Who & what are the demons ?

I didn't watch the whole video but it seems clear that he THOUGHT he was possesed. I wouldn't doubt his sincerity any more than I'd doubt the sincerity of somebody THINKS he's going to heaven or somebody who THINKS he's Napoleon.The question is: What does THINKING something or believing something have to do with that something being real?

If there was something real outside our rational logic, how would we know?Even those who believe in demons are looking at real manifestations, usually "odd behaviour". The only difference between a scientific approach and theirs is that they let their beliefs colour their conclusions.If there is an explanation based on what we do know about how the brain operates (see dwise1), why consider a woo-woo explanation?

Claiming that something "can't exist" might be overstepping but there's no difference between the lack of evidence for demons and the lack of evidence for flying pigs; lack = lack. I've never met anybody who "refused" to beleve in God. I've met some who would like to but can't. Either way, we have to rely on our own wisdom and understanding - and that of our fellow man - because nobody has ever found a God who will reliably do it for us. Remember Noah. He had to build his own ark.Edited by ringo, : Addedamissingspace.

In that case, allow me to whip out Occam's Razor. If a demon can not influence a human to do anything that that human had not previously decided to do anyway - such as speaking in "otherworldly" voices - why do you need to postulate the existence of the demon at all?

What can be demonstrated, often, is a better explanation than demons. Once upon a time, many diseases were supposedly caused by demons - and then we discovered microorganisms, which we can actually interact with in a more-or-less predictable way.All you have, essentially, is a demon-of-the-gaps argument.

There's an important distinction between "real to" and "real". It's called objectivity. We compare our own perceived reality with others to form a consensus of reality. It should make people uncomfortable when something is real to them that isn't real to everybody else.

"Subjective evidence" is a bit of an oxymoron, isn't it?Suppose I was standing right beside you when you had your experience and I said, "I think he's faking." Would that shake your faith in demons? Suppose somebody else in the room said, "I think he's mentally ill." Would that shake your faith in demons?

That's pretty much what evidence means, yes. If you can't show it to somebody else, it isn't evidence and you can't convince them that your claim is "true".

History is what can be verified with evidence. The fact that people in history believed something is not evidence that that something is true. People have believd in all kinds of crazy things like astrology and alchemy. People have believed in all kinds of false gods.

The only history that I accept is what can be evidenced. If there is a story of an event in, say Judea, for which there is no evidence, I don't "believe" it happened. I put it in the "unknown" category.

"Pope Francis and the demons" sounds like a Disney movie.

Ever see a movie? Chances are you got your idea of what "otherworldly voices" are from a movie like The Exocist or Poltergeist.If your ear can hear it - i.e if it is a sound wave - then it can be duplicated. What maybe can not be duplicated is a glitch in your brain that causes you to think you hear something that isn't really there, that isn't really a sound at all.

Similarly, it would help if there was technology present to detect it and, ideally, record it to confirm its reality. Consulting with others is an important early step in your analysis of the observation. However, the glitch in your brain may be either hardware-related - e.g. hallucination - or software-related - e.g. a culturally-biased belief in spooks. A consensus can eliminate the former but not the latter.

Duh. (I hope you're being sarcastic.) Criical Thinking Skeptics: We're going to need to see some photo ID. There was a guy in here yesterday who claimed to be God and He had a much better offer. Isn't it better to be forever uncommitted than to be committed to the wrong thing?

He's still talking Intelligent Design:

quote:

---

Francis explained that both scientific theories were not incompatible with the existence of a creator — arguing instead that they require it.

---