On "The Devil Did It" in general.

[xiphias]

This post was indirectly prompted by Pat Robertson's rather . . . idiotic, ignorant, offensive, heretical, and blasphemous comments about Haiti making a deal with the Devil (which ignores history, AND sets up Satan as a co-equal deity with God, which is the Catharist ditheistic heresy, and, within Christianity, is considered to be blasphemous).

Anyway, setting that aside -- I wanted to think about the idea of an external Devil that acts as a temptation to evil. In THAT mode, one could argue that, while an earthquake itself is an act of God or Nature or random chance, any destruction that was exacerbated by, say, ignoring building codes in order to cut corners in order to pocket a little extra cash (which DIDN'T happen in THIS case, because Haiti doesn't even HAVE building codes) WOULD be an act of the Devil. It would be possible to make a theologically consistent-with-Christianity-as-I-as-an-outsider-understand-it argument that, while any misery that is caused by random chance is just, y'know, random, any misery that is caused or exacerbated by human selfishness, laziness, or greed IS the work of the Devil.

The idea that our mental makeup includes a propensity to want to have things easy, to ignore the needs of others in preference for our own needs, and to want to be proved right regardless of the actual objective facts. Freud's concept of the "id". The Talmudic Jewish concept of the yetzer ha-ra. The Devil. If you step back about ten paces and squint, they all look pretty much the same to me.

Nonetheless, "one of these things is not like the others", to quote the Sesame Street song. The Devil is the only one of those that is extrinsic to the human mind. The other three are inherent components of ourselves (and which, incidentally, can be, in some sense, harnessed for good -- you can use people's baser natures to encourage them to work for noble causes).

The fact that the other three include the idea of being "harnessed for good" is an advantage of those. But is there an advantage to the concept of the Devil?

I think there is.

We all contain impulses to do good -- "the altruistic impulse", "the superego", "the yetzer ha-tov", "the Spark of the Divine", to give four different names for it. And in all theological systems I know of, this impulse to do good is intrinsic. In some cases, it's a gift from God -- it is an aspect of Grace, or Inspiration, or a quality of being part of the Body of Christ -- but nonetheless, after the Gift, it becomes, and remains, an intrinsic part of the soul.

In systems in which we perceive both the impulses to do good and the impulses to do evil as intrinsic parts of ourselves, we see ourselves as beings of the mixture, in which our selfishness is as much a part of who we are as our desire to help others.

But if we perceived our desire for goodness as intrinsic and our desire for badness as extrinsic, then we can identify more with the better parts of ourselves.

Christian theology, of course, recognizes those baser parts, and, in fact, claims that that is the default state of humanity. But being our DEFAULT state doesn't make it our INHERENT state, and Christian theology states that, by becoming Christian, you swap your inherent, intrinsic nature to one that is attuned to Good. Even though you still have impulses to evil -- those impulses become extrinsic. In Christian theology, the process of becoming Christian is one of swapping your intrinsic and extrinsic impulses -- in the default, the impulse to do evil is intrinsic and the impulse to do good is extrinsic -- once you become Christian, they swap.

I can see societal benefits to people believing that they are intrinsically good -- and dangers to people believing that OTHER people aren't.

Comments

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

i don't think it's a swap in christianity. i think it's that the christian god is supposed to help you repress your baser nature-- amazing grace goes "that saved a wretch like me", not "that saved somebody who used to be a wretch but isn't any more, thanks, god". he's still a wretch who doesn't deserve saving but is saved via whatever.

(hi. i'm not christian. i think christianity is moderately uncharming and the above is a good part of why.)

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I perceive it as "saved a wretch-at-the-time-of-saving like me". But perhaps we'd do better to actually ask a Christian about that . . .

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

Or the author of the lyrics.

Kiralee

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

He died in 1807.

But I just looked him up on Wikipedia . . . interesting guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace#John_Newton.27s_conversion

[papersky.livejournal.com]

And, as a slaver, a genuine wretch.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

He got into trouble for bad behavior working on slave ships.

I mean, how bad do you have to be when the SLAVERS think you're a bad influence?

[dancing-kiralee.livejournal.com]

It appears there has been some langauge drift since then as well, most notably (at least as far as your post is concerned) regarding whether 'grace' is intrinsic or extrinsic.

Kiralee

[403.livejournal.com]

I see plenty of hazard in people believing that they're intrinsically good, with all evil being extrinsic. Makes it easier to justify the performance of evil actions to oneself, and possibly to other people, because moral responsibility is placed at a distance from the actor.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Is there more or less hazard than in believing that evil is intrinsic to oneself? Makes it easier to justify the performance of evil actions as "unavoidable, since they're part of who I am."

Both concepts can be abused. Which is more abusable? (I'm posing the question, not suggesting an answer . . . )

[geekosaur]

The Devil is, in normative Christian theology, understood to be an external force who tempts the inner darkness, actually; one who claims that "the Devil made me do it!" is never correct, the Devil can't make you do random things, but only encourage you to do something that you're considering on some level already. The Southern Baptist Convention has, however, rejected that theology and in fact claim that those who hold by it are themselves tools of the Devil. (In general, this kind of theology falls apart when examined closely because you always end up invoking "God just wanted it that way, that's why!" to resolve inconsistencies, which inevitably leads to "who's actually saved is a crapshoot depending on how God's feeling at the moment".)

The Jewish satan/"accuser" occasionally acts according to the normative Christian view (after all, that's where the Christians got it from), but more often is there to be a witness to "your" weakness. The former is generally understood to be specifically directed; that is, God dispatched an angel to be your satan, to test you in some particular way at some particular time. It's not needed often, as most people don't need any special temptation. In any case, a satan always acts directly under God's orders; there is no such thing as a "fallen angel", and the notion is considered contradictory because an angel not operating under a specific command from God is usually understood to be less than a human. (They're often construed as rather like non-self-aware robots. Various passages in Genesis are even cited as proof that any angel can only perform a single task at a time and must be "reprogrammed" to do something else.)

BTW, the Jewish answer to "unavoidable" is "nonsense; you were given free will for a reason". Doing evil is a choice, not an intrinsic attribute. With special cases for those who have been misled such that they can't make a proper choice.

...hm, this got longer and ramblier than I intended...

[403.livejournal.com]

I tried to find research on the topic, but wasn't able to come up with anything directly relevant. Will comment with actual thought when I have brains available.

[navrins]

I see some parallels here with the view of alcoholism as a disease vs. a moral failing.

Independent of the truth of the matter, or whether there even is such a thing as a "truth" of this particular matter... I can easily imagine that for some alcoholics, believing it to be a disease (extrinsic) is helpful, as it becomes something for which they can forgive themselves past failures and go on to fight against it, while for others, believing it to be a disease would give them permission not to fight it and just think, well, it's not my fault, it's my disease.

Which view is most helpful may very well depend on the particular psychology of the individual in question.

[browngirl.livejournal.com]

I so love it when you spin gold such as this post from dross such as Robertson's bullshit.

*ponders*

[papersky.livejournal.com]

I've been wondering about calling for a New Albigensian Crusade against Pat Robertson. That's the traditional, appropriate and Christian response to the Cathar heresy. Well, either that or I've been half-expecting the Spanish Inquisition...