Titus: Off the Grid...On His Knees in Prayer

  In a video by Peter Santenello the American videomaker, traveler, and entrepreneur who produces videos about travel and human stories, Peter visits a man named Titus Morris who has been living in a remote part of the Appalachian Mountains for eight years with no electricity, mains water, no cell phone, no car and even no shoes in the summer.  He says he lives in a similar way to the Amish community, but he does not follow their religion and practices pure Christianity instead.

Titus talks about what he learned from animals.  Since he owns a horse that he uses for transportation, plowing, and so forth,  when he talks about the frustration he felt at the horse for not following his direction, God speaks to him about how HE often gets off the path and goes the wrong way.  But God does not treat him as such, so he shouldn’t treat the animals in the same way.  This seems to suggest that for Titus, animals reflect the scriptural view not of domination but of responsibility.  That just as God watches out for us.  We should watch out for the animals he has entrusted us with.

He expresses the view that animals teach him patience.  That they don’t always understand what you want them to do and you have to be patient with them.  Now this isn’t a lesson that is obvious with one that HAS an animal as a pet.  For Titus HE WORKS WITH the animals. They get food from him and he gets food as well.  But they aren’t pets, they are not just companions, but they are partners in nature.  WHen we in the modern, technologically advanced world seek wisdom from animals, we do so in an inappropriate relationship of expecting companionship rather than partnership.  It is much different and the respect is much less authentic.

Titus expresses his view on talking with God.  He states that he doesn’t hear God audibly, but he hears God in his mind, he feels a strong idea, thought, message, and he claims since it is so strong and it is against his own will, since he is angry at the time and not wanting to reason, that it must be God.  Now this I think is probably the most telling aspect of this simple, but profound theology.  For, the simple theology of Titus suggests that the reality of God is expressed not through evidence in the natural sort, but through experience and relationship.  One could argue that these are evidence.  But nonetheless, these are warrant for his belief.

The atheist may suggest that this may very well be just his mind.  For a schizophrenic, for instance, has a strong sense of an otherness, or a thought that is too strong and against their own will to be their own.  Likewise, the dissociative personality that creates multipersonalities would also seem to dictate against this.  And yet, this assumes that these other personalities are a.) just in the mind and b.) a part of the individual themselves.  However, it is quite possible that these multiple personalities are not the individual themselves but rather an influence from some other individual.  If thoughts merely emerge from the brain then the multiple personalities would have to come the brain and thus the individual.  However, again there are reasons to believe that consciousness does not emerge from the brain, such as the categorical distinction of matter from the mental (as well as all qualities).  As well, there is reason to believe that consciousness is not identical with specific neurological algorithmic systems and relationships given representational drift to where memories, thoughts, etc., do not map onto these specific identical neural relationships but is more like patterns that influence brain states, which is what is observed.  

With this in mind, I think this is a rational and sufficient reason to believe in God given He speaks to the individual as a separate will imposed upon a person.  Indeed, reason itself, which is what Kant recognized as a deontic imposition upon the individual, could be seen as God’s will which would be the warrant for God’s existence for a person in their lives.

This could even extend to the gospel itself.  For inherent in the story of Christ giving HIs life for us, the examples of Love, Faith, Miracles, while not evidence historically that these things happened (though there is historical evidence that Jesus existed, died by crucifixion, and resurrected) is also warrant for their belief as a myth, or a story, which maps onto the deontic rationale for living in Love, in humility, with Faith (trust), and so forth.  One could argue that just because one comes up with a story that maps onto our desires for peace does not mean it is true.  But this reminds me of the quote from George MacDonald when little DIamond is challenged about suggesting his friend Nanny’s dream is true.  She says, it is too good to be true.  He then states that it is impossible for something to be too good to be true, since the good is true and if the true is true and if something is too good to be true, then it cannot exceed truth since the good is true and the true is good.  The concept of something as too good to be true is comparable to saying a circle has 4 sides.  THis sounds a lot like an ontological argument.  However, I am of the opinion that metaphysical possibilities that are logically impossible not to be true can inform us about something being ontologically true.  And so, the compelling nature of the story of Christ, particularly for someone not capable of evaluating historical claims, can recognize that a story is true even if there is no physical evidence.  Ultimately, on some level the story of Christ is true.  How we cannot say (whether Christ lived in an empirically verifiable history or in some ethereal, transcendental history or foundation of events) that Jesus is not true given the name for the protagonist of the story of the gospel we call Jesus is what we call Jesus and is our best understanding of the foundation of the logos, His incarnation in the cosmos as related to the foundation for the holy spirit which is the action of the words of the will that we experience, is God and is based on Christianity.  And further, what is funny is that the atheist calls himself a naturalist and yet here Titus, who actually is closest to Nature than any of these computer-addicted, neckbearded keyboard warriors.

And so, Titus’ simple faith needn’t have a thorough justification in a complex string of arguments. It can have a simple warrant that is compelling enough for Titus to choose to believe in his experiences and what he has been taught about his faith.

The Ninth Configuration: A Theological and Philosophical Review

Described by some as a psychological drama written and directed by William Peter Blatty, the author of the book the movie ‘The Exorcist’ is based on.  Considered by some as the second installment in Blatty’s ‘faith’ trilogy, to where we have first The Exorcist, outlining the foundation for evil and Man’s fall.  This second film, which is based on the book ‘Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane’ (or The Ninth Configuration) outlining God’s Love as incarnate in an act of sacrifice.  And the third, ‘The Exorcist III’ foresees the final battle between good and evil, as good’s final conquest against evil.  

And so, The Ninth Configuration is the story of a group of Vietnam soldiers and in general military fatigued and mentally disturbed individuals who are brought to an institution, one of many around the country, to evaluate the authenticity of the soldier’s psychological break, much like the skepticism many in the military find of these conditions that they are just trying to get out of the military.  A new psychologist is brought to the facility, Colonel Kane, whose identity is the brother of the infamous Killer Kane, one known for severe brutality against the enemy, killing many with nothing but his hands.  He immediately is taken by one patient in particular, Major Cutshaw, an astronaut that freaked out right before his launch to the moon, and was taken away for psychological evaluation.  

