Fortunately, 21st Century Christianity in the West Has Largely Abandoned Superstitious and Barbaric Witch Hunts
Kevin R. Henke
November 2, 2022
In Henke (2022bi), I made the following statements:
“Previously, I discussed the alchemy stories associated with Theophrastus Paracelsus in Henke (2022b) and Henke (2022bg). Lundahl (2022k) then makes some additional comments about Paracelsus and the Enlightenment:
“I do not need to believe Paracelsus had an actual contract with the devil, since that could be a misunderstanding on the part of his contemporaries, just as Gerbert (Pope Sylvester II, if I recall correctly) was considered as having made such a contract, because he was exceptionally using some not commonly used mathematical algorithms, probably no more diabolic than long division.
That there is in the Enlightenment era a story about his changing a copper penny into gold doesn't break this, since the Enlightenment era was (like Henke) obnoxiously negligent of distinctions about historicity and generally started to believe legends were a sort of fiction, to which one could obviously add.
However, it could be that the Küssdenpfennig legend should actually be classified as fake history (rather than entertaining fiction) : the owners of that house wanting to obliterate a memory of stingy rich people who "kissed each penny" like Uncle Scrooge, by claiming (falsely) it came from a "near miracle" by Paracelsus, done to sympathetic poor people.”
In this case, I at least agree with Lundahl (2022k) that there is no rational reason to believe any of these stories about Paracelsus or others having contracts with the devil. However, I’m the skeptic in this debate. It’s Mr. Lundahl that cannot separate cartoonish delusions (e.g., Genesis 3) from reality (e.g., an ancient Earth). I also do not automatically believe any story coming out of the Enlightenment. All stories must be verified with evidence, no matter if they are in today’s New York Times, recorded in the Enlightenment or found in the Bible. As I state in Henke (2022b), Henke (2022dv) and Henke (2022eu), the first reaction to any claim should be skepticism. Skepticism is the default position. This is why good evidence should always accompany a new claim. If the purveyors of a claim simply promise to provide evidence later or if they claim that large numbers of people already accept it as fact or that the “earliest known audience” believed it, it’s wise not to accept the claim until reliable evidence comes forward.”
Lundahl (2022v) then comments on my bolded statement:
“That is more than I said. I said the demonic explanation is, at least within the Christian culture, one version of the supernatural highly likely to get attached to people for no better reason than those people having extraordinary achievements. Confer what I said about Hercules and Theseus in a pagan culture.
So, the supernatural least likely to be true is the one that is most likely to be believed for inadequate reasons. One may be suspicion against an enemy or potential enemy, one may be simple explanations of extraordinary but on the whole natural achievements, and the modern version would be things like complex high functioning mental illnesses. For instance "syndrome du savant" ...”
Although I don’t see any adequate reason for the supernatural being true, I mostly agree with Mr. Lundahl here. We are all too familiar with the barbaric witch hunts of the past and how “the demonic explanation is, at least within the Christian culture, one version of the supernatural highly likely to get attached to people for no better reason than those people having extraordinary achievements.” At least in the west, Christians have largely gotten over this superstition, rejected such barbaric Bible verses as Exodus 22:18, and now know better.