Critiquing: Should I Stop Telling People That Attempting to Speak to Ancestors Is Demonic?

January 11, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Key Points: Ancestors Speaking — Marriage Perspectives — God’s Presence — Reality Claims — Diverse Beliefs

---

Introduction and Contextualization

The content addresses several religious and philosophical questions, including whether it is appropriate to label communication with ancestors as demonic, why a Christian wouldn’t marry a non-Christian, and the nature of God’s presence. The discussion is framed within a Christian worldview, primarily engaging with contrasting beliefs from African spirituality, Sikhism, and general relativism.

Logical Coherence and Consistency

Analysis of Argument Structure

The content employs various analogies and counterexamples to support its claims. However, several logical inconsistencies are evident:

Self-Refuting Argument: The claim that “we ought to affirm what other people believe” is labeled as self-refuting because it demands a change in Christian views to align with African spirituality. The critique here misunderstands the principle of tolerance, which does not require affirming others’ beliefs as true but respects their right to hold them.

“Why are they implicitly demanding that we change our views so that it comports with the sensibilities of African spirituality?”

This illustrates a misunderstanding of cultural sensitivity versus doctrinal affirmation.

False Equivalence: The comparison between evangelism and medical diagnosis (tumors) creates a false equivalence, as the existential and unverifiable nature of spiritual beliefs differs significantly from empirically diagnosable medical conditions.

“It’s like somebody trying to treat their tumor with Drano. Why would you tell him to stop from his perspective?”

This analogy oversimplifies and misrepresents the complexity of religious beliefs versus medical facts.

Straw Man Argument: The portrayal of relativism is simplified to imply that all beliefs are merely preferences without any claim to truth, which misrepresents the nuanced positions that many relativists actually hold.

“Totally subjective. So I think what I would ask to somebody who said this to me, you know, stop saying that listening to or attempting to speak to their ancestors is demonic.”

This simplification undermines a serious engagement with the actual arguments made by proponents of relativism.

Explanation of Cognitive Biases

Confirmation Bias: The content shows a clear confirmation bias by selectively interpreting other beliefs through a rigid Christian framework without seriously considering their internal consistency or cultural context.

“That’s their truth. And therefore we should comport our language to them to be consistent with their truth.”

This statement dismisses alternative perspectives without exploring their validity.

Cultural Bias: There is an evident cultural bias in dismissing African spirituality and Sikh beliefs as inherently inferior or incorrect without providing substantive reasons beyond their deviation from Christian doctrine.

“Well, of course, that completely nullifies all evangelism because of whenever we’re talking to somebody of a different persuasion, we are essentially countering their false persuasion with something that’s true.”

This view assumes the superiority of one cultural perspective over others.

Evaluation of Unsubstantiated Claims

Dubious Claims: Several claims within the content are both unsubstantiated and dubious, lacking empirical evidence or logical support.

“If that’s true, then why should we tell them the truth?”

This claim about the nature of demonic activity is presented without evidence or a clear method for validation.

“It’s even worse than that, Greg. It’s like somebody trying to treat their tumor with Drano.”

This analogy lacks substantiation and misrepresents the complexity of spiritual beliefs.

Need for Substantiation

Every claim made, especially those with significant moral or existential implications, carries an obligation to be substantiated with evidence. In this case, many assertions about the demonic nature of ancestor communication and the absolute truth of Christian doctrine are presented without adequate support.

Mapping Belief to Evidence

Correlation Between Belief and Evidence: Beliefs should be proportional to the evidence available. The content often fails to demonstrate this proportionality, relying on doctrinal assertions rather than empirical or rational substantiation.

“And is this an activity that is complicit with the demonic? That’s the real question.”

This highlights the necessity of mapping beliefs to evidence.

Methods for Testing Alleged Promises

To test the alleged promises or claims, one could use a variety of empirical methods, such as psychological studies on the effects of ancestor communication practices or comparative religious studies analyzing the outcomes of different belief systems.

Concluding Remarks

The content presented contains several logical inconsistencies and cognitive biases. It makes numerous unsubstantiated claims while failing to engage seriously with alternative viewpoints. Beliefs should be matched to the degree of evidence available, ensuring that claims, especially those with significant moral or existential implications, are well-substantiated.

---

Feel free to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.