Through a series of interactions with Cutshaw, whose religious perspective is made quite apparent by his anger towards God, calling him ‘a big giant foot’ Kane takes it upon himself to ‘argue’ for the existence of God (hence the title of the film the ninth configuration, a term that points to the complexity of the chemical make up of life as a ninth configuration and the billions upon billions of chance comixtures of chemicals making it much less likely to be the product of chance than a God).  Cutshaw expresses his anger at the very concept of God with respect to morality.  Considering all the suffering in the world, Cutshaw finds it impossible to believe that there is a God, particularly since the innocence, and animals themselves that did not share in original sin, suffer because of it.  Kane suggests that an act of love, and all the goodness we see in the world, makes up for the evil itself.  Cutshaw asks for a demonstration of this goodness to which Kane points to acts of sacrifice for others.  Cutshaw asks for just one example and Kane cannot find one.

As it turns out, a new patient is admitted to the institution who exposes Kane true identity.  He is killer kane, and the institution’s doctor is his brother, who had arranged to have Kane come under the guise of a psychologist to help heal him of his past sins of murder while feeling that this may also help the men he has been asked to treat.  When Cutshaw hears of this, he runs off to a bar in the area to drink off his despair of confiding in the murdering Kane.  But while at the bar, a motorbike gang member recognizes him as the crazy astronaut, and proceeds to torment him along with the rest of his members.  Meanwhile. Kane decides to pursue Cutshaw and bring him back to the facility after an anonymous phone call is made by a bartender to the facility about Cutshaw’s being assaulted by the gang and held hostage.  Kane comes into the bar where the main biker forces him to perform humiliating tasks in order to release Cutshaw to him.  Finally, just as the members are about to essentially rape Cutshaw, Kane’s killer instinct comes out and he kills all of the assaulting bikers and brings Cutshaw back.

Knowing that he will be put in prison for the rest of his life, Kane fatally wounds himself at the facility, unbeknownst to Cutshaw who comes to Kane and finally reveals why he wouldn't go to the moon.  It was due to his fear of dying alone.  And since he didn’t believe in God, he would be really alone.  But just then Cutshaw realizes that Kane had been fatally wounded and carrying his body down the stairs to the staff of the facility he states that Kane had given his life for him, and this was Kane’s final example of one sacrificing for others, a definitive proof of goodness and of God to Cutshaw.

The end shows Cutshaw returning to the facility, some time later as it was empty, and reads a note written to him by Kane explaining why he killed himself, that he had shown him proof of goodness and God, and that he would see him again.  As he is leaving in a transport, he finds a medal that he had given Kane in the seat of the car.  It was ‘proof’ (which Cutshaw had asked Kane to show him any sign of life after death if he died before him) that there was life after death, and the ecstatic Cutshaw is filled with the hope of everlasting life and being reunited one day with his friend and savior.

Obviously there are many themes here, particularly that of Christ the sacrifice for our own lives, as Kane demonstrated.  Kane here was a Christ figure, albeit an imperfect one.  However, we see Kane as we see ourselves, partaking in an attempt to make up for our sins to which all we can do is submit to the message of Christ, which is to take up one’s cross, through suffering, through the easy yoke of Christ, and being Christ to another by sacrificing our own lives so that others may live.  

The facility itself is much like life itself. The world is nothing more than an asylum of lost souls, confused and without any reason for our existence as we spout out incoherent quips that only entertain us as we travel through this cave of insanity.  And while like Kane as seen by Cutshaw as a brutal murderer, we see the God of the Old Testament as a brutal murderer, a foot, waiting to stamp us out at any minute, and of course we reject him.  But he comes to us, in spite of our preconceived notions of who He is, and saves us from our own predicaments, freely, taking on our punishments (for Cutshaw’s derision by the bikers was his own and not Kane’s).  Ultimately the Ninth Configuration is a modern story that reflects the Gospel itself, like a slice of the world that cannot help but reflect the heavens shining down above.  

Let us break down a few memorable scenes of the film to give us a closer look at how Blatty sees his faith through this story.

Scene…On the Moon with the Crucifix

 In this scene Kane is having a dream, recalling the incident of Cutshaw’s ill-fated refusal to travel to the moon.  However, we see that no matter where we are Christ is there, suffering with us.  If we think we are alone, we are not.  If we just open our hearts to the story of the gospel, in the words of Francis Thompson, “And LO, in the night my soul my daughter, cry clinging heaven by the hems, and lo Christ walking on water, not of Gennesareth but Thames…”  Christ’s incarnation in all times and all places and is not merely inescapable, like the man that saw the crosses everywhere he looked in Chesterton’s novel the ball and the cross, but is much like the Father always watching over us and never far, to save us before we get into any danger, even on the surface of the moon.  For the footstool is not merely earth but the entirety of the physical universe.

Kane Meeting Cutshaw For the First Time

This is where we are introduced to Cutshaw’s relationship with Kane and its hostile but humorous beginnings.  Notice that Cutshaw picks up a copy of How I Believe by Pierre Teilhard De Chardin.  He exchanges it for the medal he claims Kane is covetous of.  As he is leaving he refers to the book as “I remember mama by Oedipus Rex” a playful but telling reflection on how he regards belief in God which is expressed in the title of the book ‘How I believe’  He is suggesting that Mankind’s relationship to God is reminiscent of a man’s relationship to his mother, a childish fixation on her in the oedipal complex, but nothing more.  And yet, while Cutshaw is clearly cynical about religion, he is continually interested, but will not admit it, for it is an admission of the weakness of his own presumed gullibility to religion.  

However, much deeper is this exchange of the book and the medal.  The book is a symbol of Kane’s faith that he gives to him.  WHile the medal is a symbol of his cynicism of God, with its mockery of the multiplicity of religious claims, on one hand St. Christopher, representing the Christian faith, and the other side representing a mockery of buddhism “I am a buddhist, in case of an emergency call a llama.”  For like Kane, we can be honest with God concerning our cynicism, coming to Him in prayer, in honesty, and He will exchange this cynicism with an authentic trust, not some blind faith, in His faithfulness and goodness.

INFINITE GOODNESS SCENE

Here is where we find the crux of Cutshaw’s dilemma with the idea of God.  For if God exists why is there suffering.  If God exists He is nothing but a foot seeking to stamp us out.  As I mentioned earlier, Kane is seeking to offer proof in a logical argument.  But Cutshaw wants evidence.  But just examples are not enough.  The evidence must come in the form of a real example.  And ultimately this is a foreshadowing of what Kane will ultimately do as a sacrifice and as a therapeutic ‘shock therapy.’  For as Kane scribbles in his notepad about shock therapy he is referring not to shock treatment with electricity, but the shock of seeing real goodness as a sacrifice.

