Percy,
Thanks for reminding me where this was. I do lose posts here, when it is clear that a lengthy response is needed.
Confirmed prayer studies imply demons
Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been established for demons as the instruments of the positive results, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid deductive connection.
I don't believe that confirmed prayer studies imply demons. They make the idea of demons more plausible than it was before, if we have any reason to believe that those praying were asking for God to deliver us from evil, e.g. that they were Christians. My statement about this was addressed to those who have put aside dogmatic opinionation, as defined by me to be the habit of giving new ideas a plausibility of zero or one. I thought I recall you describing yourself this way, but if not, please forgive me for putting this idea in front of you since those with DO cannot deal with such things. (See the quote at the end of Holmes' posts). Assuming that you have, in your mind, some non-zero, non-certain idea about demons, confirmed prayer studies are consistent with the idea of demons and increase the plausibility of that idea to some degree.
The prayer studies used anti-demonic prayers.
Flaw: Error of fact. None of the prayer studies cited here have described what prayers were used.
Yeah, this definately weakens the influence of the prayer studies on the plausibility. That's why I recommend replication, with some persons using this standard Christian prayer, "deliver us from evil" while others do not. That should get us prayer studies that specifically enhance the plausibility of the demon part of orthodox theology.
The Lord's prayer is an anti-demonic prayer.
Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been established for the effectiveness of different prayers for various purposes, including getting rid of
Sorry, I'm not following your argument here. We agree, I suppose, that the "deliver us from evil" in the Lord's prayer, which He commanded all Christians to pray whenever they do pray, is actually in there. Look at the Spindrift site for studies on the effectiveness of different ways of praying. I should note that their findings, which support the idea that "quiet" prayer is most effective, meshes with my own training, as reported in an earlier post, where the Hispanic exorcists (not Catholic) came and taught us to just be quiet, after asking that the evil be removed.
But, I agree, the next studies need to specifically address this issue.
Demons exist.
Flaw: Circular reasoning. Many of your claims, like those above, assume the existence of demons before you've produced any evidence supporting their existence.
Demons exist is a popular idea that has been around for a long time. The question is, how likely is it to be true, and what does it mean? And, given that some want it to be true very badly, while others are subjectively repulsed by the idea, or find it ridiculous, means that it is strongly subjective. A perfect scenario for H-D science, which exists to objectively assess the plausibility of an idea, using Bayesian methods, in a way that steadily deepens our understanding of what the idea really means, and in a strongly subjective context. But, of course, dogmatic opinionists, who assign a plausibility of zero to the idea, cannot use the method. The math in the bayesian formula won't work. I'm still trusting that that doesn't describe you, but correct me if I am wrong, and I'll shut up.
Bible code studies confirm the validity of the Bible.
Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection between word patterns in texts and the text's validity has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection
Here, I am using confirm in my own, special, idiosyncratic way, where I mean to say that the plausibility of the idea that the bible is what it says it is, is higher given the validity of bible code studies. I agree, of course, that the connection...has not been scienctifically established. At least, H-D scientifically, since that method never establishes anything, and in fact exists to protect us from our inclination to establish anything scientifically, which historically has never been profitable. Once, the idea of a flat earth was established, as was Newtonian mechanics. OOPS! But, made very, usefully, plausible? Both flat earth mapping and Newtonian satelite engineering work very well, thank you. The rest of the story, on how much, if at all, existing bible codes studies improve the plausibility of the bible being what it says it is, is being discussed elsewhere.
Bible code studies are valid.
Flaw: Error of fact. Bible code studies have been demonstrated to be worthless. There are many debunking sites on the web (eg, Bible Codes Refutation).
Either the pro-code sites are valid, or the debunking sites are valid. There's a choice we each have to make, based on personal standards of debate. I wish there were "Debates That Matter" somewhere, where an independent referee ruled, and clear rules were established. Until then, we are on our own. I'm not going to believe the Kuhnian majority on the matter. They have already been proven wrong-headed. As for me, I tend to ignore debunking generally as unscientific, and look at the efforts to replicate. And also, at the style of debate, whether it is addressed to objectivity or is appealing to subjectivity, ridiculing the other side, being sarcastic, etc. So far, it seems more likely, more plausible, to me that the debunkers are invalid, not those that contest their arguments.
NDEs (Near Death Experiences) confirm the validity of the Bible
Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection.
Again, I'm using confirm in my curious way. NDE's make several of the ideas in orthodox theology more plausible, to those who are on the fence on (not dogmatic about) the matter.
NDEs have been subjected to studies testing the "orthodox theology hypothesis" (a term apparently of your own invention - a Google search brings up only a single result, a post by you here at EvC Forum)
Flaw: Error of fact. No scientifically valid studies of this nature have been conducted.
