Devil in Augustine of Hippo, part 7

Herein we conclude, from part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, considering info on the Devil in Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD). The fuller complete result consists of quotations of those sections within the text that refer to Angels, Cherubim, Seraphim, Devil, Satan, demons, serpent and dragon. The point is not to elucidate these references but to provide relevant partial quotations and citations. See my section on Angels here, Cherubim and Seraphim here, Satan here and Demons here.

Devil in Augustine of Hippo’s On Christian Doctrine, Books I-III.

Book I
Chapter 14:13 Moreover, just as the former was called wisdom, but was in reality the folly of those who despised God, so the latter is called foolishness, but is true wisdom in those who overcome the devil.

Book II
Chapter 20:30 All the arrangements made by men for the making and worshipping of idols are superstitious, pertaining as they do either to the worship of what is created or of some part of it as God, or to consultations and arrangements about signs and leagues with devils, such, for example, as are employed in the magical arts, and which the poets are accustomed not so much to teach as to celebrate.

Chapter 22:34 And so these notions also, which have their origin in certain signs of things being arbitrarily fixed upon by the presumption of men, are to be referred to the same class as if they were leagues and covenants with devils.

Chapter 23:36 All arts of this sort, therefore, are either nullities, or are part of a guilty superstition, springing out of a baleful fellowship between men and devils, and are to be utterly repudiated and avoided by the Christian as the covenants of a false and treacherous friendship. “Not as if the idol were anything,” says the apostle; “but because the things which they sacrifice they sacrifice to devils and not to God; and I would not that you should have fellowship with devils”…Accordingly, in regard to all these branches of knowledge, we must fear and shun the fellowship of demons, who, with the Devil their prince, strive only to shut and bar the door against our return.

Chapter 24:37 And all these omens are of force just so far as has been arranged with the devils by that previous understanding in the mind which is, as it were, the common language, but they are all full of hurtful curiosity, torturing anxiety, and deadly slavery…those signs by which the ruinous intercourse with devils is maintained have meaning just in proportion to each man’s observations.

Chapter 25:38 But when all these have been cut away and rooted out of the mind of the Christian we must then look at human institutions which are not superstitious, that is, such as are not set up in association with devils, but by men in association with one another.

Chapter 26 For certain institutions of men are in a sort of way representations and likenesses of natural objects. And of these, such as have relation to fellowship with devils must, as has been said, be utterly rejected and held in detestation.

Chapter 39:58 And if they find any of those which have been instituted by men varying by reason of the varying pleasure of their founders, and unknown by reason of erroneous conjectures, especially if they involve entering into fellowship with devils by means of leagues and covenants about signs, let these be utterly rejected and held in detestation.

Chapter 40:60 Now these are, so to speak, their gold and silver, which they did not create themselves, but dug out of the mines of God’s providence which are everywhere scattered abroad, and are perversely and unlawfully prostituting to the worship of devils.

Book III
Chapter 25:36 Another example of the same is that a lion stands for Christ in the place where it is said, “The lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed;” and again, stands for the devil where it is written, “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about seeking whom he may devour.”

Chapter 30:42 And of these rules, the first relates to the Lord and His body, the second to the twofold division of the Lord’s body, the third to the promises and the law, the fourth to species and genus, the fifth to times, the sixth to recapitulation, the seventh to the devil and his body.

Chapter 37:55 The seventh rule of Tichonius and the last, is about the devil and his body. For he is the head of the wicked, who are in a sense his body, and destined to go with him into the punishment of everlasting fire, just as Christ is the head of the Church, which is His body, destined to be with Him in His eternal kingdom and glory. Accordingly, as the first rule, which is called of the Lord and His body, directs us, when Scripture speaks of one and the same person, to take pains to understand which part of the statement applies to the head and which to the body; so this last rule shows us that statements are sometimes made about the devil, whose truth is not so evident in regard to himself as in regard to his body; and his body is made up not only of those who are manifestly out of the way, but of those also who, though they really belong to him, are for a time mixed up with the Church, until they depart from this life, or until the chaff is separated from the wheat at the last great winnowing.
For example, what is said in Isaiah, “How he is fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning!” and the other statements of the context which, under the figure of the king of Babylon, are made about the same person, are of course to be understood of the devil; and yet the statement which is made in the same place, “He is ground down on the Earth, who sends to all nations,” does not altogether fitly apply to the head himself. For, although the devil sends his Angels to all nations, yet it is his body, not himself, that is ground down on the each, except that he himself is in his body, which is beaten small like the dust which the wind blows from the face of the Earth.

In the next segment, we will consider Satan in Augustine of Hippo.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

intolerance

Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher: The Dynamic Duo of Demonstrably Deleterious Delusion

This essay consists of the following sections:
The Good Book??? An Atheist Altar Call!!!The High RatingPersonal IncredulityThe Vociferous Viper

The Deathbed Fallacy

“It’s just ridiculous! [laughter]”
The first Dynamic Duo of which I wrote consisted of Sam Harris and Bertrand Russell. This, part 2’s, tag-team consists of Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. The two teamed up on Bill Maher’s show (HBO Broadcast Transcript, Episode #613, April 11, 2008). I present a succinct version of the discussion below.