As a philosophical theologian, I have been developing my own theory on God’s relationship to His creation, which answers Cutshaw’s problem with animal suffering and mirrors his referral to God as a foot.  For in Isaiah 66:1 and in Psalms 110:1 the prophets refer to the physical world as God’s footstool.  But maybe, the physical plane of existence is the floor where we as beings created by God were meant to walk on.  If this is the case, and we have fallen, then each of us, not just our ‘parents’ in Adam and Eve as explained by Kane in his reference to original sin, have fallen.  We are thus crawling on the footstool.  I feel that even animals are like us, but they are only partially fallen (like one on their knees and not face down) beings and thus their suffering, though lesser in the personal sense but nonetheless horrendous, is just that result of falling on the footstool.  And our relationship to God is much like seeing His foot (and one could see hell as the individual that goes against God, for we feel the friction of go against a powerful force in a particular direction).  However, Christ comes down, and picks us up, suffering with us.

Barfight Scene

I don’t have much to say here.  This is the action seen and this is exciting and fulfilling to see these hoodlums get their just desserts.  But this only leads us up to the final scenes of the film, as the impetus behind Kand’s ultimate sacrifice

Dont Want to Die Alone Without God

  

Here, Cutshaw reveals the truth about why he wouldn’t go to the moon.  In his experience in outer space, he found that he was alone from his home, earth, and if something happened he didn’t want to die alone.  And if there is no God, that would be really alone.  I think this reveals a real problem for most people that even atheists do not like to admit for fear of looking vulnerable and weak.  But we are all afraid of death, of what lies on the other side.  But especially the act of dying itself.  For even if we assume there is nothing beyond death, the act of dying is scary.  We will stop breathing, which is something we have been doing our entire lives nonstop.  And that event of cessation, at the horizon of our end, we do not want to meet that fate alone.  

But what Kane is trying to show him is that we don’t have to EVER feel alone.  For the strange thing is, is that when we are surrounded by others, they are in the same boat as we are.  It is like being in a sinking ship hoping the people around us will save us.  But they can’t.  For they are literally in the same boat.  What comfort ultimately can others offer since they are equally terrified.  If there is to be ANY comfort, it MUST come from one that is ON the other side and KNOWS what it is like to die, namely Christ and of course the cloud of witnesses scripture talks about that are saints that have passed on (like Saint Christopher, on the medal he gave Kane), and that they live on and serve as companions not just memories in our head.  

End Scene

The end finds Cutshaw coming back to the place where he was convinced of goodness in the world through Kane sacrifice.  This is much like the death of Christ and our recognition of His goodness in the image of the cross, the reminder of his sacrifice.  However, this is only part of the story.  We are only transformed towards hope and away from despair when we see that Christ is risen and we can be risen too.  At the end, when Cutshaw sees the medal, which represents the ‘sign’ that Kane promised to show with the (ill try) response, floods Cutshaw with the proof he needs.  For Kane IS alive, albeit somewhere.  And HE TOO will be alive after his death, reunited with his friend, in the presence of eternal goodness, God.  Not just the foot but the face of the one that has shown his love.

My takeaway from this movie is not only does it possess the profundity of a film like The Seventh Seal by Ingmar Bergman, but it has something that film, and many others that dig deep into the existential funk of Mankind, HOPE.  This film ends not on a sad note, but a hopeful one.  It is like listening to a symphony that is to be continued, forever.  

Does God Predetermine Our Every Action? A Brief Note

The argument for God through freewill suggests that an individual’s actions are ALL predetermined. However, the theist suggest that they are CONSTRAINED NOT DETERMINED. The materialist identifies the mechanisms of action NOT THE cause itself which is one’s will. If WILL exists, and God is the source of will by having a will Himself, then not only does He exist but His existence explains choice whereas the materialist cannot account for the existence of choice. If it is an illusion, an illusion suggests a misidentification. However, if a thing does not exist then one cannot identify the authentic from the false one unless one is aware of the thing reflected in the illusion. If one is aware of a thing, that thing must exist. Awareness is predicated on presence and presence is predicated on existence. If the presence of the thing is NOT the authentic thing then this says nothing to the authentic thing’s existence except to say it must exist in order to compare it to the presence of the misidentified thing. For instance if one sees in his mind a purple crocodile this does not mean a purple crocodile exists in the physical world since the mind is reflecting what one has seen in the physical world. However, it does suggest that purple and crocodile exist. It is just a misidentification of the presence of a thing. Now this is not to say that mental images, or eidetic images, are not real. Only that they can be just as false in terms of misidentification as perception OF the physical. Eidetic is merely atemporal, or eternal, perceptions of the world whereas physical are footstool, temporal, perceptions of the world. However, If God's Will is like a picture frame, the interior of the frame is UP TO US TO FILL. We are FREE to do whatever we like WITHIN the Frame. ANd so God partners with His creation to all creativity, even if it is constrained.

Why Do Animals Suffer If We Are The Ones That Sinned? A Brief Note.

As to animal suffering. If we consider Origenian theology we can reconcile this by suggesting that suffering is related to what in Isaiah 66:1 and Psalm 110 refer to as the footstool. The earth is God's footstool. In short, the footstool is this physical, three-dimensional space of existence that divine beings created by God were meant to 'walk' on. However, due to our 'missteps' 'sin' we fell, and thus crawl through the footstool as one crawls on the floor when fallen rather than walking on it. It could be the case that the suffering of animals is the result of a divine being, being partially instantiated in the footstool, just as one gets stuck in mud when they fall, until God, through Christ, picks them up and stands them upright. Therefore, it could be the case that animals are partially instantiated divine beings whose level of consciousness is based on the level at which they fell into the footstool, and the pain they feel is the inappropriate relationship they have with the world and they 'await' being lifted back up. The pain is their own fault, which due to the fall they can't fully recollect. But in spite of this, all will be made new as per Revelations 21:5. Now as to Jesus placing the demons in the pig. I don't think Jesus intended the pigs to jump off of the cliff. However, the demons themselves made the pigs fall. But it is possible to find deeper questions in this example through our own eating of other animals. I would argue that oftentimes in order to maintain a footstool existence, the material of the footstool must be maintained through uncovering that material from other souls through the process of killing for life. It isn't God sanctioned, but rather a practical strategy for footstool survival. And so, animals' 'sin' is their sharing in the same act of 'falling' onto the footstool (just as one falls who is not watching where they are going and trips) as us. The variation of species is in their level of fallenness (which dictates how conscious they are of their footstool surroundings) and the variety of features reflects the degree to which they are 'covered in' footstool material. If just a knee, possibly an insect. If an entire torso, perhaps a reptile. If most of the divine being except the face is up out of the footstool, maybe a mammal. This is just an hypothesis. But it solves the hypothetical problem of animal suffering.

