For much of history demons were attributed as the cause of what today is noted to be either a physical regulatory problem having to do with neurotransmitter regulation in the brain (or just a few decades ago was treated, often successfully it might be noted) via intensive psychotherapy. However is this the case? Can we state without equivication and sweeping evidence under the rug that modern science does or does not provide a paradigm which is so much better? Arguments and demonstrations are made pointing to the effectiveness of modern anti-depressants and other psychoative drugs. This is often touted as evidence that only the physical is real. And to be honest, if I had been pushed on this issue just a few years ago, I might have agreed.
However, there are a few points which might give this type of argument pause for even the secular crowd:
- First off, while those people in the past did not have all the advantages of MRI, PET scans, and all of the technology of modern science they did have as keen or keener understanding of human nature and were not any less intelligent than we. They found these explanations satisfactory and the argument that they were ignorant, less intelligent, or had less keen insights is almost certainly false. They were made of the same stuff as us and only lacked (!?) the “advantages” of our accumulated technology, health, and wealth.
- Evidence provided by modern psychopharmaecology only demonstrates that the gnostic ansatz is flawed. Body and soul are not separate. This alas, is the canonical viewpoint as far as the Modern Christian perspective goes.
- Demonic possesion as an explanation for madness “cured” (or put in abeyance) by anti-psychotic drugs only shows that demons inhabiting bodies are subject to the same physical world as ourselves. Medical science relies far too much on Dame Fortune in its explanatory narratives describing for example why one man goes mad and another doesn’t under identical circumstances.
- Those who circumscribe their world to include only that which is explainable by scientific means complain that any other viewpoint lacks anything which will help assuage the situation. The opposing viewpoint disagrees. Oddly enough often enough it is the viewpoint which admits to a view that more wonders exist in the the world than might be encompassed by our imagination does not deny science its day in the sun, but only holds that it is not the end of the story. What is odd about that, is that that science only crowd holds that the other is the close-minded provincial “backwards” looking view.
Sorry again, short post but its running late and … warm weather looms.
Update: A second post continues this topic here.
3 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Continuing the Discussion