A few days ago, Rod Dreher posted some thoughts about séances, mediums, and the like. This prompted me to arrange some thoughts about the topic as a formal argument.
- Either disembodied spirits operate in the world, or they do not.
- If they do not, we ought not to do business with mediums, as they would not be able to deliver the service which they advertise.
- Moreover, any good we might incidentally receive in the course of our dealings with mediums would be, on the one hand, offset by the harm we would be doing by supporting a fraudulent business, and, on the other hand, would likely be available in other forms, offered by trustworthy psychotherapists or other honest dealers.
- If disembodied spirits do operate in the world, either they have intentions concerning our well-being, or they do not.
- If they do not have intentions concerning our well-being, we ought not to do business with mediums, as they would in such a case have no messages to convey to us.
- If they do have intentions concerning our well-being, either those intentions are all alike, or they are not all alike.
- If they are all alike, either all of them are friendly, or all of them are hostile.
- If all the intentions disembodied spirits have concerning our well-being are friendly, the degree of suffering and injustice humans endure in the world suffices to prove that those spirits are of little consequence in the world.
- If all the intentions disembodied spirits have concerning our well-being are hostile, the degree of prosperity and good feeling humans enjoy in the world suffices to prove that those spirits are of little consequence in the world.
- If disembodied spirits are of little consequence in the world, we ought not to do business with mediums, as the information they offer is of insufficient practical value to justify the investment, not only of money, but of intellectual attention and emotional energy, which they demand.
- If disembodied spirits exist, have intentions concerning our well-being, and are of great consequence in the world, points 7 and 8 above show that some of them must be friendly towards us, while others are hostile.
- There is not now and likely will never be an empirical test to determine whether a particular disembodied spirit is friendly or hostile in its intentions concerning our well-being.
- Either there are mediums who can facilitate communication between us and disembodied spirits, or there are not.
- If there are not, then we ought not to do business with mediums, for the same reasons explained under point 2 above.
- If there are, then we ought not to do business with mediums, as we would have no empirical test to determine whether the spirit communicating with us through the medium was a friendly spirit providing information that would lead us to good, or a hostile spirit providing information that would lead to our destruction.
- Even if a friendly spirit did provide us with information that would benefit us, the success of that act of communication would likely bring us back to the medium for further consultations. Since there is no test to distinguish friendly spirits from hostile ones, each further consultation would represent another opportunity for a hostile spirit to approach us.
- Therefore, we ought not under any circumstances do business with mediums.
I rather wonder what the relationship is between a logical construction like this and the sorts of games fortune-tellers play. Games such as the Tarot, the I Ching, the Ouija board, etc.
Once, when I was in a logic class in college, the professor said something he usually had occasion to say at least once a week, “A valid argument is one where, if you accept that the premises are true, you must accept that the conclusion is also true.” What made this occasion different was what he said next: “You may wonder where that ‘must’ comes from. Who says you ‘must’ accept the conclusion of a valid argument if its premises are true? That would appear to be an ethical statement. In that sense logic is a subfield of ethics.” This remark was particularly striking coming as it did from a professor who taught only logic, metaphysics, and the philosophy of mathematics. He never taught ethics or anything too obviously derivative of ethics. But it did seem unavoidable to him that logic was ultimately rooted in the moral sense.
A culture might regard a particular divination game as a holy act of obligation. It is certainly the case that many groups of people defined by religion look on each others’ practices as so much traffic with the spiritual forces of darkness. Perhaps the rules of logic according to which I constructed the argument above would seem to some or other religious group to be as peculiar and as unwholesome as the rules of a séance would appear to me.