Are Demons Just Our Darker Selves?

Are demons just extensions of the self? For one, I would say that the idea that angels and demons are merely projections or revealed aspects of the one's own self before they are brought to gnosis is a speculation that is less tenable than the view they are separate entities. For if they are merely parts of the self that only appear to be separate due to our ignorance, then how can we distinguish anything intuitively prior to our rational abilities kick in? For reasoning is a continuum, not an either/or (except in the case of intuited necessary truths), and there is no point we 'know' the difference between ourselves and those phenomena outside of it unless we regard certain intuitive categories (that's not me that is something else) as immediate. Likewise, if reasoning reveals through laborious thinking differences then how can it establish anything outside of solipsism. Indeed, even solipsism cannot support the position that anything exists or 'is' given the epistemic leap from knowledge to ontological statements such as x is the case. As well, I would also say that Crowley's statement, though I think one of the most well thought out and thorough definitions, suggests that ALL actions initiated by the will are magick. Of course, he invented the term and therefore can do whatever he 'wills' with it, no pun intended. But I would say that magick, however it is spelled, requires a paranormal, or non-naturalistic, origin; namely that one wills, or causes, something to happen without physically touching it with one's body nor without appealing to another's will through conversation. I would say that magick is tapping into a more primal origin of reality and causing changes in this realm and allowing it to precipitate or emanate downward. I think prayer and meditation for the entirety of human existence has done this. As to Jung's views, I think the jury is still out on whether archetypes are separate phenomena, themes, entities from the self or not. It isn't clear, and I may be wrong here since it has been a long time since I actually read Jung, that he had a firm view on them being actual extensions of the self. If he did, I would disagree. However, I am convinced that they are separate given my above view on intuited categories and their logical inconsistency with reasoning out previously unconscious content. To caveat this statement, we are held in existence by ONE being. But our distinction is real and our distinction can continue (and I would argue will since if ONE being is the source of goodness and it is good we exist then there would be no reason to dissolve our being a separate entity or thing held by this ONE being). It was Parmenides, the Greek philosopher, that held to the view that the many is an illusion. Many subsequently followers of this school, such as Zeno, demonstrated the problem of the many with Zeno's paradox which logically showed that motion is impossible. However, the only flaw in his logic was to assume that human logic is sufficient to explain ALL things without phenomenal disclosure (see Heidegger's phenomenology) or religious or spiritual revelation. For if Zeno was right then it would be impossible for there to be phenomenal traits that exhibit multiplicity. Therefore, when we recognize that a phenomenon is separate from us, in intentions, agency, and expression, it really is.

Will Everyone Be Saved Part 1

in homiletics we have expository and topical preaching. And yet, we find that homiletics, which comes from the words homily, means one from the many, discourse, a unified whole of people…it reflects a form of revelation as Barth points out in his dogmatics…but this sort of revelation isn’t universal (for all churches in all times for all people), but provincial (for certain people, in a certain time, practical, etc.) So we have universal and provincial revelation… As to universalism, as per Robin Parry and Talbot, we see a distinction between an existential eschatology and an actual one. The former is something like ‘if you continue doing X you will be in Hell…” It is the natural consequence of staying in X. But this says nothing to whether it will ALWAYS be the case. They further argue for rhetoric. For instance, the rhetoric of the OT concerning the destruction of Sodom or even Jerusalem sounds eternal but in actuality is only for a time and is rebuilt. So, this could be what hell language is like. We wouldn’t tell ppl that if you continue to sin you will go to hell BUT eventually be saved. You withhold the last part of the eschatology for existential reasons, even Origen preached hell fire though he believed in universal salvation. Also consider the trilemma of Talbot…1. That the Bible teaches God wishes all to be saved. 2. The Bible teaches that God CAN save all 3. The Bible teaches that at least some will be in conscious eternal torment in hell for sin.

Should We Accept Naturalism As A Default Position On Reality?

I had been having a discussion debate with an atheist online and they claimed that naturalism, ad nauseum, was the default position. This is such a typical response to the idea that naturalism is a position to be held, not something we observe in the world. In fact, some philosophers have proposed something called provisional naturalism, which is an attempt to identify naturalism with an observed process not a lens through which one sees the world. And yet, naturalism is impossible to define from such a perspective without employing the terms materialism, physicalism, or more importantly mechanistic reductionism, or simply mechanistic naturalism. This last feature of naturalism suggests that all things logically in the world are mechanistic in nature and that they are machine-like, a series of causally related dominoes in a string of dominoes whose nature can be entirely defined by said process. The slippery slope with regards to naturalism is the idea that ‘we all’ agree that nature exists. What this is tantamount to saying is that the world is natural, and by natural we mean mechanistic. But again this is a presupposition and not observed. We assign the term ‘natural; pregnant with this definition of mechanistic reductionism surreptitiously, and then by sleight of hand and a bait-and-switch, the atheist will say once someone agrees the world is natural (assuming the more discursive definition of everything having a nature) then by Occam’s Razor Divinity, God, or spirituality as features in the world are unnecessary for any causal or even descriptive relevance and thus should be dismissed. However, as shown here, there is a discursive naturalism that everyone agrees with. For instance we all agree everything has a nature. I would like to argue at one point that even this premise is not true. But for sake of argument even if it is true it doesn’t entail the sort of naturalism the atheist mechanistic reductionist is attempting to assign some default position. Therefore naturalism is a presupposition and cannot be appealed to via Occam’s Razor and thus putting the burden of proof, which from such a convenient position of switching definitions and moving the goal posts that atheists seem to have the upper hand to the untrained eye, is not held by the atheist. I would like to make a point about methodological naturalism, which many atheists suggest is evidence that naturalism is the default position. For instance, this term is often used to describe the situation to where scientists will treat phenomena ‘as if it only has naturalistic features’ reductionistically and this is how science is done. Yet this is misleading given that scientists do not treat phenomena as if it is naturalistic, rather they identify phenomena, isolate it as best as they can from other phenomena that will disrupt the experiment, place it in situations that will elicit a response that exposes the phenomenon’s tendency to act a certain way, carefully observes the phenomenon’s behavior, records the information, and publishes the results. Now, the only element of naturalism here is the scientist’s philosophical interpretation of the experiment and his presuppositional attitude towards the world in which he holds prior to performing the experiment in the first place. I have often found that the enterprise of science is attractive to atheists since it is self-guided and an opportunity not to understand what the world is like but how one can control the world. This is attractive to atheists. And likewise atheists since they deny agency or intentionality as existing in the world, since if it did this would mean that they would have to contend with a higher will than their own, are attracted to professions and studies where they can assert their own will as opposed to being affected by a higher, more fundamental intentionality that may expect them to model their own actions after it. Now to Schellenberg’s argument in its nuts and bolts on the hiddenness of God. Here it is in a nutshell. If there is a God, he is perfectly loving. If a perfectly loving God exists, reasonable nonbelief does not occur. Reasonable nonbelief occurs. No perfectly loving God exists (from 2 and 3). Hence, there is no God (from 1 and 4). Ok, agreed with 1. However, 2 has a loaded term ‘reasonable nonbelief.’ What does this mean? As far as I can tell, it means that one can employ reason to come to the conclusion that they are not convinced by the evidence that God exists. A couple of problems here. For one, I don’t think God cares if we believe in His existence. Rather He seems more concerned with the deontic obligation of the noumenal. Or in layman’s terms, the moral obligations He has written on our hearts. Parsing this out is another issue. But none the less this is reminiscent of the parable of the two sons in Matthew 21. God is concerned with what we do, not with what we say. Belief therefore is concerned with a response to the character of a person, not with an intellectual ascent to a proposition. Now as far as the reasonableness, this again assumes that one reasonably comes up with the conclusion that God does not exist. Perhaps it isn’t reasonableness but plain stubbornness, sophistry, excuses. We can’t know since reasonableness as exhibited by a person is impossible to test for or observe. After all, even a lie detector can be fooled if the person really believes the proposition. And so, I am not buying the premise that reasonableness necessarily can lead to unbelief. And this bears on premise 3. Therefore I find this argument unsound and dismiss it.

