Nov
2nd
Glimpses of the Devil by M. Scott Peck
By Eve's Apple
I just got done reading M. Scott Peck's "Glimpses of the Devil" and
I have to say it is a rather disturbing book. Up to this
point I have pretty much enjoyed Dr. Peck's books, but I am not
sure where he is going with this one. If he is going in the
direction I think he is going, then I am afraid that I cannot take
him seriously anymore as a writer.
Dr. Peck started out as an agnostic/atheist and over the course of his career found himself moving closer and closer to Christianity, and eventually was baptised. He still has a few good things to say about those of us who don't believe; in other words he is not yet at the point of shoving his religion down everyone's throats. However, I feel he is moving in a dangerous direction.
"Glimpses of the Devil" recounts Dr. Peck's experience with exorcism and how he came to believe that Satan is real. At least he is honest enough to say that he came to this belief based upon his experience and that he knows that this alone won't convince anyone else. However, he is urging his fellow mental health professionals to seriously consider satanic possession as real. This bothers me. I feel that it would be a big step backwards in the treatment of mental illness.
In the field in which I work, one of the key criteria for evaluating a study is "is it reproducible?" By "reproducible" I mean that if a third party who had nothing to do with the actual study conduct examined and analyzed all available data from that particular study, would he or she come up with the same conclusions? I am afraid that Dr. Peck's accounts of the two exorcisms he claimed he and his team performed do not meet this criteria. When he talks about images and sounds that the videotaped sessions failed to pick up, to me this raises a big red flag. This sort of "missing" data would not be acceptable where I work. Obviously if there are things "missing" from the videotape (raw data), then they cannot be reported because they are not reproducible. Dr. Peck calls himself a scientist and ought to know this.
Instead he proposes that based on his experience and not on any hard data or physical evidence of any kind that we should take the invisible spirit world as seriously as we do the visible physical world. While he is certainly entitled to his opinions, there is a reason that mainstream medicine and science have been divorced from religion for the last 3 centuries. It is because of this divorce which he laments that people with epilepsy are no longer considered possessed as they were for so many centuries. Although we have a long way to go in treating mental illnesses, we have come a long way. If demon possession is as real as Dr. Peck says, then why has exorcism been largely abandoned in favor of other therapies?
Also, if possession is real, how do we know that our drugs and other therapies are truly effective in treating these conditions? Might they simply be masking a more serious underlying condition? But there is no way to prove demonic possession. There is no test, no MRI scan. Even with all our technology, diagnosis is still not an exact science, but it is improving. But throw in a factor that is unprovable, untestable, and highly subjective--is this truly medicine or science? I don't think so.
Dr. Peck indicates that he now shares the Christian worldview that this world is a battlefield between God and Satan. Satan, according to Christian theology, was defeated at the Cross and everything from this point on is simply "mopping up." Huh, sounds like Iraq to me. We all know about "mopping up." Satan knows he is defeated but won't quit, so he targets the weakest and most vulnerable. According to Dr. Peck, the two patients he exorcised became possessed as children, that in a moment of ignorance and vulnerability they unknowingly allowed Satan into their lives. He does not say what God was doing while this was going on. I have a lot of problems with this theology and worldview, a lot.
Finally, Dr. Peck admits that he was influenced by the late Malachi Martin, who he calls his mentor. I have not read Martin's book "Hostage to the Devil" and don't plan to. From Dr. Peck's own description of him, Martin was a liar, but he only lied about "small things." It was one of these "small lies" that got Dr. Peck entangled in the whole exorcism business. I don't call this a little thing. I call this pretty serious, and I'd advise Dr. Peck to reconsider his choice of mentor.
Quite frankly, whether or not demons are objectively real (and I don't think they are), the concept has been proven time and time again to be a useful tool to persecute anyone who is on the margins. We only have to look back to the 1980's to see that. (Which incidentially was when Dr. Peck's exorcisms allegedly took place). While I was still a long ways from deconverting then, the hysteria surrounding all these allegations (Procter & Gamble, etc.), helped to put me on the road to deconversion because it brought out a very ugly side of Christianity and Christians. One ultimately that is at the heart of Christianity. Because if this worldview is right, that the universe is a battleground between Satan and God, and we are simply collateral damage, then what?
