Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

[gaara4158]

Regardless, we can just pretend for the moment, for argument's sake, that the Devil might be tricking me into doing his work rather than God's work. In which case, I'd have to do something hermeneutically drastic ... like asking you to explain how you came by your own definition and understanding about the Devil apart from the Bible?

(Darn it, you replied before I was able to add my edit!)

I would actually venture to say that most people don’t get their definition and understanding of the Devil from the Bible. He’s generally alluded to in Western culture as a cosmic adversary to the God of classical theism, often credited with the moral and political corruption of mankind. If you grant that his ultimate mission is to win souls away from God’s flock and he is capable of being extremely persuasive and deceitful, then it should set off alarms when you yourself start thinking it’s a good thing to be sending souls over to the Devil rather than to God.

 

[Halbhh]

Someone said not too long ago that "these are the times that try men's souls," or something to that effect. I suppose he was right in some capacity because, let's face it, we all seem to be languishing in a world gone awry, and even if someone doesn't presently adhere to some form of Metaphysics and/or Religion, surely we can all agree that we're immoral in the way we not only treat each other but also in how we abuse the natural ecology of our shared planet.

On the Christian side of things, the tendency (rather the strong tendency) among the faithful is to think that there is a Devil behind much of the evils in the world that we have to contend with, not the least of which is his claimed and vaunted power for mass deception.

On the Skeptical and Atheistic side of things, there seems to be the idea that if there is a Devil, then we might not be able to be 'sure' that the Bible itself is not a deception, that what we think is good isn't really evil, and vice versa. If this is true then we're in for a doubly deep dose of deception … not only corporately, but also from within our individual perceptions of mind.

So, how do I Kill the Devil Inside of Me and begin to untangle this epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological mess?

Kill The Devil, by The Letter Black [...sounds a little like Rhianna on steroids! ]


Any suggestions? Anyone, anyone?

Mathematician and Philosopher, Rene Descartes had one. And his suggestion, or rather his piece of logical deduction, was that no such skeptical view of the Devil could really be entertained for very long and remain cogent …

[Note to the concerned: Don't worry! I'm not going Cartesian; I'm still Pascalian! ]

War, conflict, hate, prejudice, false witness -- they are endless, and humanity seems doomed without intervention....

So, therefore:

Trust (or test the words of!) the one who said:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

Experimentally testing it, I've found out it is so good in outcome, that it's very convincing it's the real deal, from the real God. (later, other powerful confirmations of other kinds came)

While one could figure out that "love your neighbor as yourself" is just necessary, figure that intellectually from history -- wars are endless, distrust is endless, 'the center does not hold', and therefore logically only to forgive and love your neighbor could give any hope. (without it, humankind is already toast)

Still, I still felt a need to test, test, test. I tested it a lot, because I wondered if I was just lucky the first 2 times. It's the real deal, so those are the real Words from the only true God.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Trust the one who said:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

Experimentally testing it, I've found out it is so good in outcome, that it's very convincing it's the real deal, from the real God. While one could figure out this just intellectual, I felt a need to test, test, test. I tested it a lot, because I wondered if I was just lucky the first 2 times. It's the real deal, so those are the real Words from the only true God.

Would you say that your result of your own testing of Jesus' "love your neighbor" command counts as a form of empirical experience, at least for yourself?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

(Darn it, you replied before I was able to add my edit!)

Sorry! I just happened to be somewhat quick on the draw with that last one.

I would actually venture to say that most people don’t get their definition and understanding of the Devil from the Bible. He’s generally alluded to in Western culture as a cosmic adversary to the God of classical theism, often credited with the moral and political corruption of mankind. If you grant that his ultimate mission is to win souls away from God’s flock and he is capable of being extremely persuasive and deceitful, then it should set off alarms when you yourself start thinking it’s a good thing to be sending souls over to the Devil rather than to God.

... so, would it be safe to say that you think there is a "devil of the philosophers" in a way similar to the concept of the "god of the philosophers?" If so, am I supposed to concern myself with this extra-biblical concept of the Devil over and above the few references I find about him in the biblical texts and/or in specific traditions within the Christian Church?

I mean, how can I be concerned about sending souls -- however accidentally I may do so -- to a non-biblical, philosophical version of the devil and thereby supposedly be afraid of being a false prophet because of this possibility? Ha! I hate to say it, but something doesn't hermeneutically "click" here for me with that, and that's just hermeneutically speaking. I haven't even brought in Descartes or Hillary Putnam into the argument yet. Not that they'll provide a knock-down, drag-out refutation, but they can give us something further to consider.