A Brief Look at the Difference Between Features and Properties

Distinguishing between features and properties… Epi above over on Feature= “early 14c., "make, form, fashion" (obsolete), from Anglo-French feture, from Old French faiture "deed, action; fashion, shape, form; countenance," from Latin factura "a formation, a working," from past participle stem of facere "make, do, perform" (from PIE root *dhe- "to set, put"). Sense of "facial characteristic" is mid-14c.; that of "any distinctive part" first recorded 1690s. Entertainment sense is from 1801; in journalism by 1855. Meaning "a feature film" is from 1913. Latin factura also is the source of Spanish hechura, Portuguese feitura, Italian fattura.” Property = “c. 1300, properte, "nature, quality, distinctive character always present in an individual or class," later "possession, land or goods owned, things subject to ownership" (early 14c., but this sense is rare before 17c.), from an Anglo-French modification of Old French proprete, "individuality, peculiarity; property" (12c., Modern French propreté) and directly from Latin proprietatem (nominative proprietas) "ownership, a property, propriety, quality," literally "special character" (a loan-translation of Greek idioma), noun of quality from proprius "one's own, special" (see proper). Compare propriety, which is another form of the same French word.” And so features are the forms properties take. A property is a unique aspect of the world that cannot be reduced to a feature that is caused by an interaction with other features. A feature is HOW properties express themselves in unique identities. Personhood is a property, personality is a unique feature.

Why Are There So Many Religions If God is Real?

One of the most frequent criticisms of religion by atheists is the lack of agreement on various religions. They typically claim that if God existed then there wouldn’t be such a great divide in our views on Him. Unlike Science, where they claim there is universal agreement, there is no agreement on religion. However, science is riddled with disagreement if we look at the issue of questions. For instance, various religions are asking different questions. Likewise, different branches of science are asking different questions as well. If one were to confuse the language used with the context of the question asked there would be a great deal of disagreement and confusion. For instance, if a biologist who is interested in addressing what the mechanisms of organisms are, they use language much different than say a physicist who is interested in the motion of things and identifying these trajectories, measurements, and so forth. And so, religion is no different than science with regards to answering questions. The different ‘religions’ emerge with the advent of what question is asked. Let us unpack this claim. First, there aren’t ‘religions’ but only Religion. Religion is nothing more than the recognition, strategies, and attempts at ‘binding back’, changing the environment of, or addressing concerns on how to live and what to do to make the world ‘better’. So, with that settled, it is predicated on questions about how to do this. The secular humanist would see the religious obligation as merely addressing what brings about the most human flourishing. But then again this says nothing to what this human flourishing is and if this affects how we achieve it. The theist is interested in exploring the question of the whoness of being, or to what extent there is a person or agency behind being. The muslim seeks to explore the whatness of this being God through seeing His transcendence and apophatic features. And indeed this is a legitimate and true question. To what extent can God be far removed from and separate, holy, from the imperfection of what He is. Likewise, Judaism seeks to explore the whatness of God in history. The Hebrew is interested in God IN history and His actions through His people that He has set aside to work with. The Buddhist is interested in the how, how this god-ness is expressed in nature, reality, and the ultimate release of desire and longing. The Hindu in a similar manner is interested in the howness of God in Nature and observed reality and how this is reflected in the unobserved. And every other ‘religion’ is some derivation of this (even the ancient pagan religions seek to understand the whatness of God or being in Nature). But there is one question that was never asked. One question that could never be objectified in a set of propositions, concepts, etc. Who is God? No one ever thought to ask and if they did they would see how ridiculous the question sounds. And yet, it is exactly the sort of question that needed answering. We cannot figure things out on our own. We have to be introduced to the person behind it, not merely told about Him. In the words of Robert Frost, we can never think things out, we have to see them acted out. God had to demonstrated His transcendence through revealing Himself. God had to reveal Himself in history by being a part of history. God had to show us how to transcend want and desire, how to Nature and ourselves relate to one another. He had to do this by being a person. He had to come down and show us. The incarnation was just as inevitable as 2+2 coming before the answer 4. Only in Christ do we have the answer to the most important question, who is God, who is Love, who is the one that loves and sustains us. And so, there aren’t many religions, but only ONE religion with many answers. And there is one question that is the most pressing for us, the most relevant and important, who is God? Jesus answered that NOT with a set of teachings but WITH His life and the story that He left in History.

