Tuesday, December 08, 2020
Christians Should Believe In Ghosts
Earlier this year, Billy Hallowell published a book on demons, ghosts, and other paranormal topics. He was recently interviewed by Sean McDowell. Here's something I just posted in the comments section below the video. It's several paragraphs long, so I doubt many people will read it. But, for those who are interested, I explain why Christians should believe in ghosts, how we're often overly dependent on the demonic hypothesis, what harm that does, and what other explanatory options are available to a Christian.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that even the categories of ghosts and demons are insufficient when speaking of spiritual entities. Into the category of demons we often lump the fallen angels along with all other entities that are not strictly human in origin. Depending on what one thinks of non-canonical sources, distinctions are made not only in the order of the fallen angels themselves, but in other entities such as the spirits of the nephilim, which, supposedly, are what today we know as your run-of-the-mill oafish demon. I don't necessarily accept this interpretation, but neither am I willing to classify every "demonic" entity as a fallen angel.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that one needs to be careful not to lock himself into categories that he presumes the Scriptures limit him to, when in fact, the Scriptures are silent on the matter. There is far too much evidence that the supernatural world is vastly more diverse than we presume. If one delves, for example, into the fairy encounter literature from various cultures, or interactions with various genius loci, one finds striking consistencies that cannot be easily explained as "demons," nor can they be discounted as mad ravings, particularly when there is so much consistency among accounts.
For a Christian, regardless of the categories, it is enough to know that we are not to seek knowledge and power from any spirit other than the Holy Spirit, and that only through the means which God Himself has established: His Word and Sacraments. (I'm Lutheran, for the record.)
Martin Diers wrote:
Delete"I think that even the categories of ghosts and demons are insufficient when speaking of spiritual entities….There is far too much evidence that the supernatural world is vastly more diverse than we presume."
I agree. It's sad that Christians are so negligent of the wide diversity of explanatory options that Christianity has to offer for the paranormal. The overemphasis on the demonic hypothesis does a lot of harm in a lot of contexts.
I agree with this. It would be difficult to argue that supernatural events were occurring 2000 years ago if there was no evidence for such events in the present day. You could say that evidence of present-day supernatural events raises the prior probability of ancient reports - although I am generally wary of the Bayesian approach.
ReplyDeleteI think crisis apparitions are particularly significant evidence.
Any conjecture as to what type of spiritual entity people are likely interacting with say, for example, when using a Ouija board?
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any reason to think that only one type of entity could be contacted through the use of a Ouija board. Given how little we know about the subject and the nature of the circumstances, there could easily be different types of entities involved in different cases.
DeleteJason, glad you mention the overuse of the demonic hypothesis. My suspicion, which is only a suspicion and not supported yet by anything rigorous, is that it is overused.
ReplyDeleteFurther speculating, the universe (material and non-material) is probably far more rich and strange than we give it credit for. No reason to think that every sort of entity can be reached through human reason, nor is there reason to think that scripture has provided a complete enumeration of all entities either.
Good point. Apparently there are spiritual horses as evidenced by the accounts of Elijah and Elisha, so not all spiritual entities may even be rational or intelligent as humans define it. They may be brutish, irrational, or animalistic.
DeleteI wonder even further if our physical universe is just one of many (possibly infinitely many) that God in his creative omnipotence actualized. Off the top of my head, I see nothing incongruent between this and scripture, but maybe I'm missing something obvious.
DeleteHmmm...sounds a bit like Molinism and "possible worlds", which full disclosure I find problematic, but I tend towards a universe vs. multiverse view of creation which also probably predisposes me against the concept.
DeleteBut going further with the spiritual brute concept, could there be spiritual non-sentient beings?
Consider for example God's physical creation hierarchy:
i.) non-living, non-sentient things like planets, moons, stars, water
ii.) living but non-sentient things like grass, trees, herbs
iii.) living, sentient but non-intelligent things like insects and jellyfish (creeping things")
iv.) living, sentient and intelligent things like dogs, cats, dolphins, horses and such (beasts of the field)
v.) And the pinnacle was the living, sentient, self-aware, rational, moral, and responsible creature man.
Would there be parallels spiritually? I wonder if this isn't too Platonic?
Or too Aristotelian...
DeleteI agree that the universe is probably larger than we typically think, and there probably are entities we don't know about (in addition to ones mentioned in scripture that don't get discussed much). The horses mentioned in the context of Elijah's departure from earth are a good example.
DeleteSteve discussed multiverse issues somewhat often. There are a lot of relevant posts in our archives. But it's something I've not thought about much.
I would also add that you don't even need to subscribe to the normal understanding of the "many worlds" scenario (i.e., the multiverse) to have a more "naturalistic" concept of the supernatural. I read an article from math writer (and, I believe, an atheist) Martin Gardner once who stipulated that the vast majority of the supernatural power of God could easily be explained if God was able to function in the 4th dimension in the same way that we function in the 3rd (the 4th dimension being an extra physical or Euclidean dimension as opposed to the way that Einstein viewed time as the 4th dimension). Using the illustration of "Flatlanders" where you can compare entities living in a 2D world to those of us in a 3D world as an analogy of what a being in a 4D world would look like to us, such an entity could (for example) pass through walls as if they weren't there (i.e., you can cross over a line on a 2D plane by simply "stepping over it" in a 3rd Dimension--an action someone bound to only a 2D plane could not do), they could view every single point in your body simultaneously--both inside and outside--just as you can see the border of a square *AND* the inside of the same square at the same time on a 2D plane, since you're above it on a 3D plane, etc.
