A New Metaphysics for Christian Demonology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
A NEW METAPHYSICS FOR CHRISTIAN DEMONOLOGY: PSYCHODYNAMIC IMMATERIALISM BY Shandon Lou Guthrie A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, POLITICS & PHILOSOPHY, MANCHESTER METROPOLITAN UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY September 2015 ABSTRACT Many philosophers throughout Christianity’s history have asserted the existence of intermediary beings or, in more familiar terms, angels and demons. According to Christianity, God, angels, demons, and human souls are all thought to share a common nature, namely ‘spirit.’ This ‘spirit’ is thought to signify immateriality. Yet each is said to interact with the physical world. God, who is conceived of as omnipotent, can interact with the world simply at will. Human souls are paired with bodies which provides them the equipment to interact with the world. Angels receive special assistance from God by which they interact with the world. But demons, unlike angels, are not likely to benefit from any special assistance from God (unlike angels), nor are they themselves omnipotent (unlike God), nor are they paired with bodies (unlike humans). However, demons are believed to interact occasionally with this physical world. But how can an immaterial demon interact with a material world? Any appeals to the same explanations for how other immaterial beings (viz. humans, angels, or God) interact with the physical world will not do. I propose a solution that is consonant with their being purely immaterial creatures and yet does not rely on such an ad hoc manoeuvre. I argue that they actually never do interact with the physical world apart from their exploitation of human beings as proxies. I propose to explain their interaction in terms of their basic ability to cognitively interact with embodied souls. I call this sustaining affirmation of their immateriality along with this particular relationship they have with the world through human beings psychodynamic immaterialism. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have been fortunate to have had a great deal of support from family, friends, scholars, and clergy who not only believed in this work but actively shaped it. Though I could easily mention a number of names, I shall limit myself to those who impacted me the most in bringing this thesis into fruition. I would like to first thank my supervisor, Dr. Lloyd Strickland, for his continual guidance, challenging criticisms, and support. Without his input, along with his friendship, the final result of this work would not have been achievable. I would also like to thank Jordan Fishel for our many hours of stimulating conversation over the seminal ideas that led to the commencement of this work. Likewise, I must acknowledge my friend, Alan Rhoda, for some additional thoughts on the subject while we occasionally indulged in the cuisine of a local Mexican grill. Olé! In addition, I must also thank Jason Valentine for his warm friendship over the years. It was his thoughtfulness and humour that allowed me to find joy in this research. When there’s something strange in your demonology, who you gonna call? Perhaps no greater support has been offered to me than that of my wife, Shelli, who loved and supported me during the entire development of this thesis. She has been my conscience and my anchor during times when I did not believe in myself. She is indeed the love of my life and I am forever grateful for her. I have also benefited in unexpected ways from my children, Alexander, KatieAnn, and Rebekah. They made it possible for me to disengage from the stress of daily research in order to enjoy the moment. CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction . 1 2. Metaphysical Interpretations of Demonology in Christian History . 21 3. Psychodynamic Immaterialism: Pure Immaterialism and Cognitive Interactionism . 60 4. The Coherence of the Notion of Pure Immaterialism . 91 5. The Case for the Pure Immateriality of Demons . 134 6. Objections to the Pure Immateriality of Demons . 160 7. The Coherence of the Notion of Soul‐Soul Interaction . 192 8. The Case for the Exclusivity of Demonic Cognitive Interaction . 217 9. Objections to the Exclusivity of Demonic Cognitive Interaction . 247 10. Concluding Summary and the Future of the Philosophy of Demonology . 284 Bibliography . 305 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Setting the Stage The ontic category of intermediary beings, or angels, has long been considered a topic on the fringe of intellectual investigation. Perhaps this is due to its subject matter being relegated to the specialised discipline of theology. The old question, ‘How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ is often a clichéd reminder that metaphysical discussions about angels can never be, so we are told, resolved from the standpoint of discursive reasoning. However, belief in such beings along with their alleged characteristics may be apprehended through the medium of what is called ‘revealed theology.’1 In an attempt to overturn this perception for the analytic philosopher, I shall be exploring one of the greatest intellectual mysteries and challenges to an overtly Christian philosophy: Demonology.2 Demonology has long been a subject often considered too toxic for academics to entertain – toxic for both theologians and philosophers alike. As such it is not hard to appreciate how the metaphysics of demonology remains underdeveloped as it has been quietly relocated to the background of the Christian Weltanschauung. 