|
Word Gems
exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity
|
John and Mary debate the concept ‘Satan as deceiver’ and ‘god of this world’
|
return to the main-page article on "Satan"
'What is real?' and 'how do we know it's real?'
Editor's note: Two of the great areas of philosophy are ontology -- "what is real?" -- and epistemology -- "how do we know it's real?"
These issues have been discussed for millennia, going back to the ancient Greeks, but fundamentalists might cavalierly brush all this careful reasoning aside and call it "faith". I'm well acquainted with this disingenuity -- I myself indulged it for decades. There are rules of evidence, logic and rationality -- time-honored and tested -- and these safeguards against cultism will not be set aside by cheap religious hubris.
Case in point to illustrate: Entities that are invisible, for which evidence is scanty, are very hard to disprove. Let's listen in on John and Mary debating the existence of pink unicorns.
Mary: You know, there are pink unicorns in my backyard.
John: Pink unicorns? Really? How do you know that?
Mary: I can’t see them with my eyes, but I know they’re there. You don’t need to see them to know they exist.
[Fallacy: unfalsifiable claim / appeal to belief over evidence]
John: Wait… if you can’t see them, how do you know they’re pink?
Mary: I just know. Some truths you can’t perceive with your senses. You have to trust that they exist even if you can’t see them.
[Appeal to faith / belief over observation]
John: So… if I can’t see them, there’s no way for me to test your claim. How do I know you’re not just imagining them?
Mary: You don’t need to test it to know it’s true. Only some people are tuned in to the truth.
[Appeal to exclusivity / special access]
John: Okay, but if it’s impossible for me to see them, then I can never disprove your claim. It seems like this claim could never be tested at all.
[Unfalsifiability / self-sealing belief]
Mary: That’s fine. You don’t need to disprove it. I know they exist even if you can’t see them.
John: But hold on — if I can’t trust my own senses or reasoning to verify anything, how do I even know your claim is true? Couldn’t this just be imagination or mistake?
Mary: That doesn’t matter. I know the truth, even if my senses can’t perceive it.
[Circular reasoning / self-sealing belief]
John: Okay… but think about this practically. If unicorns could manipulate perception or exist in ways we can’t detect, then nothing could ever be verified. I couldn’t trust my eyes, my reasoning, or my decisions — I couldn’t even walk across the room safely, do math, science, or make choices.
[Practical absurdity / total deception problem]
Mary: That’s not the point. Some truths are beyond ordinary perception. You just have to accept them.
John: But that’s circular again. You’re asking me to trust your claim because I can’t trust perception, but the claim itself relies on trusting perception. I have to trust you. But if total deception existed, your own claim would undermine itself.
[Self-defeating logic / circular reasoning]
Mary: Only believers can understand that.
John: Right — so the lesson is clear. Any claim defined so that no evidence could ever disprove it — invisible unicorns, supernatural deceptions — is unfalsifiable. That doesn’t make it true, even if you believe it. I can acknowledge that you believe it, but I have no reason to accept it as fact.
Mary: You’re just too skeptical, too hard-hearted, to see the truth.
[Ad hominem / burden of proof shift]
John: And that’s my point — a claim can’t be taken as true just because it’s immune to disproof. You can’t see it, but “I know it exists” doesn’t make it real.
Fallacies Highlighted (with revised framing)
- Unfalsifiable claim / special pleading: “I can’t see them, but I know they exist.”
- Self-sealing belief / circular reasoning: “If you don’t see them, it’s because you’re not attuned; I know even without seeing.”
- Appeal to authority / exclusivity: “Only some people are tuned in to the truth.”
- Ad hominem / personal attack: “You’re too skeptical to see it.”
- Burden of proof shift: “You can’t disprove it, so you have to accept it.”
- Practical absurdity / total deception problem: If total deception existed, perception, reasoning, and daily life would be impossible.