What Affects Our Relationship With God: SinS or Sin?

I think far too often Christians are too quick to judge, identify and condemn SINS rather than SIN, and ultimately hurt Christ's Kingdom. In Matthew 7 where Christ talks about taking the mote out of one's own eye. It doesn't state that we CAN take it out though. The presupposing that the pastor here speaks of is assuming something that isn't necessarily given in the text. One would have to point to another passage that suggests one can take out one's own mote or that Christ takes out that mote in a moment. I don't see anywhere in scripture that suggests we achieve the level of holiness to perform this, save outside of Christ's substitutionary sacrifice for our sin. I would think that discernment is more appropriate a term than judgment, in that, one can point out 'ways' in life that do NOT lead generally to Christ. But we aren't in a position to state whether one's eternal destination is forfeit because of sin, only IF we do not accept that gift of God. We CAN state one should repent from sin, or the decision to follow Christ. But HOW that looks isn't so easy to say and we should extend more grace than pronouncement. If we catch someone smoking weed, we shouldn't tell them they are going to hell. Rather explain how that is NOT loving God or people and leave it at that. Likewise the passage in verse 6 about discerning dogs and swine, this isn't suggesting that Christians distinguish between the saved and the unsaved. Rather, within the context of what Jesus is reflecting on and commanding back in chapter 6 concerning worry and prioritizing our lives. This would be an extension on that topic, namely, that we shouldn't treat things that are important to God as if they are the concerns of dogs and swine. We need to recognize the important things in life concerning His kingdom and not the kingdom of this world. Also, when we look at verse 15 and Jesus' words about false teachers, this isn't suggesting that the PEOPLE PRESENTING false teachings are NOT FOLLOWERS of Christ necessarily. It just means that we should judge what is false TEACHING and what is TRUE teaching. For instance, when Peter is rebuked by Jesus for his criticism of God's plan to scourge Him for our sins, Jesus literally says get behind me Satan. And just a passage earlier Peter had RIGHTLY pointed out Jesus was the Christ. So Peter was presenting FALSE teaching even though he WAS a follower of Jesus. So, again, I would be VERY cautious in pronouncements about the eternal destination of a person or their hearts. Correct them YES. Deny that they are following after Christ? No. Now when we read the passage many will say lord lord and not enter into His kingdom. This is also mirrored by the parable of the father with two sons and his vineyard. One says he will tend it and doesn't while the other says he will not and does it. These two passages are merely pointing out the principle of action over said-faith or empty words. If one is not only saying Lord Lord but speaking with people about Christ, are out in the streets loving others and sharing the good news of God, this to me suggests they are doing His will. Now I don't know if these hippies were doing this. But if they struggled with weed and LSD, even if they were struggling with the theological aspects of drugs, this doesn't mean that they aren't saved. Indeed, many followers of Christ had wrong views about circumstances in their life while doing great things for God, loving and caring for people, etc. David Wilkerson did as well concerning some wrong views he held concerning Christian rock and how that may have hurt people. But we don't say that he wasn't saved Now I think that David Wilkerson was a great man of God and did GREAT things. But he was not perfect. Remember he was one of the biggest critics of Christian rock back in the day, which I think most people these days recognize as being on the wrong side of the discussion theologically. Does this mean he was a false prophet or teacher? No. It just means he was wrong on that issue. Likewise, these hippies were wrong on this issue but it shouldn't be an eternal pronouncement against them nor the fact of whether they were growing in Christ.

Is the Occult, Witchcraft, Antithetical to Christianity?

I was thinking about the occult and secret societies and magick and ritual and thought the real problem with them all is their separation from God, elevation of the human will over God’s, and the lack of interest in divine revelation. The first is the most important for in recognizing that reality emanates from the highest, it fails to see that the highest is God and has His own will which we must submit to. In attempting to change the landscape of reality through our own manipulation of our environment, whether that is in the physical plane or some higher plane towards consciousness or the spiritual, is hubris beyond belief. Second, elevating the human will over God’s will is the cause of this hubris and arrogance and this is why the occult is associated with satanism since satan was the first to attempt to assert his will over God’s. Lastly, ignoring Divine Revelation as in the Holy Scripture, the Church, and the continued work of the Holy Spirit is also foolish. For it assumes again that the emanations of God can be understood by reason or some logical process. Aquinas felt there was a limit to this, others felt that it was impossible altogether outside of God’s special divine act of allowing the creature to have intellection. Either way, it is impossible to do ANYTHING outside of God’s will. My response to a video on secret societies goes something like this: “AMORC or the Rosicrucians also claim to originate back to the ancient Egyptians. Much of this has to do with the secrecy of such groups due to public, and earlier religious, persecution as well as their origins in some rebirth of the Alexandrian systems of magic(k) which are the result of the amalgamation of Jewish, Greek, Egyptian, and Christian perspectives on the spirit alongside a sort of multi-tiered view of varying levels of physical to spiritual reality (neoplatonism, its emanations, and their respective levels of reality). If one reads the Egyptian Book of the Dead as well as any Neoplatonist one will be acquainted with these views and their rich history, perspectives on reality, and influence.” Though I would say that while the emanations reflect something of reality we can’t define them by our intellect nor should we seek to try to change the spiritual realm…or at least the closer we get to the spiritual the less effectual our wills are. The lowest level of reality we can change the easiest or with less offense or defiance to God. The higher we go and attempt to change the worse it is against God or the harder it is to do. We can change things in ethereal realms but only slightly…we can see things in these realms but again only slightly for we are to wait for God to ascend us…not wrong to explore…but to do rituals or assume we can alter, change, or worse control these realms is wrong.

A Quick Note on the Resurrection of Christ, His Body, and What it Means?

As far as I can tell, the resurrection of Christ is an event that a.) ensured that we are resurrected…b.) was not merely the reanimation of this body but the reestablishment of our incorruptible bodies…and c.) while we cannot ‘see’ the resurrected bodies of our loved ones SINCE they are standing above us, just as they are not walking on that which we crawl on, Christ’s body was and still can be visible if He chooses because His stature as God ensures that His reflection, particularly in the TIME He was crawling, was SO large that He could be seen and interacted with even though HIS body was incorruptible ( the divine sort) but encompassed even the lower grounds where we crawl…just as the waters capture the image of the sky while not capturing necessarily the particular star we wish to see…Christ WAS there just in a divine way as well as in a corporeal way but incorruptible.

What Does Male and Female Mean in a Metaphysical Sense?