DeleteAll that to say, there could be a lot of what we would view as "spiritual" entities that are actually *physical* entities very similar to you and me, with the only difference being that they can occupy 4D space instead of 3D space. I, of course, would maintain that God is more than just a 4D version of 3D creatures, given the Bible describes Him as more than that; but it's definitely a possibility that God created more than the 3 dimensions that we experience and that there are entities that exist in those other dimensions which can interact with our own 3D universe in ways that seem mystical or magical, but which are really just the same sorts of activities that we already engage in ourselves. If that does happen, and if it does explain some paranormal activities like a poltergeist or whatnot, then it could easily be something that's nowhere near an angel OR a demon.
Hmmm...I've read similar accounts so yes that does seem compelling. Sort of like in the Marvel universe how some beings' powers seem mystical or magical to mere humans, but as the character development unfolds it's shown that their "mystical" or "magical" abilities are really just advanced technology (alien, or from the future) and therefore naturalistic and scientific, but beyond the current technological sophistication of the people coming in contact with it.
DeleteSort of like traveling back in time to a pre-industrial world with an assortment of modern tech, much of which would be indistinguishable from magic to the people of that time.
I've often thought these paranormal reports were the strongest argument against naturalism. It only takes one to be genuine for naturalism to be toast.
ReplyDeleteHow about the fact that we do not 'see' naturalism in nature?
ReplyDeleteSorry, this is somewhat off topic, but I'm wondering if T-blogue has covered this topic previously, and if not if someone might...
ReplyDeleteIt's the sort of "speculative theology" that Steve was known for exploring. I was recently thinking about this thread, and the many unknowns of the spiritual world, which led me to think about the eternal state post-resurrection and post-final judgment when all things are made new, and the heavenly Jerusalem has descended to earth, and God once again tabernacles with man on the earth.
In this state our resurrection bodies will be able to eat and drink as evidenced by the marriage supper of the Lamb. But if so will we still excrete waste products? If so, will heaven-on-earth require plumbing, plumbers, and waste water treatment facilities?
If somehow in our perfected state our biology no longer produces waste byproducts from eating and drinking, won't there still be waste in the form of apple cores, banana peels, watermelon rinds, leftovers, etc. such that sanitation workers and garbage dumps will still be required? I suppose composting could be an option for food waste, but what about things that simply break, like plates, cups, etc.? Maybe things simply don't break or wear out in the eternal state?
These seem like real pragmatic concerns that I've not seen discussed much by Christian thinkers. Maybe I've just not seen the works that have been produced touching on these topics.
Thoughts?
I haven't given those issues much thought, and I don't remember seeing other people discuss them to any significant extent. I remember some discussion from Robert Gundry in Jesus' Resurrection: Fact Or Figment? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000), but I don't think it amounted to much. I read the book many years ago, and I only recall some brief comments from Gundry on the issues in question.
DeleteThe best approach to take, after searching online for the information if you haven't done so, would be to reexamine the relevant Biblical passages with your interests in mind as you reread them (e.g., passages on eschatology and the afterlife).
I can only provide my own personal opinion, and that's that the new heavens and new earth will be substantially similar to how Earth was pre-fall. I believe there will be some low level aspects of pain, for example (e.g., if you stub your toe, it'll hurt, but won't be excruciating, since pain serves a useful purpose. I base this reasoning on the fact that the Bible says part of the curse is an *increase* in pain in childbirth for women, implying that there was probably some level of pain before it). I also think we'll probably have better regeneration powers to regrow tissues from injuries, but it's still possible to have accidents that could amputate a limb, for example. Again, the pain would not be as severe and we'd probably have it grow back very quickly--but in eternity, "very quickly" could be months. What's the rush?
DeleteA lot of what you're talking about is natural decomposition (i.e., bodily waste, apple cores, etc.) and I think that bacteria will continue to exist, doing their role of converting that waste into other products. I also tend to think man's role in the new earth will include tending it, much like Adam's role was to tend the Garden of Eden, so having sanitation workers isn't out of the realm of possibility, and that stuff could smell bad. That, itself, isn't evil or even something to fear.
Ultimately, with what we've learned of the way energy and matter can be converted in physics, it's quite possible that broken objects could simply be regenerated by converting it to energy and back to matter again, so we might not actually need any place to store waste--including human waste.
But again, all that is pure speculation and is based on the fact that I believe the new earth will be relatively similar to pre-Fall earth, so at minimum whatever we can do in physics and chemistry now could probably be done then too. The main issue is that we will not have to deal with sin, and that will be such a relief that everything else we face in life will already be a paradise in comparison. But as Jason pointed out, in the end, read the Biblical passages about eschatology and what it says about heaven--there's not a whole lot of detail clearly spelled out, but you can glean some information--and don't press speculations as if they're factual.
Perhaps.Going to the toilet is not sinful, and is in fact pleasurable if the body is in good working order. But I suspect youre underestimating the huge difference between life now and life in the age to come. It isnt just restoration to something like the garden of eden scenario, but complete transformation. Not in heaven but on earth. I think it will be recognisable yet completely new. Paul emphasizes the 'glory' to come. So much, much more than just the original creation. Jesus' resurrection body is the template. Im pretty sure He would not have felt any pain in that body. The fact that He could walk through solid walls/doors clearly shows it was much more than just a restored physical body. It actually reminds me of the weird world of quantum mechanics! And those who are resurrected will have similar, glorified bodies. That's my tuppence worth.
Delete