1 Revealed theology refers to the view that ‘we can know about God only through God’s own self‐ disclosure, that is through revelation […] a divine self‐disclosure through such means as visions, dreams, oracles, or, as was the case with the faith of Israel, through God’s mighty actions within human history’. David Stewart, Exploring the Philosophy of Religion, 6th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007), p. 118. 2 I recognise that demonology simpliciter is not the sole province of a Christian world‐view. For an extended survey of its intimation outside of Christianity, see Edward Langton, Essentials of Demonology (London: Epworth, 1949). 1 Despite the paucity of philosophical investigation into demonology, as a religious practise it figures quite prominently in populations around the world.3 Typically, philosophers will engage subjects that command the attention and assent of the masses. We can see this in religious practices in general where certain doctrines and praxes that receive widespread attention tend to be investigated by philosophers. Their goals may vary in engaging such beliefs, but they share in common attempts to elucidate those beliefs and their accompanying doctrines by applying the tools of critical examination to them. Demonology is no exception. It is an under‐researched area amongst philosophers, perhaps for those reasons noted above. Therefore, one of the goals of this thesis is to take a step toward remedying this – a step that helps to relieve this lack of work in what we might refer to as a philosophy of demonology. For millennia, religious thought has sought to articulate an aetiology of evil and suffering. Typically, as in monotheism, this has taken the form of a belief in demons personal agents that have intercourse with human beings. In Christianity’s principal source of doctrinal authority, the Bible, these intercourses are clearly felt by participants. But since such intercourses appear not to be felt by the majority in recent history, it has left the modern sceptic in a safe and easy position to deny the existence of such creatures. Yet belief in demons, even among academics, continues into the modern and post‐modern worlds thriving primarily as a belief based on scripture.4 While believers in the existence of demons have to 3 Christopher Partridge and Eric Christianson track the notable increase in such belief in America by pointing out that in 1968 ‘60 percent believed in the literal existence of Satan. In 1994 it had risen to 65.5 percent and in 2001 a Gallup poll found that it had again risen to 68 percent […]. During the last decade, it has grown from 65.5 percent in 1994 to 70 percent in 2004’. The Lure of the Dark Side: Satan & Western Demonology in Popular Culture (London: Routledge, 2014), p. 11. 4 According to a North American study by the Barna Group, at least 26% of Christians believe that Satan is a real being (‘Most American Christians Do Not Believe that Satan or the Holy Spirit Exist’, The Barna Group (2009), <http://www.barna.org/barna‐update/article/12‐faithspirituality/260‐most‐american‐christians‐do‐not‐believe‐ 2 make their case to a modern world, they must also satisfactorily offer a coherent understanding of what they are.5 The third‐century Christian philosopher Origen once made the following observation that applies equally to the modern situation as it did when he wrote these words: Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the teachings of the Church has laid down that these beings exist indeed; but what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient clearness.6 Attempts to formulate such a philosophy of demonology have been confounded by the lack of any explicit biblical teachings that clarify such matters. But as with other doctrines with similar deficits of biblical material, Christian philosophers and theologians had gone to work in clarifying, and in some cases ‘creedalising’, their results. As will be demonstrated, Christian philosophers are far from offering even a coherent metaphysical portrait of demons much less a creedal one on which Christianity’s followers may sign off. The goal of this thesis is to offer up a philosophical thought experiment. I do not intend to defend or offer an appraisal of any particular kind of demonology. Instead, my arguments that‐śāṭān‐or‐the‐holy‐spirit‐exis> [accessed 21 April 2015].); Alvin Plantinga, in commenting on academia, writes that '[t]here are large numbers of educated contemporaries (including even some with Ph.D's!) who believe [...] that there are both demons and spirits who are active in the contemporary world.