualization of their libertarian techno-utopia, which has a strange resemblance to Philip K. Dick's cyberpunk dystopias.

I watched an episode on the spiritual background of Philip K. Dick recently, on the Youtube channel, New Thinking Allowed. Dick's Quaker and Episcopalian backgrounds were discussed, and it helped me appreciate the religious allusions in his works.

I'm guessing you haven't heard about the "stamp collector theory".

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

Spies are readily apparent..... we employ them.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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."

Allow me @Hans Blaster, you know how you believe in systemic/implicit racism without anything but a disparity in statistics? It's just like that...

They've taken a complex and multivariate process that has led to a renegotiating of moral norms and reduced it to a single, bite sized, explanation. The devil or demons are their presupposition for "evil" the way systemic/implicit racism is your self fulfilling and perfectly circular explanation for disparities. Sure...you can't actually point out where it happens in the system, maybe you imagine people are unconsciously racist, but you don't really have any evidence of it. You have the outcome....the disparity....and you simply feed that back into the presupposition as evidence.

In other words...

"Systemic racism must exist because, if oppressive racist systems exist and a privileged race wants their racism to remain hidden and is good at hiding their racism the failure to detect their racism is because they want it to remain hidden and have hidden racism successfully demonstrating that systemic racism exists."

 

[Ana the Ist]

Mind you it's not a binary scale, it's somewhat subjective, and it's heavily weighted toward the negative side... but yes, in my opinion you're leaning that way.

Now this assessment may come across as being extremely judgmental on my part, and indeed it is, but in general I don't have a problem with crazy. Absent radicalism crazy is just a different way of looking at things. And there's nothing fundamentally wrong with having a different way of looking at things, even if it's somewhat less rational than I might prefer.

Fundamentally wrong?

Well that depends upon what exactly do you mean by wrong? We all have a worldview sure....in some ways mine us wrong and in some ways correct, as is yours.

If you mean "crazy" is just like all other worldviews in this respect....sure.

However, in regards to our ability to pursue and achieve goals....the degree to which our worldview is correct matters a lot. In this respect, being crazy seems unlikely to confer much benefit....and is objectively worse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well....to game theory this out....I'd generally say he would remain hidden. Actually I can think of a few reasons he wouldn't...but they aren't very good. Revealing himself honestly would probably cause a lot of people to flock to Christianity.

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.

 

[QvQ]

Carl Jung studied the universal symbols that, arguably, did not have a corresponding, objective reality such as witches, demons, winged men.
All cultures have a concept of "witch" such that if a witch is described to anyone, the person recognizes that symbol. We all know what a witch is and what a demon is and what winged men are, yet there doesn't seem to be any corresponding reality. None of us have actually seen a flock of winged men flying across the sky.
Although everyone will agree that this is "not the best of all possible worlds" what mechanism generates the "symbol" of "best possible?"
I have a very hazy idea of heaven, where it is, what it is like, but I can describe the Garden of Eden. I can picture it and I know for certain absolute fact that where we are, East of Eden, is a corrupted world as I can compare it with the Garden of Eden in every particular.
Spy is a definition, not a specific being. It is an action ascribed to a person. Demon is a symbol representing a specific being and that symbol may have a corresponding reality.
Is the world morally degenerate? Yes, as the standard is the Garden of Eden or "the best possible world"
Or then again, perhaps we all agree the world is "not the best possible" and merely disagree about the nature of the corruption and how to restore the "Garden."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Carl Jung studied the universal symbols that, arguably, did not have a corresponding, objective reality such as witches, demons, winged men.
All cultures have a concept of "witch" such that if a witch is described to anyone, the person recognizes that symbol. We all know what a witch is and what a demon is and what winged men are, yet there doesn't seem to be any corresponding reality. None of us have actually seen a flock of winged men flying across the sky.
Although everyone will agree that this is "not the best of all possible worlds" what mechanism generates the "symbol" of "best possible?"
I have a very hazy idea of heaven, where it is, what it is like, but I can describe the Garden of Eden. I can picture it and I know for certain absolute fact that where we are, East of Eden, is a corrupted world as I can compare it with the Garden of Eden in every particular.
Spy is a definition, not a specific being. It is an action ascribed to a person. Demon is a symbol representing a specific being and that symbol may have a corresponding reality.
Is the world morally degenerate? Yes, as the standard is the Garden of Eden or "the best possible world"
Or then again, perhaps we all agree the world is "not the best possible" and merely disagree about the nature of the corruption and how to restore the "Garden."