Mary's claim is structured so that every observation can be interpreted as confirming her assertion, making rational refutation difficult — but rational critique focuses on consistency, falsifiability, and the burden of proof.
With an extraordinary claim, the burden of proof rests with the speaker. It falls to them to provide evidence. A listener need not do anything but ask ‘how do you know that’s true?’ and 'why should I accept what you say?'
Burden of Proof
Rule: In logic and debate, the person making a claim carries the burden of proof.
Application: If someone asserts invisible pink unicorns exist, they must provide justification. You don’t have to disprove it.
Psychology note: People sometimes use “you can’t disprove it” as a rhetorical shield to avoid evidence-based scrutiny. We cannot disprove the existence of pink unicorns, but that doesn't mean they're real.
Types of Probing Questions
1. Evidence and Standards
- “What kind of experience or evidence would make you doubt this claim?”
- “How do you decide which experiences count as proof?”
- “Have you ever thought about why different people see different ‘evidence’ for the same thing?”
2. Perspective and Interpretation
- “Is it possible that two people could witness the same event and interpret it differently?”
- “How do you know your interpretation is the right one?”
- “Could there be another way to explain what happened besides this unseen force?”
3. Consistency and Application
- “Do you apply this same reasoning in other areas of life?”
- “Are there times when what seems like deception might actually be chance, human error, or misunderstanding?”
- “If we follow this logic to everything, how would we decide what is true or false?”
4. Consequences and Action
- “Even if this could be true, how should it change what you do day-to-day?”
- “If you couldn’t see or measure this force, what actions would still make sense?”
- “How can we act wisely even without certainty about unseen forces?”
John and Mary debate 'Satan, the god of this world, can deceive you'
Mary: You’ve got to be careful — Satan is the god of this world, and he can deceive you in ways you don’t even notice.
John: Wait, what do you mean “deceive me”? Like, how?
Mary: He can read your mind. He knows what you’re thinking. He can make you believe things that aren’t true.
John: So he’s reading my thoughts… literally? all of them? And if I act on anything, it could be him tricking me?
Mary: Exactly. That’s why you have to follow someone who knows the truth — like me or a minister of God who understands God’s word. Satan won’t deceive you if you’re listening to the right person.
[Fallacy: Appeal to authority / special pleading]
John: Okay… but hold on. If he can read every thought, then how do I know any claim is true? Anything could be a deception then. Even what you’re telling me could be his trick.
Mary: No, if you’re listening to someone who knows the truth, you’re safe. Satan can’t deceive the faithful who are under guidance.
[Circular reasoning / self-sealing belief]
John: Huh… so basically, I have to trust what you say, not my own mind, because otherwise I can’t trust anything. But isn’t that exactly the kind of thinking -- being easily led -- that Satan could exploit?
Mary: Not if you’re listening to someone who really knows.
John: Alright, but think about it for a second. If I had to assume my mind, my senses, and my reasoning were completely unreliable because of Satan, then nothing I do could be trusted. I couldn’t even walk across the room without risking total deception. Why would God have given me a mind and reasoning abilities if they can't be used?
Mary: That’s why you have faith — faith and discernment protect you from your own vanity.
John: But that’s… confusing. If everything I see, hear, and think could be manipulated, then science wouldn’t work, math wouldn’t work. We couldn’t plan, calculate, or measure anything reliably. How would we even know the floor is under our feet?
[Highlighting practical absurdity / total deception]
Mary: That’s why God gave us guidance through those who know the truth.
John: But you’re saying he can heal people, too — I once heard a minister say, “That healing in that other church? That was Satan, to deceive you — he can heal because he’s the god of this world.” So now even miracles doing good things could be lies? Do you really believe that?
Mary: Only God’s true servants can tell the difference. That’s why you need discernment.
John: But, for discernment I would need to use my mind, and that's suspect, you say. How do we get out of that closed box?
Mary: You're making this too complicated. You're relying on philosophy, and that's of the Devil.
