It's sad that exorcism is still being endorsed

[skepticscott]

in a backhanded way by people who should know better. Saying that they don't endorse exorcism, while at the very same time saying that it should be carried out in some cases makes me wonder if, secretly, they don't wish that something mystico-religiousy really is going on there in a few cases. Otherwise, why would a sane, sensible person want to propagate ignorance and misinformation by vehemently insisting that the practice MUST continue under that name, rather than simply advocating education (emphasizing that there is absolutely NO convincing evidence that humans can be possessed by supernatural beings, or ever have been) and proper medical and psychological treatment? Why should the word "exorcism" even need to be used?

[onager]

1. I don't know. Awe & majesty, ancient ritual, etc.?

Maybe just because it's connected to one of the oldest Xian scams, Catholicism. it gets invested with some kind of undeserved respectability.

But the Catholics aren't the only ones pitching out demons. Quite a few Fundamentalist Protestant churches use the same terminology and methods. It was pretty common for preachers like Oral Roberts to slap people on the forehead and command the demons to depart.

Also see - or hear - the old Brian Eno-David Byrne song "The Jezebel Spirit." They used "found" audio footage of a Fundie preacher casting the "Jezebel spirit" out of a woman who called into his radio show. Very creepy, but you can dance to it.

And yet - those Fundies are the very people, I do believe, that I have seen excoriated as "dumbasses" over there in the DU Theological Seminary, College of Psychiatry & Day Care Center.

So to answer your questions - damned if I know. Maybe it's the Latin. Ancient bullshit always sounds better in Latin.

[mr blur]

2. ..

the DU Theological Seminary, College of Psychiatry & Day Care Center

[Iggo]

3. .

[Curmudgeoness]

4. Well, Jesus did it.

And that means it has to be real. Besides, it is in the Bible.



Did I get the argument right?

[theHandpuppet]

5. Truth be told...

I think a majority of folks, even those who claim to be skeptics, are simply afraid to take that last step. Somehow, some way, they want to keep a toehold in the land of magic, no matter what the rational mind tells them. Believing in magic is easy. It's not believing that is hard.

[skepticscott]

7. That's pretty much it

But still, you'd think that they'd be able to separate clinging to their needful little hopes and beliefs in the privacy of their own thoughts, and the public support and promotion of false beliefs that can get people killed. If only out of concern and decency.

Apparently not.

[defacto7]

6. It's probably about

something to blame

something to save them

something to fix it fast

and still have something left over to believe, blame, save, and fix it when it doesn't work.

[djean111]

8. I filed that stuff under "live and let live". No skin off my nose, etc.

As long as no one bugs me about being an atheist, and the states or Congress don't pass any bills that require (or pay for) exorcisms, I'm good.
There is no convincing evidence for or against a lot of things.

[skepticscott]

9. Well, it's also no skin off MY nose

if the Catholic Church tries to keep same-sex couples from having the right to marry. But that doesn't mean I'd just close my eyes to it and say nothing. Sometimes you have to care about things that don't affect you directly and personally. People have died because of the mistaken belief that demonic possession is real and that an "exorcism" can remove it.

[djean111]

10. It never occurred to me to equate same-sex marriage with exorcisms.

And same-sex marriage is actually "skin off MY nose" because the church is so influential in getting laws passed against same-sex marriage. Have not noticed any laws about exorcisms.
Believing in demons is, to me, on the same level as believing in gods. I do not, but I have no proof whatsoever for my non-belief, theists have no proof whatsoever for their beliefs. Kind of a draw.
Slippery slope, to me, thinking to impose my non-belief in demons on those who do. How many people are actually killed during exorcisms? A lot?

[skepticscott]

13. Well, I wasn't equating the two

Just pointing out that we should care about things that can harm other people or restrict their rights, even if they don't affect us personally or directly.

And no, it's not a draw. The burden of proof is on those who claim that possessions really happen, and who promote potentially dangerous remedies for unproven maladies. I don't need to prove to a certainty that demons don't exist to think that exorcisms are unnecessary and potentially dangerous.

[theHandpuppet]

14. You asked about people killed during exorcisms

Here's a site that lists at least some of the victims.

http://whatstheharm.net/exorcisms.html

[Arugula Latte]

15. "kind of a draw"

So if "some say" unicorns exist and I say they don't is that also a draw?

[trotsky]

11. I think the problem comes from legitimacy being given to the idea that demons can possess people...

and influence behavior. We know this is false, but by giving it legitimacy, it encourages the kind of behavior we see when people who may or may not be mentally ill attempt to do an exorcism on others.

[AlbertCat]

12. It's medical malpractice.... period.

Most "possessions" I've heard about are just people, usually in fundie situations, just vying for attention. Their possession gig seems to only get out of hand when surrounded and supported by believers of such things. Then more believers (priests, doctors who believe) are brought in and the whole things spirals out of control....


and makes a stupid movie that lets Lorraine Warren make some more cash.