The Good Book??? An Atheist Altar Call!!!:

Bill Maher asked about Prof. Richard Dawkins’ book “The God Delusion”:

MAHER: Why this book and why now?
DAWKINS: …I think especially in America, there has been a tendency for God to rule the roost in a way that, I think, people are rightly getting fed up with. And when a group of books come along and challenge that, people warm to it….
MAHER: Okay, that’s fair. One or the other. Now, you write in your book, “If this book works as I intend, readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down.” How is that going for you, the rate of conversion? [laughter] Do you have people come up to you and say, “You know, I used to be a believer, and I read your book, and now I’m not”?
DAWKINS: …people who maybe were sort of vaguely sitting on the fence, and who didn’t feel very strongly about it one way or the other…they realize that they’ve been atheists all along; they just didn’t know it.

Indeed, pop-culture in particular loves anything that rocks the boat, shocks the establishment, rages against the machine, etc. Richard Dawkins is certainly not ashamed of proselytizing for his worldview as he intended “The God Delusion” to convert people to atheism. Bill Maher encouraged his thusly, “hopefully, someday, it’ll be by the bed in every hotel in America.” Previously, Richard Dawkins had expressed similar hopes for Sam Harris’ book “The End of Faith,” stating that it “is one of those books that deserves to replace the Gideon Bible in every hotel room in the land.”1
It is difficult to believe that such a poorly researched and reasoned book should be considered powerful enough to convert anyone to atheism. And indeed, as admitted above, Prof. Richard Dawkins’ biased sample shows that it had an impact mainly amongst the fence sitters. They “didn’t feel very strongly about it one way or the other” so why not opt for utter lack of accountability (to name one possible motivator)?

I refer to biased sample due Ben Stein’s interview with Richard Dawkins in the movie “Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed.” Richard Dawkins asserts that people feel liberated and relieved when they realize that God does not exist. Mr. Stein asks him how he knows that, he is after all speaking with an empirical scientist. Richard Dawkins responds that he receives letters from people to that effect. To which Mr. Stein states that there are some 8 billion people in the world and asks, “How many letters do you get?” Obviously, the sorts of letters that Richard Dawkins receives to that effect are of a very particular sort having been written by people who were motivated to contact him in order to either thank him, or buddy up to him, or congratulate him, etc.

The High Rating:

1———–2———–3———–4———–5———–6———–7

MAHER: …in the book, you establish a scale of one-to-seven, of atheism…one, being someone who is utterly certain there is a god, and seven being someone who is utterly certain there is not…But, you yourself say you’re only a six. Can you tell us why?
DAWKINS: I think any scientist would be unwise to commit himself to saying there definitely is not anything. I mean, I can’t definitely commit myself to saying there are no fairies. I’m pretty sure there are no fairies. [laughter] But, I think it would be unscientific to do what the extreme religious people do and say, “I know there is a god.” I can’t say, “I know there is no god.” I can’t say, “I know there are no pink unicorns.” [laughter] So, a six, maybe 6.9 is reasonable. [laughter]

This, again, is reminiscent of “Expelled” when Richard Dawkins set the probability of God’s existence to 1%. Although, upon being asked “How do you know?” he, of course, admitted that he did not know (find quote here). Now, he is establishing his atheism at 6.9 out of 7. His reasoning is valid enough but, as we shall see (and as I have shown here) Richard Dawkins may pay what I will refer to as “lip service” to the scientifically and logically mindful 1% probability of God’s existence while arguing, writing, and drawing conclusion as if he was 100% certain that God did not exist.

dawkins-4981512

Personal Incredulity:

MAHER: Right. And, one reason I think yourself and so many others are beginning to speak out against organized religion is…because it’s ridiculous! [laughter] It’s just ridiculous! [applause] There’s a talking snake in the Garden of Eden! And people fly up to Heaven bodily! It’s just ridiculous! [laughter] So, my question is, how do you explain bright people – and there are many – come on, we have to admit this – I talked to your friend, the scientist, Francis Collins, discovered the Human Genome – how does a man go to a lab all day, and then at home, go home and believe in the talking snake? How do you explain that phenomenon?
DAWKINS: Well, Francis Collins didn’t discover the Human Genome. He was the head of the worldwide operation that discovered it. So he was an administrator. He’s a very good scientist, too. But, don’t – don’t say he was the one who discovered the Human Genome. It was a team effort, and he was the administrator who organized it.
MAHER: [overlapping] Okay, but he’s a bright guy.
DAWKINS: Well, yeah, I guess he’s a bright guy. [laughter]…Francis Collins is a much brighter guy than Tony Blair. [laughter] I give him that. [applause] But, when you meet a scientist who claims to be religious, if you say, “Do you really believe in the talking snake,” most of them will say, “No.” Most of them will be religious in a much more nebulous sense than that…but I don’t think you’ll find he believes in the talking snake.
MAHER: I interviewed him and he absolutely does. [laughter]
DAWKINS:He does?!…Well, look, in that case, he goes right down in my estimation. He’s not a bright guy! [laughter] [applause]