John: Uh-huh… but think about this historically. Jesus healed a blind man, right? That was an act of service and goodness. But the Pharisees said, “Satan’s power did this!” Jesus immediately pointed out how absurd that was, even calling it the unpardonable sin — basically saying, “You’re calling good evil, that’s not just wicked but extremely obtuse.” If Satan can work against himself, then claiming a good thing Satan did, according to Jesus, makes one liable for the unpardonable sin. And Paul — the guy who first said “god of this world” — he changed his mind on multiple statements. He thought people would see Jesus return in their lifetimes. He had ideas about sleeping in the graves and immediate resurrection that he later corrected. Even Paul, by his own admission, was not infallible, so why should we think Paul's phrase "god of this world" is golden?
[Historical / textual evidence showing human fallibility]
Mary: You're twisting holy scripture — you have to understand context and faith.
John: Sure, but here’s the problem. If Satan can do everything, if we're so impressed by what Satan can do — deceive, heal, read minds — but I can’t test any of this, to know if the story is true, then by definition, it it would be impossible for me to know the truth on my own. And if I can’t rely on my senses or reasoning, there’s no moral responsibility either. This would mean that there’s no such thing as sin if all my choices are manipulated. Then I'm not responsible for anything, if I have no mental capabilities. I'm just a drone then. Is that what God made us to be?
[Exposing self-defeating logic / undermining moral culpability]
Mary: You’re missing the point. That’s why faith is important — to follow the ones who know.
John: Faith doesn’t make it true. And if I have to rely completely on someone else to avoid deception, that’s… well, that’s scary and that's cultish. It means I can’t be responsible for my own life or actions. Science, math, ethics — they all break down if our faculties are inherently unreliable.
Mary: That’s why you need God’s guidance, and God's ministers who can tell you what's right and wrong.
John: But think about this logically. You’re saying: “You can’t trust your own mind, but if you listen to me, you’ll be safe.” That’s circular reasoning — the claim depends on me trusting someone who's also saying I can’t trust anything. If I can’t trust my own reasoning, I can’t even trust your warning. Total deception contradicts itself.
[Fallacy: Self-defeating claim / circular reasoning]
Mary: You are in danger of going to hell.
John: Right — so basically, if we take the claim seriously:
-
All mental faculties are potentially deceived.
-
Yet, we have to act, walk, reason, do math, measure things.
-
Yet, moral responsibility exists, supposedly.
John: It doesn’t add up. Total deception can’t exist, because we’d be paralyzed and morality itself would vanish. Even if deception somehow were real, it would have to be partial. And even the Bible shows that its writers were human — Paul’s own inconsistencies prove that -- we still have the ability — and the responsibility — to reason, observe, and act carefully. That’s how life works.
Fallacies Illustrated in this Conversation
- Special pleading / unfalsifiable claim: “He can’t deceive you if you follow the right person,” “He can heal but only to trick you.”
- Self-sealing belief / circular reasoning: “If you don’t see it, it’s because you’re not faithful; if you follow me, you’re safe.”
- Appeal to authority / exclusivity: “Only I or God’s true servants know the truth.”
- Ad hominem / shifting blame: “You’re too skeptical / closed-minded to see.”
- Burden of proof shift: “You can’t disprove it, so you have to believe.”
- Appeal to faith over evidence: “Faith and discernment protect you from deception.”
- Undermining moral and practical reasoning: Suggesting total deception would make ethics, morality, science, and daily life unreliable and even impossible.
Editor’s summary comments
Allow me to clarify the importance, even, the underlying structure of reason, concerning this topic of debating outrageous claims.
I’m reminded of what Charles Van Doren said at a memorial service for Mortimer Adler, 2001:
"I remember the first seminar we led together, nearly forty years ago. The text was Plato's dialogue, The Sophist. I had read it twice or three times and struggled to get the point. It could not be what it seemed to be. But Mortimer helped us all to understand: The true sophist, Plato is saying, cannot be trapped - if he is willing to say anything whatsoever to win the argument. If he wants to win at all costs and does not care what is true, and if he is adept at fending off the truth when it is presented, the sophist will triumph, and you will fail."
