Words Like Locusts Flew From Her Fingers

The Devil’s In The Details

Salon.com Life | The exorcist: “These were not cases of standard psychopathology. I stumbled on the first case not thinking I would find signs [of possession] because I wanted to scientifically prove that the devil did not exist. But the evidence I found defied my belief and I ended up being converted.”

This salon.com article features an interview with psychiatrist M. Scott Peck where he discusses his new book Glimpses of the Devil. The book details his two experiences with “demonic possession”.

The above quote from Peck comes fairly early in the interview and it immediately tipped me off to one of the problems with his supposed “scientific” research into the existence of demonic possession. Anyone who’s learned even the basics of logic and research technique would be able to tell you that you can’t “prove” a negative of this sort. I can’t prove there’s no such thing as a purple cow. I can only say that I’ve never seen a purple cow–after having looked at a LOT of cows–so the chance of there being such a thing as a purple cow is very slim. The more cows I examine without finding a purple one, the greater the likelihood that there are none. However, I can never prove that purple cows absolutely don’t exist because there will always be a chance that there’s one hiding somewhere that I just haven’t yet come across.

Likewise with “the devil.”

Peck entered into his “research” with a predisposition to think in terms of absolutes: proof or disproof. Since absolute disproof is a logical impossibility in this case, he concluded (illogically) that this was proof of the existence of demonic possession. A real scientist would have concluded that these cases were nothing more than unusual. Once Peck clicked his mind into the “possession” slot, though, he was pretty much off and running. All of his subsequent investigations into the cases were seen through the filter of this “possession” mindset and the mindset itself was reinforced thereby.

It’s a common logical error.

At this point in my harangue, it’s probably a good idea to define one of our terms. When Peck talks about “demons”, he’s not referring to destructive impulses or violent ideas that might exist within a mentally ill person’s mind. He’s talking about actual other beings–evil beings–that have taken up residence inside these people. Okay? Just so we’re clear on that.

Peck goes on: “I feel that the devil knows who I am. The book is called “Glimpses of the Devil” after an early Christian theologian who was trying to tell people that god is spirit, and that the most we can hope for is to get glimpses of his footprints on the ramparts he has walked. The devil being spirit, although a lesser spirit, is even harder to get glimpses of. You can if you look for them, but there’s a great deal we can’t begin to know about the devil and we won’t know unless this is scientifically investigated.”

Oy vey. This guy ought to be kept far, far away from mentally ill people. Imagine the damage he could do! There is a theory that exorcisms can be helpful to people who are severely delusional. The idea is that if a person really believes they are possessed by demons, then an exorcism ceremony can help them to believe the demons are gone and the person can calm down and get back to a more normal kind of life. The danger here, though, is that while you’re returning the patient to a calmer state, you’re still just reinforcing the delusion. Ultimately, the problem still exists. The patient will very likely have a relapse of some sort. It’s my opinion that you’re probably not really doing the delusional person any favors by providing them with an exorcism to scare off illusory demons.

What Peck’s been involved with is even worse than this sort of “therapeutic” exorcism. He actually believes the patient is possessed by demons! Jeesh…he and John Mack, the psychiatrist who believes in alien abduction, should get together.