 

[Halbhh]

Would you say that your result of your own testing of Jesus' "love your neighbor" command counts as a form of empirical experience, at least for yourself?

Yes, I wanted to know for myself, by direct test. Like Thomas in a lot of ways really.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I wanted to know for myself, by direct test. Like Thomas in a lot of ways really.

I like that. But now we'll have to wait and see if your claim is strong enough to put the atheists on the run here who are claiming that the Devil [or evil demon god] could be using your experience to corrupt and mislead you so that you end up, ultimately, doing his bidding.

 

[gaara4158]

Sorry! I just happened to be somewhat quick on the draw with that last one.

... so, would it be safe to say that you think there is a "devil of the philosophers" in a way similar to the concept of the "god of the philosophers?" If so, am I supposed to concern myself with this extra-biblical concept of the Devil over and above the few references I find about him in the biblical texts and/or in specific traditions within the Christian Church?

I mean, how can I be concerned about sending souls -- however accidentally I may do so -- to a non-biblical, philosophical version of the devil and thereby supposedly be afraid of being a false prophet because of this possibility? Ha! I hate to say it, but something doesn't hermeneutically "click" here for me with that, and that's just hermeneutically speaking. I haven't even brought in Descartes or Hillary Putnam into the argument yet. Not that they'll provide a knock-down, drag-out refutation, but they can give us something further to consider.

Well, no, the devil of the philosophers isn’t anything to worry about in your everyday life any more than the God of the philosophers is. This concern only really applies if you’re a fundamentalist carrying out marching orders that seem to go against God’s general goal. It’s a point against fundamentalism in general, I suppose. If you accept what the Bible says about the Devil’s dastardly ways, I don’t see how you could ever soundly argue that you’re not at present deceived by him.

 

[zippy2006]

If you accept what the Bible says about the Devil’s dastardly ways, I don’t see how you could ever soundly argue that you’re not at present deceived by him.

It seems to me that the Cartesian concern of the OP is related to deep deception and universal skepticism. On the other hand, for most Christians I think the deception of the devil is present but not ubiquitous.

For example, I try hard to love God and to love my neighbor. Although I am surely deceived in some ways by Satan, even this simple fact indicates that the deception only occurs in limited ways. As you say, fundamentalists or ideologues may be more susceptible (due to a lack of intellectual humility).

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So, how do I Kill the Devil Inside of Me and begin to untangle this epistemological, metaphysical, and axiological mess?

I suppose you could try adopting a “properly basic belief” that it’s not possible that a devil, or evil god or whatever could be deceiving you to any great extent.

But you seem way too smart for that.

Oh, I got it. Head trauma leading to an IQ loss. Then you wouldn’t about any word greater than two syllables...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, no, the devil of the philosophers isn’t anything to worry about in your everyday life any more than the God of the philosophers is. This concern only really applies if you’re a fundamentalist carrying out marching orders that seem to go against God’s general goal. It’s a point against fundamentalism in general, I suppose. If you accept what the Bible says about the Devil’s dastardly ways, I don’t see how you could ever soundly argue that you’re not at present deceived by him.

Perhaps, but as @zippy2006 said in a post right after yours, "...for most Christians I think the deception of the devil is present but not ubiquitous," and I think I agree with him.

For my part, I'll assert that while we can't know that we're not being deceived in some way(s) by the Devil, we can know we're not COMPLETELY and UTTERLY deceived by the Devil. The main reason I say this is that it's inconsistent to be concerned about diabolical deception if we take indicators from a biblical author that such can be the case but then ignore other indicators from the same author that the Devil is limited in power.

As Christians, we don't have to worry about the evil demon god of the philosophers [which Descartes refers to through thought experiment] since he is dispelled by properly basic axioms that tether our conceptions of reality, and an evil demon god isn't analogous to the biblical conception of the Devil. In other words, if we worry about the philosopher's demon god, we're not really dealing with the bible, but with another [set] of beliefs, even if they're not quite another religion.

