Quite frankly, I’m not sure. I think in my case it’s because my (admittedly unformed) beliefs do not fit neatly into any religious category I know of, so I turn to that word as a sort of clarification and/or an admission of defeat as far as definitions go.
So how about answering my question? 
I’m fairly curious how much less you think of me, my opinions, and my intellect now that you know I’m not (necessarily) an atheist… (Not that that’s all I was asking, of course…)
I don’t think less of people for being religious, believing in God, praying, etc. A general belief in God or a feeling of communion with the transcendent is not irrational per se.
What is irrational (and what I don’t respect) is asserting or insisting on supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. I think less of people who cling to beliefs which clash with empirical reality.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that I respect those who contemplate their own existence and look to non-rational (not irrational) explanations. When those people assert that the supernatural is interacting with the physical world, I’m going to insist on proof. I think common sense, Occam’s razor and empirical method should always preclude the hypothesis of supernatural intervention until all other hypotheses have been exhausted.
Would you say that a belief in demons is rational but a belief in fairies is not?
There are a number of posters to this thread, the OP included, who maintain that “demonic possesion is rare but possible.” Since there’s absolutely no need or proof for same, I am curious, is this solely a religious-based belief? Further, is this belief a requirement of your – respective – faiths? If not, what, exactly, do you base it on and why?
From my perspective it very much sounds like “The Demon of the Gaps.”
My comment was addressed to Svt4Him to illustrate that some Christians do believe disease is caused by demon posession. Wasn’t talkin’ to you nor makin’ a general statement about all Christians, so dial down the hysterical tone in your posts, 'kay?
I do consider belief unsupported by evidence to be a form of ignorance. If you wish your audience to share your belief in ghosts and spirits, you’re going to need to have some very good evidence as corroboration. So far, despite centuries of trying, nobody has got any yet that has not turned out to be wishful thinking or outright fraud.
And it’s Benny Hinn, a notoriously fake faith healer, not Benny Hill (although I would like to hear “Yakety Sax” included in the hymnal!)
And if that “general belief” becomes a belief in a specific god, say the Christian one, does that border on irrationality? Does it cross the border?
Is there a continuum from “general belief” through “specific belief” to “whacky belief” (belief in demonic possession, for instance)?
This is utter gash! Science is predicated on recognising what is known and not known, there is never any shame in admitting that some processes or phenomena are not wholly explained by current scientific models – criminy! that’s what drives science!
I think you’re missing the point here. As an avowed atheist, I agree that believing in demons or leprechauns is absurd. I also think that believing in God in the first place is equally absurd, however.
This thread is talking about people who do believe in the God of the Christian Bible, though. Once you accept that the Bible is the word of God, inerrant or not, believing in miracles and demonic possession is part of the package. As Svt4Him rightly pointed out, to do otherwise would be like being only 99% faithful to one’s spouse and still caling oneself “faithful.” And I’m sure that Svt4Him also believes that it is wrong for women to speak in church, that the faithful can handle poisonous snakes without being harmed, and every other part of the Bible that may seem “strange” or “wrong” to us today. To believe otherwise would make him a hypocrite.
Of course, the fact that the Bible is filled with so many implausible events and things that offend my modern sensibilities is one of the main reasons I do not believe in the God of Christianity. But that’s just me.
Regards,
Barry
Well, that just goes to show you how little I know about the guy, right?
Yes, there is.
No, I cannot prove it to you, I cannot take you back in time and to where I was.
I also cannot (and would not) conjour one up just to satisfy you.
Boy, who would have imagined I’d be speaking up for the possibility of demons?
However, I think your definition of “demon” is unduly restrictive. Suppose a demon is a material creature that acts upon its victims by implanting a tiny larvae in their brains, one capable of receiving electromagnetic transmissions from the parent and controlling - or at least interfering with - the cerebral process by purely chemical and physical means?
This would seem to meet the requirements of what some demons have allegedly been observed to do, wouldn’t it?