Dr. Peck started out as an agnostic/atheist and over the course of his career found himself moving closer and closer to Christianity, and eventually was baptised. He still has a few good things to say about those of us who don't believe; in other words he is not yet at the point of shoving his religion down everyone's throats. However, I feel he is moving in a dangerous direction.
"Glimpses of the Devil" recounts Dr. Peck's experience with exorcism and how he came to believe that Satan is real. At least he is honest enough to say that he came to this belief based upon his experience and that he knows that this alone won't convince anyone else. However, he is urging his fellow mental health professionals to seriously consider satanic possession as real. This bothers me. I feel that it would be a big step backwards in the treatment of mental illness.
In the field in which I work, one of the key criteria for evaluating a study is "is it reproducible?" By "reproducible" I mean that if a third party who had nothing to do with the actual study conduct examined and analyzed all available data from that particular study, would he or she come up with the same conclusions? I am afraid that Dr. Peck's accounts of the two exorcisms he claimed he and his team performed do not meet this criteria. When he talks about images and sounds that the videotaped sessions failed to pick up, to me this raises a big red flag. This sort of "missing" data would not be acceptable where I work. Obviously if there are things "missing" from the videotape (raw data), then they cannot be reported because they are not reproducible. Dr. Peck calls himself a scientist and ought to know this.
Instead he proposes that based on his experience and not on any hard data or physical evidence of any kind that we should take the invisible spirit world as seriously as we do the visible physical world. While he is certainly entitled to his opinions, there is a reason that mainstream medicine and science have been divorced from religion for the last 3 centuries. It is because of this divorce which he laments that people with epilepsy are no longer considered possessed as they were for so many centuries. Although we have a long way to go in treating mental illnesses, we have come a long way. If demon possession is as real as Dr. Peck says, then why has exorcism been largely abandoned in favor of other therapies?
Also, if possession is real, how do we know that our drugs and other therapies are truly effective in treating these conditions? Might they simply be masking a more serious underlying condition? But there is no way to prove demonic possession. There is no test, no MRI scan. Even with all our technology, diagnosis is still not an exact science, but it is improving. But throw in a factor that is unprovable, untestable, and highly subjective--is this truly medicine or science? I don't think so.
Dr. Peck indicates that he now shares the Christian worldview that this world is a battlefield between God and Satan. Satan, according to Christian theology, was defeated at the Cross and everything from this point on is simply "mopping up." Huh, sounds like Iraq to me. We all know about "mopping up." Satan knows he is defeated but won't quit, so he targets the weakest and most vulnerable. According to Dr. Peck, the two patients he exorcised became possessed as children, that in a moment of ignorance and vulnerability they unknowingly allowed Satan into their lives. He does not say what God was doing while this was going on. I have a lot of problems with this theology and worldview, a lot.
Finally, Dr. Peck admits that he was influenced by the late Malachi Martin, who he calls his mentor. I have not read Martin's book "Hostage to the Devil" and don't plan to. From Dr. Peck's own description of him, Martin was a liar, but he only lied about "small things." It was one of these "small lies" that got Dr. Peck entangled in the whole exorcism business. I don't call this a little thing. I call this pretty serious, and I'd advise Dr. Peck to reconsider his choice of mentor.
Quite frankly, whether or not demons are objectively real (and I don't think they are), the concept has been proven time and time again to be a useful tool to persecute anyone who is on the margins. We only have to look back to the 1980's to see that. (Which incidentially was when Dr. Peck's exorcisms allegedly took place). While I was still a long ways from deconverting then, the hysteria surrounding all these allegations (Procter & Gamble, etc.), helped to put me on the road to deconversion because it brought out a very ugly side of Christianity and Christians. One ultimately that is at the heart of Christianity. Because if this worldview is right, that the universe is a battleground between Satan and God, and we are simply collateral damage, then what?
Viewing 1 - 1 of 1