Sex in two places…The first, the lower, is terra (what we refer to wrongly as the body…for we have a terra body, an idea/astral body, and a divine body) men seek the lower terra sex. It is initiated by the penis into the passive female. However, in the ideational/astral, the woman has a phallic member of her body. The penis protrudes from the ordinary body in order to make changes to, to impart unto, the female body. Likewise, the female astral body has a member that is its influence…it protrudes into the passive astral/psychological body of the male in order to spray influence. This influence involves emotional, psychological motivation to create a new person, but really inspires a divine being to fall towards the ideational…this is the creation of animals…when the male is influenced enough to become one flesh with the female then they inspire a divine being to fall fully into the ‘clay’ terra, where we are supposed to walk, and there the inspiring sex of the female’s penetration into the male’s psyche/astral body which is impregnated gives birth to the establishment of the sex of the male and female in the terra body to make the divine being fall all the way down. Furthermore, the sciences can be divided into three…the Divine (theology)...the psyche (metaphysics or philosophy)...the third into naturalism or the natural sciences of empirical sciences.

Naturalism: Assuming there is a thing in reality called 'Nature'

As to this definition privided by atheists, “the natural world is the world of reality and the world we inhabit. It's the world described by propositions that are true and it's the world that is represented by our various senses (more or less) and which is described with somewhat greater fidelity by our sciences.” This too is imprecise and needn’t exclude such phenomena that is embraced by various philosophical perspectives and even theology, e.g. God, the soul, metaphysics, etc. As I mentioned earlier concerning earlier definitions of nature which included such phenomena, as described by Aristotle, Aquinas, etc., this definition does not exclude these phenomena. Often atheists say, “In that world, we exclude supernatural claims and whilst we may not have a final precise definition of the word "supernatural" and it may well be somewhat slippery and open to redefinition in light of new evidence (not an uncommon phenomena in the sciences) we certainly have accepted instances of what we would consider to be supernatural events (if they actually held true)” Again, supernatural by an exclusion of phenomena such as God, the soul, etc. This is a pejorative and loaded term because it arbitrarily defines such phenomena per mentioned as OUTSIDE of nature and nature EXCLUDES such phenomena. But that is only because they deny such phenomena NOT because they are NOT natural. Magic wands, ghosts, etc., are not included in philosophical or theological discourse and as such the mention of these is irrelevant. Furthermore, comparing meteorology to Thor is a categorical mistake. Meteorology is the study of phenomena in the atmosphere. Thor is a supposed identity that is associated with nordic spiritual and religious themes. You don’t study theology like meteorology. Theology is a study of shared spiritual experiences and titles given to persona associated with these vague, mystic, but nonetheless real experiences. One could chalk it up to psychology. But nonetheless it is NOTHING like meteorology and therefore it doesn’t test things and their predictability, it interprets themes that have already been instantiated, in a similar way as we do history, not by reproducing events but interpreting events that can’t be reproduced but interpreted. Some spiritual experiences can be reproduced, but historical revelations can’t be. “If it turned out that we were wrong with respect to some conclusion that we would currently consider to be a supernatural claim, than we'd be faced with 2 options: 1) - broaden the definition of naturalism to include the sorts of things we would now understand to be part of reality or 2) maintain our current sensibilities as to the sorts of things that are supernatural and acknowledge that in point of fact some such things actually do occur.” Again, this strategy by atheists does not wnecessarily exclude theology however. Now, if they point to specific scientific disciplines, well of course these exclude theology since they are focusing on their specific purview of investigation and the phenomena proper to it. “I think there are patterns in the sorts of things that we think are supernatural which I think I've already set out - which includes some form of agency that takes place but which is inconsistent with the notion that sentience and agency is uniquely a property of a functioning neurological structure (or the equivalent). In other words, a disembodied intelligence or sentient being does not fall within the constraints of naturalism, nor would a zombie absent a functioning neurological structure.” Barring the use of the term supernatural here, which as I have stated ad nauseum, is inappropriate, if one assumes a priori that consciousness emerges from neurons then of course one is going to be able to address consciousness outside of that context. However, if one views the brain as a receptor of consciousness, like a radio receives radio signals, then intentionality would be primal and would instantiate particles and materiality and not the other way around. We can’t say which one is the case and as far as I can tell, given the constraints of observation, I would say it is impossible to determine whether reality is an emergent property or an emanating set of properties from some higher source, i.e. God. “There's nothing a priori about concluding that our universe could not have been inhabited by gods or created by a singular god.... but any sort of evidence that supports that claims - things like being able to apply teleological reasoning with respect to the universe at large or identifying some communication for such a deity or being able to identify possible interventions by such a deity invariable fails. We just don't have the evidence to suggest that our universe belongs to the subset of logically possible universes which have such a deity or deities. And frankly, the universe of all logically possible universes isn't something worth investigating... it's simply too huge and so we need must look to the logically possible universes in which we have some evidence.” This is circular reasoning since it states that we need evidence to support theological claims. However, we only accept evidence from a form of naturalism which excludes what you call supernatural claims (a misnomer) which is a treatment of nature that excludes intentionality and theology a priori. So, I would argue that this is wrong here and it is an a priori, presuppositional, claim. Now, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true and one may be right. But not based on scientific analysis, but based on philosophical presups that seem to make the most sense to one. “You're no doubt familiar with the notion of the neural correlates of consciousness but these theories go further and attempt to identify what it is about the brain that creates consciousness - see for example: http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness These theories make testable predictions as to when someone will or will not be conscious based upon certain features of their neural network.... and of course make no reference to miracles or divine interventions. We are still early days. And whilst consciousness is still a mystery, it's one that is slowly being rolled back by scientific method.... and I fail to see how the notion that it remains somewhat mysterious helps you? There's a wide consensus amongst neurobiologists that mental phenomena are the result of brain activities and that we need not look to some invisible homunculus somehow attached to our bodies as an explanation as to how we see or hear or think.” In this example of a typical atheist rebuttal to the mind being something external to, or separate from, neural causes these tests rely on a person reporting certain conscious states and then corresponding neural events occur. This presupposes that a conscious state is experienced AND a neural event occurs. If a body is made of nerves, neurons, etc., then these which bring in information from the world around it will correspond to events commensurate with the body of nerves and neural systems. Of course, one has such and such an experience. This says nothing to the conscious event being caused by the neurons, only there is a correspondence to their instantiation. “A philosopher today not familiar with the sciences relevant to his area of expertise would be essentially blind. It's the science that is pushing the philosophical trends and not the reverse. One doesn't decide what's natural from an a priori perspective but rather based upon experience.” Likewise, a scientist unfamiliar with philosophical themes, research topics, etc., may improperly define a philosophical principle as associated with a phenomenon within their own purview of research. Most scientists are hesitant to bridge the gap between theology/philosophy and science and for good reason. They recognize, which is sensible to do, that the content of their investigation does not necessarily, if at all, speak on behalf of philosophy or theology. They restrict their findings to their own specific discipline. When scientists run into trouble is when, like people like Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins, take off their scientist hat and put on their philosopher one, and switch back and forth presenting rather confusing views on philosophy and science. It is best to recognize the boundaries, see that there is an infinite smallness and greatness (as observed by Blaise Pascal) which one can never traverse, and allow space for other disciplines based on conceptual, spiritual, and religious experiences as well, And so, I would say that it is fine to be a naturalist. However, naturalism is not provisional in the sense that many are trying to argue it is. I think the provisional portion of naturalism is in reference to scientific facts that are included into the lexicon and language of a naturalism which denies intentionality and theology, which is fine. But again this is a presupposition and not one that is unanimous in all the fields of science. Some scientists share this view, but they do so as philosophers NOT as scientists. I can provide many sources from scientists that would agree with my view and criticize some of their colleagues on their misassociation of science with philosophical themes. And so, while I am sure many will continue to see my side as being against the historical trajectory of the sciences, which is fine, I hope you can see my side as being critical of scientists that confuse their own fields with philosophy. Maybe they are right. Maybe they are wrong, and their colleagues that share my view are right. But I hope what you take from this is that it isn’t as plain as many in this group and many antitheist groups portray the supposed contention between religion and science.