(Note: I don’t concede the other part of your argument either – the one about violating the laws of physics being ‘impossible’, since we continually revise the laws of physics to meet new understanding of the universe. It wasn’t that long ago that the “laws of physics” said that proton decay happened a certain way; Feynman and GellMann came along and proved it wasn’t so. I’m willing to bet the first “Law of Gravity” said something like: things fall and accelerate at 9.8 m/sec^2. That’s not a law, merely an observation that isn’t even true unless you add “…on this planet.” The LAW of Gravity is F=G m1 m2 / r^2 – as far as we can tell right now. But is it true at an event horizon?)
Surely you realize that if you were to describe the incident in detail, many could come up far more likely non-supernatural explanations?
Will do. Must leave the public library now(am on library computers) and will try to be on later to explain.
Probably, but the same could be said for any so-called “religious” experience, whether it involves demons, miracles, or personal revelation. The question at hand, however, is not whether demonic possession is a fact, but whether it’s reasonable for somebody who believes in the God of the Bible to also believe in demonic possession. I submit that being a good and faithful Christian requires one to believe in demonic possession, and that if you reject demonic possession as “ridiculous” you must also reject the rest of the Bible (and Christianity itself).
Barry
Any organic or material “larva” would be detectable as would any electro-magnetic transmissions. Also how would this larva be implanted? Where is the “parent” which is communicatinf with the larva?
I shouldn’t have to tell you that your hypothesis is a textbook example of positing pluralitas sine neccesitate.
godzillatemple,
I see no reason why one must accept the bible completely or not at all. To be a Christian, you must simultaneously believe Noah took 2 of each animal on the ark, and also 7 of each animal? That the world has four corners? Read one of the many threads on biblical contradictions for more examples.
IMO it’s perfectly reasonably to be Christian and not take the entire bible as literal truth. In fact, I’d say it’s NOT reasonable for a person who has actually read the bible and not realize that it all cannot be true, due to contradiction at the very least. It’s no big stretch to realize that demonic possession described in the bible was likely simply mental illness.
The above post was addressed to Bricker.
Well, to be fair, most Christians I know don’t actually accept the Old Testament as the literal word of God, only the New Testament. You know, the parts where Christ is described as saying and doing certain things? Since the Bible is the only record we have of what Christ said and did, and since Christians are, by definitions, followers of Christ, it would be pretty darn hypocritical to say that this particular word or deed ascribed to Christ is real, whereas that word or deed is utter nonsense or simply a metaphor. Christ is described as casting out demons, and admonished his followers to do the same through prayer and fasting. Therefore, I don’t find it any more irrational for a faithful Christian to believe in demons than to believe in God in the first place.
Which is to say that Christians who believe in demonic possession may not be wholly rational, but at least they’re consistent.
Barry
Detected how? How many of these people have had CAT scans, or been surrounded by receivers capable of detecting such transmissions?
Of course it is. What I’m describing is unlikely in the extreme. There is no credible evidence for it whatsoever.
But it’s not violate-the-laws-of-physics IMPOSSIBLE.
I don’t for a moment consider it within the bounds of reasonable possibility. We’re talking drawing five consecutive royal flush hands unlikely here…
But I’m sure you will concede that it is possible to draw twenty royal flush hands consecutively, even though the odds against it are astronomical.
That’s my only point. I agree that “demonic” possession is practically, effectively impossible. I just don’t agree that it’s mathematically impossible.
I understand what you’re saying. I don’t think I agree but I’m finding it difficult to articulate a coherent definition of impossible and I don’t think it’s worth arguing over. Obviously we’re only discussing a rhetorical, ontological point here and you’re not seriously arguing for the existence of demons, only against a categorical assertion of impossibility. It is difficult to speak in absolutes when it comes to these kind of debates. I will conced that I probably cannot assert with absolute mathematical certainty that something like demons have no possibility whatsoever of existing. I will just amend it to agree with your own declaration that it is so unlikely and so practically impossible that it merits no serious consideration…at least not without eliminating a lot of other alternatives.
I won’t be satisfied until vanilla’s conjured me up a demon.
Even then I’d still doubt my mind first, it’d be so much easier to believe that I was a complete whacko than “demons exist”.