Additionally, if we put in the effort to study and apply Hermeneutics, then we have no reason to go in circles by starting with the bible which tells us that God is Supreme and the Devil is a created being, and then serendipitously infer that the Devil suddenly has more power than what the text implies. If we do try to infer this, then we're no longer abstracting hermeneutically from the text but from our own imagination(s), an act that in this case doesn't even reflect deduction, induction or abduction.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I suppose you could try adopting a “properly basic belief” that it’s not possible that a devil, or evil god or whatever could be deceiving you to any great extent.

But you seem way too smart for that.

... you don't think that at least we can tell the difference between dreaming and being awake? Or are we just dreaming that we live lives where we are awake one moment and then dreaming the next, and then awake again ... while dreaming.

I may not be a Cartesian, but even my Pascalian side doesn't buy that!

Oh, I got it. Head trauma leading to an IQ loss. Then you wouldn’t about any word greater than two syllables...

No, I didn't say anything about head trauma or any kind of IQ loss on my part. I had an IQ test done by a professional when I was in 8th grade; he said I came in at 114 (which isn't real high). Fortunately, I've since become much more educated since then, so.....the way I figure it, I can now say I'm 115. [Edit: Obviously, I still have some work to do......see? I used the word 'since' twice in that last sentence]

Anyway, the only reason the whole IQ comment was made above was that in my conversation with Richard, he referred to Christopher Langan. I googled Langan and saw that he's supposedly known for having an IQ of 195. I suppose I should be impressed, but since Langan doesn't quite seem to be following along with the Christian program but rather with his own, I had to ask a question as expressed by one who has an 80 point deficiency in IQ.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

... you don't think that at least we can tell the difference between dreaming and being awake? Or are we just dreaming that we live lives where we are awake one moment and then dreaming the next, and then awake again ... while dreaming.

I may not be a Cartesian, but even my Pascalian side doesn't buy that!

I know the difference between what I think a dream is as opposed to what I think being awake is. But if my entire life has been my brain (or something like a brain I wouldn't understand) manipulated by an evil god, then maybe there's no real "dreaming", just a different method of inputting false signals.

And you don't have to "buy it", you just have to realize that you can't know if it's true or not.

Perhaps a god exists and is allowing a devil like character to do these manipulations in order to see if you'd be convinced by what the devil calls "Christianity". If you pick it, you lose, because there's something inherent in the tenets of Christianity that this god despises.

So you're stuck, unless you've developed a properly basic belief that this can't happen. But to me, that's like setting your clock ahead 10 minutes to try and trick yourself into always being on time.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know the difference between what I think a dream is as opposed to what I think being awake is. But if my entire life has been my brain (or something like a brain I wouldn't understand) manipulated by an evil god, then maybe there's no real "dreaming", just a different method of inputting false signals.

And you don't have to "buy it", you just have to realize that you can't know if it's true or not.

Perhaps a god exists and is allowing a devil like character to do these manipulations in order to see if you'd be convinced by what the devil calls "Christianity". If you pick it, you lose, because there's something inherent in the tenets of Christianity that this god despises.

So you're stuck, unless you've developed a properly basic belief that this can't happen. But to me, that's like setting your clock ahead 10 minutes to try and trick yourself into always being on time.

It's a wonder, then, that some of you skeptical guys make it to work at all on a daily basis ...

Nevertheless, I appreciate your response, Todd, and I can see that I'll need some "time" with which to knock myself out so I can come up with an initial answer. In the meanwhile, I'll leave you with this little gem to coax our mood ...

 

[Silmarien]

I find the evil God hypothetical a little bit silly, honestly, largely because the people who toss it around don't seem to grasp precisely what it would mean if God existed and were evil. In that scenario, reality becomes something reminiscent of a Lovecraftian nightmare--what we're dealing with is the ultimate existential horror, a malevolent reality that has created contigently existing creatures while wishing them nothing but ill, and I find it slightly troubling that people can look at that as a mere thought experiment, something totally detached from reality.

I think the best answer is the Pascalian one. You gain nothing by assuming that God might be evil, because in that scenario, you're damned one way or the other. On the other hand, if God is ultimately good and you're operating under the assumption that you live in a Lovecraftian horror film, you're at the very least going to end up with some serious problems in this life if not the next as well, so if you want to game theory the question, the answer is pretty obvious. Put your money on the good God, since it's the only way you're getting out intact.

I think that's ultimately the beginning of faith--it's not blind belief in a handful of propositions. It's simply trust that reality actually is good, not indifferent and not evil. That's much harder, especially if something like Azathoth is a live option for you.