You will fail!
If you try to engage a sophist on, ‘there are pink unicorns in the backyard’, with what you feel to be rational, fact-based answers – you will fail.
Why will you fail? You’re a level-headed person, you say, a pretty smart cookie, you can handle something as patently absurd as “pink unicorns”.
And so you plunge in, you begin offering facts-and-figures that ought to settle the matter.
But it doesn’t.
What’s happening? – whatever you say is countered with some new item, some extra point concerning the nature of pink unicorns.
This barrage continues unabated. Even worse, now you’re virtually made to look like the bad guy – because with all these snappy answers by the sophist, you begin to appear as the unknowledgeable one, the unbending and rigid one, and "why can't you see the big picture?"
You're trying to be reasonable and factual, but the other party is willing to say anything to stay on top.
Doesn’t matter what you say, it’s never convincing, never causes the sophist to even slow down.
And now you’ve failed.
What should you have done?
Be like Socrates.
Enter the debate by asking a question.
Ask the sophist to clearly define his terms: “What do you mean by such-and-such?”. And “What is your evidence for that claim?”
Do you like being on trial?
If you do not ask questions like this, then – guess what? – you’ll suddenly be the one on trial, you’ll be the one forced to make statements which would bore a third-grader -- defending with, a wheel is circular, grass is green, and a mountain is high.
You will be required to make assertions of such apparent self-evidence that even listening to yourself will bring on chagrin and despair ("Why do I even have to say this?")
Do you like being on trial? -- in a kangaroo court? Do you like having to defend that the Earth is not flat? – Well, all this should be clear, you say, I shouldn’t even have to defend these things, it’s absurd to even discuss the utterly obvious.
But none of that matters to the sophist. He's got you on the run now, you're the one on the witness stand, you're the one who now is made to look foolish for not believing in pink unicorns.
If he can make you the one who has to defend that the sky is blue -- then you will fail – because you cannot win against someone who cares nothing for the truth and is willing to say anything to come out on top.
And you will lose – unless, from the very beginning you ask those Socratic questions – which positions the other party as required to defend the outrageous.
They're the ones who're supposed to be on trial; they're the ones who need to defend the patently ridiculous.
Maybe you’d care to go into this a little more deeply. In Aristotle’s “Prior Analytics” he discusses the structure of reasoning, the syllogism. I’ve known of this – thought I did – for decades; thought it was just a dry point of logic:
- All humans are mortal
- All Greeks are human
- Therefore, all Greeks are mortal
Doesn’t sound too exciting; and didn’t Aristotle have anything better to do than to invent little puzzles like this?
As it turns out, this is one of the major hinges of history. What are the big implications?
The sophists, as Aristotle began to realize, try to capture and control, in debates, the definition of the top item, in our example, “all humans are mortal”. Because if one can inject one’s private definition about “all humans”, then the argument will naturally, and automatically, unfold toward a new and different conclusion.
This is why the sophists today are so insistent upon changing definitions of words. Language itself become the battle-ground to define reality.
If they succeed there, if the definition of the major premise is captured, then the argument, like a river flowing inexorably to the sea, will become a flawless machine for error and deception.
The error is not in unsound reasoning. The logic will be golden and untainted. But the conclusion will be prevarication. The error rests in re-defining the major premise. See more discussion on Aristotle’s book.
We must understand especially one thing here.
Do not allow the sophist to define the terms of his outrageous claim. He will define “pink unicorn” – and continue to massage the definition in real time as you interact – he will define it to suit and counter whatever you say.
And you will fail.
And so begin the discussion by forcing the other side to come clean and reveal hidden definitions and assumptions.
Make them defend "why the moon is made of green cheese".
“What do you mean by that? Why do you believe that? What is your evidence?
If you do not do this, right from the start, you’ve already lost.
|