I stand corrected. The published NDE studies have studiously avoided tying their results to orthodox theology. I meant to say that NDE's have been studied scientifically, and validated in an effort to maintain objectivity. The author of "Beyond's Deaths Door" was a Christian physician on some repute, who collected data from heart patients that died temporarily during his surguries. He questioned them as they awoke, and recorded their experiences, if any, doing this to validate for himself his Christian faith. So, I'm not the only one who, hearing of these reports, thought that the information tended to increase our sense of the plausibility of "orthodox theology."
Theomatics confirms the validity of the Bible.
Flaw: Leap of logic. No connection has been scientifically established, and you haven't proposed a scientifically valid connection
Theomatics was begun because luke-warm believers wanted to believe that the bible was more plausibly what it said it was, and finding extraordinary mathematical patterns through-out the scripture, set out to prove these were really present. Counseling with statisticians, and developing a rigorous protocol, they came up with some tools that validated the idea, that the bible says of itself, that it wal authored, or inspired, by a non-human of extraordinary intelligence and power. Applications of these techniques to other writings have provided a strong contrast to the results obtained with the Bible. That's what I know about theomatics, off-hand. It actually seems more easily validated than the Bible Codes. Washburn is quite frustrated that the codes are getting all the press, while his works, done decades earlier, are only quietly appreciated. But, of course, their effect on fence-sitters, is to make it more reasonable to jump off on the side of investing in getting wisdom for life from the bible.
The Bible confirms itself (specifically, you say, "As to the falsification of the Bible, it declares of itself that the 'tests' you refer to prove nothing.")
Flaw: Circular reasoning. The Bible's declarations about its own qualities, such as that it contains the Word of God, are not valid evidence that it actually possesses those qualities. You need independent and scientifically valid confirmation.
Drosnin said of his work, that if codes could be found in Moby Dick, he would discount them, and admit that he was wrong. So, the critics looked for codes there, and found them. That made sense to them, and apparently to you. Similarly, Jehovah says, "If you tithe, and the windows of heaven do not open, and I do not rebuke the devourer for you, then you may accept ideas about my reality as wrong." Now, you cannot give to the united fund, and call it tithing. He gives in the Bible clear directions about tithing, a protocol for the experiment. Do the study with scientific rigor. If you get negative results, you have as much right to debunk the bible as McKay had to debunk Drosnin.
The Bible is never wrong because it says it can be wrong (specifically, you say, "An alternative hypothesis about the Bible, that it is literally true in every statement has been disproven, but the Bible declares of itself that that is not true. 'It's the glory of God to conceal a matter.' Prophecy is 'dark sayings.' As written, every test of the scriptures that I know of have been confirmed when tested."
Flaw: Non sequitur. You're in essence saying that the Bible is right even when it's wrong.
When someone says that, at times, they are going to speak figuratively, and in so doing use poetic license to say something that is literally not true, we do not call them lying, or call what they said a lie, when discussing that figure of speech. In fact, we might even sigh and say, "So true!" because the figure helped us to an insight. This is how the bible says that it is written. And so, it is right, even when it is "wrong." Remember, the bible is written as a public communication in a wartime situation, containing at once content intended to delude God's enemies, and content intended to help His friends.
There is a scientific controversy concerning demons (switching now to Message 153 in the History's Greatest Holocaust Via Atheistic Ideology thread).
Flaw: Error of fact. There is no evidence of this controversy in any scientific literature.
Again, I am using scientific the way I was taught, namely that it refers to the use of certain methodology. You are right, as far as I know, that no one is publishing on the matter, although Dr. Dossey's "Be careful what you pray for, you might get it." comes close. Wishful thinking on my part. I wish scientists who suspect demons have been behind certain life experiences would do studies and publish them. Thanks for the correction. I know what to pray for now.
Scientists have been wrong in the past, and this is evidence that they are wrong about demons.
Flaw: Error of fact *and* leap of logic. First, scientists have taken no position on the existence or non-existence of demons because there is no evidence for the phenomena. Second, even if scientists *had* taken a position that there is no such thing as demons, the likelihood that they are wrong is a function of the evidence and not of past episodes of scientific error.
There is, as someone else has noted, tremendous amounts of anecdotal evidence that has been attributed to Demons, or Jinn, i think they called them. Most people in the world, in fact, consider the existence of demons most likely. So, that's not the reason scientists haven't studied the idea. Don't try to tell me that scientists don't ever respond to anecdotes, by the way, because I am a naturalist, and when someone comes off an expedition reporting some curious natural history phenomenon that I as a scientist am interested in, I go check it out. I got lots of dickcissel data that way, even though some of the anecdotes I heard about them being around weren't confirmed, or even shown to be mistaken. Frankly, it my gut sense that, as a naturalist expert at evaluating the distribution and abundance of life forms, I was derelict in my duty not to explore the anecdotes I had heard about demons. My first seminar on the subject was "the distribution and abundance of demons" beginning lightheartedly on the "angels on the head of a pin" joke.
But, I agree. I am one in a thousand on this matter. As Kuhn reported has historically been the case.
Stephen
™ Version 4.2