 

[gaara4158]

It seems to me that the Cartesian concern of the OP is related to deep deception and universal skepticism. On the other hand, for most Christians I think the deception of the devil is present but not ubiquitous.

For example, I try hard to love God and to love my neighbor. Although I am surely deceived in some ways by Satan, even this simple fact indicates that the deception only occurs in limited ways. As you say, fundamentalists or ideologues may be more susceptible (due to a lack of intellectual humility).

Yes, I think I can buy that, although I still wonder how one would even begin to separate deception from the truth if one accepts a god who allows evil and a Devil who loves to deceive. You could take some things for granted, like it’s good to love God and your neighbor. But things get a little hairy when you get into the details. There are those who believe that the best way to love God and your neighbor is to start killing people. Wasn’t Abraham commended for being willing to perform a human sacrifice? Wasn’t such a misunderstanding the very cause of Original Sin?

It seems to me that if there’s a cosmic battle of wills going on between two entities with a vested interest in the behavior of human beings, and we don’t have a way to determine who’s whom when they speak to us, then we’re better off tuning them out altogether. All the more if the voice you thought was God is telling you to do things you thought were evil. Remember that lady who drowned her kids in God’s name?

This is probably obvious to anyone who isn’t fundamentalist, but I have the misfortune of being around such people on a regular basis, so here I am, saying it.

 

[gaara4158]

For my part, I'll assert that while we can't know that we're not being deceived in some way(s) by the Devil, we can know we're not COMPLETELY and UTTERLY deceived by the Devil. The main reason I say this is that it's inconsistent to be concerned about diabolical deception if we take indicators from a biblical author that such can be the case but then ignore other indicators from the same author that the Devil is limited in power.

Yes, I think the deceptive devil hypothesis is more effective in support of moral skepticism, not universal skepticism, as I said to Zippy.

 

[zippy2006]

Yes, I think I can buy that, although I still wonder how one would even begin to separate deception from the truth if one accepts a god who allows evil and a Devil who loves to deceive. You could take some things for granted, like it’s good to love God and your neighbor. But things get a little hairy when you get into the details. There are those who believe that the best way to love God and your neighbor is to start killing people. Wasn’t Abraham commended for being willing to perform a human sacrifice? Wasn’t such a misunderstanding the very cause of Original Sin?

It seems to me that if there’s a cosmic battle of wills going on between two entities with a vested interest in the behavior of human beings, and we don’t have a way to determine who’s whom when they speak to us, then we’re better off tuning them out altogether. All the more if the voice you thought was God is telling you to do things you thought were evil. Remember that lady who drowned her kids in God’s name?

This is probably obvious to anyone who isn’t fundamentalist, but I have the misfortune of being around such people on a regular basis, so here I am, saying it.

If we take Christian doctrine as our starting point then there is a significant disparity between the two in the sense that God is the infinite creator and Satan is a finite creature. For this reason we have good reason to hope that God would not allow us to be deceived beyond reason. Interestingly, St. Augustine converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, a religion which held to an evil and good god of equal strength. He therefore writes a great deal on this topic.

But if Christian doctrine itself is susceptible to Satan's deception then everything is up for grabs.

I was recently arguing with a Carmelite about St. John of the Cross' advice to those who have mystical experiences and visions. John tells them to disregard all visions and experiences, even if they are most sublime and beautiful. At least with regard to such experiences, he does advise "tuning them out altogether."

 

[gaara4158]

If we take Christian doctrine as our starting point then there is a significant disparity between the two in the sense that God is the infinite creator and Satan is a finite creature. For this reason we have good reason to hope that God would not allow us to be deceived beyond reason. Interestingly, St. Augustine converted to Christianity from Manichaeism, a religion which held to an evil and good god of equal strength. He therefore writes a great deal on this topic.

We can hope for that, yes, but then we have the problem of those who are deceived beyond reason, ie. the mother who drowns her children, the zealot who bombs a hospital, or the leader who declares war in God’s name. None of these acts are necessarily lacking in Biblical precedent (depending on your view of what counts as Christian doctrine) so how bad is too bad to be coming from the voice of God? If we’re to believe God won’t allow us to be deceived in this way, are we to believe these atrocities truly were inspired by him? These are the things that truly worry me about the widespread acceptance of Christian fundamentalism in America.

 

[RichardY]

@gaara4158
War is a God.

 

[gaara4158]

@gaara4158
War is a God.

And his name is Ares. And hey, that’s my sign!