Why Idealism is more sensible than Naturalism

Naturalism is predicated on the idea of materialism, or that observed proceses is responsible for all things that exist. But if this is the case then this is nothing more than materialism 2.0 or physicalism. It suggests that mind, or consciousness, emerges from lifeless, dead, thoughtless, purposeless, matter. And yet, this is inconceivable. I can’t conceive of any possible way in which matter would produce mind or intention or consciousness. However, I can conceive how mind, or intention, or consciousness, can produce matter or physical systems. By a thought, other thoughts can be produced. By intention, other intentionalities can be produced. These intentionalities, personalities, through their interactions, likewise produce modes of interactions which are themselves things like number, and then ultimately rules, laws, physical properties. When an intentional PERSON, a someone, interacts with another someone, the mode of interaction forms a system of rules or laws or habits. These in turn have a set of properties which are observable, testable, etc. But one needn’t have these systems to have the intention or the person. However, in order to have the system, we have to have interactions between people. For a system is a set of laws. And a set of laws are rules. And rules are intentioned guidelines for interactions. But with purely physical phenomena, there is no intention or personal interaction therefore there cannot be rules. If there cannot be rules, there cannot be laws. If there cannot be laws there cannot be physics. What this boils down to is the concept of life after death and that having a different mode of interactions between other intentionalities, or personalities, is certainly reasonable. The fact that our ‘bodies’ die is nothing more than our ‘focus’ on one mode of interaction which has its limits. But from a naturalist’s perspective, there can be no life after death. And yet, from a naturalistic perspective it is impossible to see how there can be life FROM death in the first place.

What are demons?

What are demons? Are they the fallen angels described cryptically in the Bible which had aligned with Lucifer in an attempt to overthrow God and were thus plunged into Hell awaiting their eternal judgment? Are they the gods of ancient cultures that while falling into obscurity are nonetheless present in the aether world waiting to be evoked? Are they ghosts, the spirits of humans that were dramatically transformed due to some trauma at their death? Or are they something else entirely, like some archetypal themes in our subconscious which represent features of the ego we prefer not to focus on, as Mathers, Crowley, and others felt? Some of the earliest mentions of demons, or spirits that we could refer to as demons, or daimons, comes from a word meaning divider, or provider. For Socrates/Plato, the daimonion, or spirit, was merely an entity that dwelled between the earth and heaven. For “spirits, you know, are halfway between god and man. (Diotima asks) ‘What powers have they, then?’ (Socrates responds)They are the envoys and interpreters that ply between heaven and earth, flying upward with our worship and our prayers, and descending with the heavenly answers and commandments, and since they are between the two estates they weld both sides together and merge them into one great whole. They form the medium of the prophetic arts, of the priestly rites of sacrifice, initiation, and incantation, of divination and of sorcery, for the divine will not mingle directly with the human, and it is only through the mediation of the spirit world that man can have any intercourse, whether waking or sleeping, with the gods. And the man who is versed in such matters is said to have spiritual powers, as opposed to the mechanical powers of the man who is expert in the more mundane arts. There are many spirits, and many kinds of spirits, too, and Love is one of them.’” This is in contrast to the biblical perspective, particularly New Testament doctrine, of fallen angels. The Old Testament, and particularly Jewish traditions, have very little regard for demons, having the Se'irim and the Shedim, the former being the he-goats of Assyrian myth and the latter simply other gods from other cultures. Arabic and muslim traditions have the jinn and teh shaitan, the latter being more obviously malevolent than the former. However, in antiquity, demons, were depicted more in line with the Socratic/Platonic view of beings that exist between this world and the other; intermediary beings in other words. And so, we have to consider whether demons are absolutely malevolent, as Christian/biblical traditions teach, classes of malevolent and benign entities, such as the jinn and shaitan of islam, beings that are either mythological, symbolic, or representations of other gods as taught by Judaism, or they are beings that exist between the higher and lower realms of reality (or even the conscious Mind of an idealistic, Jungian, Platonic universe). And so, there are a variety of possibilities that these beings could be. Not one perspective is absolutely true nor provable. And yet, I have had encounters with what I think are these beings (which these experiences could be simply my imagination, an experience of archetypal themes, actual entities that are malevolent, good, or neutral). I won’t be so dogmatic to make a statement on what they are. But THAT they exist in some form seems plausible given my own experiences. I also think that the experiences of religious figures in history, magicians, occult practitioners, etc., also help legitimize their objective existence in some form. But again, what they are is not something one can absolutely claim, in spite of religious texts, grimoires, etc., that offer more ambitious and absolutist claims to the contrary. Se'irim, Shedim, Jinn, Shaitan to name a few examples of demonic personal features found in thw world of experience.