This exchange discredits itself on at least two fronts: it is what Richard Dawkins would call an argument from personal incredulity, and it betrays a lack of Biblical knowledge. The argument from personal incredulity is plain to see, “it’s ridiculous! [laughter] It’s just ridiculous! [applause]…It’s just ridiculous! [laughter]…He’s not a bright guy! [laughter] [applause].” Stating that it is “ridiculous” takes the place of an argument and sends the audience into fits of laughter and applause, no wonder that when Christopher Hitchens appeared on Bill Maher’s show he, as they say in common parlance, flipped off the audience stating, “Your audience, which will clap at apparently anything.” If you have ever had the displeasure of watching Bill Maher’s show you know this to be accurate as trained seals demonstrate more discernment as to what they will clap about-but I digress.

Note also the criteria by which Francis Collins is judged: sure he was the head of the worldwide operation that discovered the Human Genome but if he believes in a talking snake then he is not a bright guy ([laughter] [applause]). But what if Francis Collins stated that he believed that life on earth originated when lightning struck a swamp? Or that nothing caused nothing to explode for no reason and made everything for no purpose. Or that there are subatomic particles. Or that 96% of the universe is invisible dark matter. Etc. Well, then he would be a brilliant, enlightened, rational, intellectual, scientifically astute, erudite, respectable guy.

billmaher-5369518
The Vociferous Viper:
Now to the talking snake. Certainly some believe that there was a talking snake but there is no real need to do so. And it would not be due to picking and choosing or embarrassment at the modern and logically fallacious denial of miracles. It is generally understood that the “snake”/”serpent” in the garden was lucifer who came to be known as “that ancient serpent” (Revelation 12:9): “You were in Eden, the garden of God” (Ezekiel28:12), he is told. lucifer, the luminescent one, was referred to as a snake/serpent due to his craftiness and due the root word meaning of “practice divination” or “enchantment”/”enchanter.” This enchanter was told “On your belly you shall go” (Gen 3:14), being brought down from his lofty state (see Ezekiel 28:12-19 and Isaiah 14:11-19).

Jesus said, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven” (Luke 10:18). This being was also told “you shall eat dust” (Genesis 3:14), playing off of Adam being made from dust, “Adam” meaning dustman/earthling. Thus, we see that with a slight understanding of literary devises and greater contexts the story is actually presenting a complex tapestry and has nothing to do with either a negatively inclined “literal” reading like Prof. Richard Dawkins’ and Bill Maher’s and also one that does not call for us to pick, choose or reinterpret-we simply take it as it is intended.

Please note that the preceding was irrelevant because if you say, “The Bible does not necessarily imply a talking snake but it was satan in the Garden.” The response will be, “Satan?!? That’s just ridiculous! [laughter].” Then you continue, “Well, in any case, in the Garden…” “The Garden of Eden?!? That’s just ridiculous! [laughter].” So you say, “Alrighty then, so, God was in the Garden with them and…” “God?!? That’s just ridiculous! [laughter],” et al, etc., ad infinitum (speaking of ridiculous, see my thought on Bill Maher’s upcoming movie “Religulous” here).

The Deathbed Fallacy:

MAHER: And, do you think there’s any chance that when the final hour comes for you, when you’re on your death bed, you might have a second thought and…suddenly get cold feet?
DAWKINS: I tell you what. When I’m on my death bed, I’m going to have a tape recorder switched on, because time and again, people like me are the victims of malicious stories after they’re dead, people saying they had a death-bed conversion when they didn’t. There’s a story that even Darwin had a death-bed conversion, which is a complete lie, but it’s widely believed by – by creationists. And it happens again and again and again. So, I’m going to have witnesses, and I’m going to have a tape recorder switched on. [laughter] [applause] It’s not going to happen.

Richard Dawkins is premising his comments upon the deathbed fallacy: whether we look forward to laying in our deathbeds and only then repent or, as in this case, to besmirch God one final time, there is no deathbed guarantee for anyone. We may be alive and kicking one moment and nothing but an ex-bio-organism the next.

Ultimately, this statement goes to show, more than anything else, that Richard Dawkins is absolutely committed to a worldview. He is therefore absolute certainty that the future will hold no discoveries of the supernatural variety, neither scientific nor personal discoveries.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Pslams

Charles K. Johnson

Atheist Child Rearing

Stephen S. Hall

eschaton

American Atheists

mark of the beast