I guess a charitable reading of him would take note of the fact that he's often writing explicitly about people with mystical/religious inclinations, and so the assumption that such individuals would also believe in demonic possession isn't too ludicrous.
However, the main problem I had with this quote was that it came immediately after providing a definition of "dualism" and didn't involve any qualifications (i.e. "some dualists" or "most dualists"), potentially resulting in the layman believing that "all dualists" believe in "possession by devils" and the like, when in actuality there are many dualist philosophers who are atheistic naturalists.
So yeah, I'm all about criticizing dualists, but ideally it would be done without misrepresenting them and acting as if they are all equivalent to the fanatically religious.
Comments 1
(The comment has been removed)
However, the main problem I had with this quote was that it came immediately after providing a definition of "dualism" and didn't involve any qualifications (i.e. "some dualists" or "most dualists"), potentially resulting in the layman believing that "all dualists" believe in "possession by devils" and the like, when in actuality there are many dualist philosophers who are atheistic naturalists.
So yeah, I'm all about criticizing dualists, but ideally it would be done without misrepresenting them and acting as if they are all equivalent to the fanatically religious.
Reply
Leave a comment