The Argument From Demonology: A Series In Analytical Apologetics

The Argument From Demonology: A Series In Analytical Apologetics (Part One)

Part One:

One would think that, all arguments exhausted, it's much more logical-not to mention ontologically efficient-to embrace a belief in a sovereign, supernatural Deity. All naturally curious & questioning human creatures must enter, at one point in their sojourn, the gates of Agnosticism. However, an exaggerated deviation & meandering into pure Atheism reveals itself, when ingenuously examined, to be utter inanity. For example, I know that I, when peering out upon the cesspool that is IN-humanity know for certain that something we have named "evil" (or at least iniquity) exists. It is readily apparent. There are no transcendentalist sentiment or gymnastics required, here. From thenceforth, is it such a stretch of the imagination to perform a "Manichean" about face towards the Holy One?

Begging the argument that perhaps all so-called "depravity" merely arises out of naturalistic human traits & strivings & yearnings, this, too, in its semantical configuration, whilst revealing itself as antinomy-is nevertheless flawed in its reductionism & assumptions. This is like speaking with one's mouth & claiming to believe with one's heart, that everything that all conscious creatures have experienced, now experience, & will someday experience arises, ex nihilo. Although I, too, undoubtedly feel the seductive pull of Nihilism's charms, as it intoxicates me so readily within its fast-acting anesthetic, I also know in that moment that I am nothing but a simpleton & a fool. For even a Physicist would agree that even so-called "nothing," teems with "zero-point energy" something.

And herein brings us to the matter of the dark vs. the Light of the Matter. From the secular, scholarly realms of Epistemology, to Eastern mysticism & deific plurality to Western monotheism, one sentiment seems to hold sway throughout all of them: Human consciousness & comprehension is demonstrably & fallibly FINITE. I suppose this could be classified as the Argument Which Proceeds From Its Own Limits, or the Argument From Epistemology. Nevertheless, it still somehow makes its point with antinomial adequacy. This, of course, brings to reminiscence the arguments of St. Anselm & St. Augustine regarding whether or not faith is required before understanding can be breached (fides quaerens intellectum). I believe that faith is sometimes necessary for understanding, & sometimes not.

Moreover, the "head" often directly contradicts the "heart", & vice versa. Although this by no means supports a Descartean notion of Mind-Body bifurcation & nary the twain shall meet. A synthesis of so-called "flesh" & "spirit" is absolutely not only possible, but is one of the salient features of human taxonomical individuation & authentication. One simply cannot ponder the mysteries of this universe, let alone transcend with them if one is not working to integrate ALL of one's states of experience & consciousness into a glorious union of opposites. Indeed, perhaps all "evil" truly is, can be summed up thus: That which seeks to isolate & segregate. And perhaps all "good" truly is, has already been perfected & merely seeks discovery & sanctification within its latest disciple.

But let's get back to our original exploration of the manifested contrasts of "light" vs. "dark", & how these can actually advocate for the existence of an immaculate Deity who created all, & currently sustains all. And indeed, there are many who posit that perhaps what we call "God" in its various languages may actually be both "good" & "evil", thereby eliminating a lot of conflict attempting to reconcile an often distressingly rigid moralistic Manichaeism in an epoch of ever-increasing human evolution & enlightenment yet psycho-spiritual entropy. We will explore these & many more fascinating inquiries in this article.

In continuum, one could argue that destructive tendencies within human beings, if a morally perfect Deity was not in operation, would have reached their critical mass of destruction long ago, & humankind would have ceased to exist. Thus, the question is: Why hasn't this happened? The main postulate of those who identify as "Atheists" is that of the mechanism of the human self-preservationary instinct. Fair enough. However, upon closer inspection, this falls flat. How can one explain then, those individuals who are operant under faulty self-preservationary mechanisms, such as those who are either actively or passively self-destructive, and/or self-neglectful? Besides, that self-same instinct is often what leads to destructive acts towards ones fellow human kin.

Next up: 'Noble Savages'-in-Recovery, Tigers & Demons-Oh, my! .......