Critiquing: How Do I Show Someone That Not Every Spirit Being Is Good?

April 10, 2023 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Spirit beings — Jesus as good — Inner healing — Prayer practices — Biblical claims

---

Introduction

The content discusses how to demonstrate that not all spirit beings are good and whether inner healing prayer is biblically supported. This analysis evaluates the logical coherence of these discussions, focusing on the consistency of arguments, presence of logical fallacies, and the obligation to substantiate claims.

Evaluating the Argument on Spirit Beings

Ambiguity in the Question

The initial question about proving that not all spirit beings are good presents a false dichotomy: “Any spirit is good or only Jesus is good” is an oversimplification. The content acknowledges this, stating, “there is a host of angelic beings, of spirit beings, some are good and some are bad” (p. 1). This recognition avoids a binary approach, suggesting complexity in the nature of spirit beings.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

The argument then shifts the burden of proof onto the person who believes all spirits are good, asking, “Why would you think that all the spirits are good spirits?” (p. 1). While effective in prompting critical thinking, this tactic can sometimes be a red herring, distracting from the responsibility to provide evidence for the initial claim that not all spirits are good.

Logical Coherence in Addressing Spirit Beings

Use of Anecdotal Evidence

The argument relies on anecdotal evidence, such as stories from people involved in the occult, to claim that engaging with spirit beings can lead to harm: “You talk to people who’ve been in the occult and who’ve come out of it, they can tell you the stories” (p. 2). This introduces a confirmation bias, as it selectively highlights negative experiences without considering positive ones or neutralizing accounts.

Lack of Substantiation

The content makes unsubstantiated claims like “a lot of people actually lose their minds” when engaging with occult practices (p. 2). Without empirical evidence or statistical data, such claims remain dubious and require further substantiation to be credible.

Evaluating the Argument on Inner Healing Prayer

Conceptual Misunderstandings

The discussion on inner healing prayer introduces a misconception about the nature of divine communication: “If Jesus is speaking and you’re not hearing, that means Jesus is trying to do something that he’s not accomplishing” (p. 3). This presents a straw man fallacy, misrepresenting the opposing view to make it easier to argue against.

Biblical Basis of Inner Healing Prayer

Theological Interpretation

The content argues that inner healing prayer is non-biblical because “there’s no guarantee that these challenges that we face, whether external or internal, are themselves going to be healed” (p. 4). This interpretation lacks consistency, as it selectively interprets biblical texts without considering the broader theological context that might support inner healing.

Cognitive Biases and Logical Fallacies

Appeal to Authority

References to God and biblical warnings against engaging with spirits (p. 2) serve as an appeal to authority, which can be persuasive for believers but fails to address non-believers’ perspectives. This approach assumes the authority of the Bible without providing independent verification of its claims.

Circular Reasoning

The argument that Jesus is the only good spirit because “He is Emmanuel, He is God with us” (p. 2) exemplifies circular reasoning. It uses the conclusion (Jesus is good) as a premise to support itself, failing to provide external justification for this claim.

Unsubstantiated and Dubious Claims

Inner Healing Prayer Efficacy

The claim that inner healing prayer is non-biblical and possibly ineffective lacks empirical evidence: “I don’t know about the efficacy on a broad scale” (p. 5). To substantiate such claims, one should provide statistical data or studies demonstrating the prayer’s ineffectiveness or harmfulness.

Testing Alleged Promises

Empirical Validation

To test the alleged promises of God, one could employ empirical methods such as controlled studies on the outcomes of prayer. For example, examining whether people who engage in inner healing prayer report statistically significant improvements in mental health compared to those who do not could provide evidence for or against the practice.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

Evidence-Based Belief

It is crucial to align one’s degree of belief with the degree of available evidence. The content often fails to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims, which weakens its overall argument. Emphasizing the need for empirical validation and rational justification would strengthen the argument and make it more persuasive to a broader audience.

---

Conclusion

The content presents several logical inconsistencies and cognitive biases. While it attempts to argue that not all spirit beings are good and questions the biblical basis of inner healing prayer, it often relies on unsubstantiated claims, anecdotal evidence, and fallacious reasoning. A more robust argument would require empirical evidence, avoidance of logical fallacies, and a clearer alignment of beliefs with available evidence. For further discussion on these arguments, feel free to engage in the comments section below.

---