Those are useful and relevant thoughts, QvQ. Now, with those in mind, how might they 'tie in' to the moral issues described by Lewis and summarized by Shapiro in the OP? [I have to ask in order to keep this thread on its actual track... ]

 

[QvQ]

Shapiro claims that Lewis predicted our modern world. He also claims that man's nature has not changed.
He talks about reality, materialistic vs spiritual. He talks religion being a "choice" of aspirations to a better world.

The above statment is my interpretation of the posted video.

So, God created the World.
Then Adam lived in Eden
And the son's of Adam were driven East of Eden

And for me, that is where the rubber hits the road, because this is not the best of all possible worlds.
I live in East of Eden. That is reality, material reality. That reality has not changed. Man's nature has not changed.

Earlier, demons were discussed and spies. When I can say, "this is not the best of all possible worlds" then I must say "what is?"
And by the same means that I know "best possible," where do those measures originate and what is the basis in reality?
If the symbol, "best possible world" is a recognized material reality that can be aspired to then the symbol "demon" exists in the same realm.
If the symbol "best possible world" is not a possible material reality that can be aspired to or attained then the secular world has wasted thousands of years of blood, sweat and tears in attempts to make that reality.

What I am saying is that Lewis did not predict the modern world. It is the same tough neighborhood it has always been. It was as wicked, full of snares and toils, is was and shall be.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well....to game theory this out....I'd generally say he would remain hidden. Actually I can think of a few reasons he wouldn't...but they aren't very good. Revealing himself honestly would probably cause a lot of people to flock to Christianity.

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.

And lest this sound ridiculous, that's more or less Hume's argument against miracles. He boxed in the criteria for a miraculous sign so narrowly, that it's impossible to produce "reasonable" evidence.

 

[QvQ]

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.

And lest this sound ridiculous, that's more or less Hume's argument against miracles. He boxed in the criteria for a miraculous sign so narrowly, that it's impossible to produce "reasonable" evidence.

Witches, defined as practitioners of the black arts and Demons, defined as forces of evil, may have a separate manifested reality. The criteria for the "reasonable" evidence is boxed in when witches and demons are denied.

Shapiro seems to say that there is "progress" between all the ancient deceptions and modern lures. All the traps and snares he mentions are as old as Lucifer.

The only things that seems to progress is "the best possible world." Technology has cured many of the problems of mankind, food shelter, medicine, but according to "climate change" the world has been turned into a toxic waste dump. Utopia again kicked in the ashcan, and here we are, back in east of Eden.

That is why I say, C. S. Lewis did not predict the modern world because it is merely a different version of East of Eden. That fact is entirely predictable.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Shapiro claims that Lewis predicted our modern world. He also claims that man's nature has not changed.
He talks about reality, materialistic vs spiritual. He talks religion being a "choice" of aspirations to a better world.

The above statment is my interpretation of the posted video.

So, God created the World.
Then Adam lived in Eden
And the son's of Adam were driven East of Eden

And for me, that is where the rubber hits the road, because this is not the best of all possible worlds.
I live in East of Eden. That is reality, material reality. That reality has not changed. Man's nature has not changed.

Earlier, demons were discussed and spies. When I can say, "this is not the best of all possible worlds" then I must say "what is?"
And by the same means that I know "best possible," where do those measures originate and what is the basis in reality?
If the symbol, "best possible world" is a recognized material reality that can be aspired to then the symbol "demon" exists in the same realm.
If the symbol "best possible world" is not a possible material reality that can be aspired to or attained then the secular world has wasted thousands of years of blood, sweat and tears in attempts to make that reality.

What I am saying is that Lewis did not predict the modern world. It is the same tough neighborhood it has always been. It was as wicked, full of snares and toils, is was and shall be.

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.