"Oh
No, Not Demons!"
by
Christopher Orapello
Despite
the alleged scientific pursuit and claims of some paranormal
researchers, the term "demon" still often exists
within their "scientific" vocabulary. The use
of this word seemingly occurs regardless of the religious
and social associations and implications such terminology
can have on other people and families. How and why can
this be the case if these researchers are in fact using
a scienctific approach? The simple reason for this is
because these individuals are not actually pursuing science.
Instead, they are directly or indirectly promoting their
theology and their philosophy of life and existence without
consideration for the effect and impact their approach
may have upon others. If those in question were pursuing
science, they would first be able to prove that demons
exist, have documentation to illustrate this fact, and
then show how the reality of demons in general relates
to the situation or case in question. Since proving the
existence and the independent reality of demons is impossible,
the sheer mention of the word "demon" in a pronounced
"scientific investigation" is ludicrous.
Any
form of evidence regarding the existence of a demon is
full of speculation, as well as religious and/or personal
bias. In posession cases, all that is experienced are
outlandish actions and vocalizations of a person. In haunting
cases, when a "demon" is a feared presence,
this is more often a conclusion based upon seemingly "demonic"
activity. Despite either diagnosis, none of which actually
address the reality of the situation, if the term "demon"
is used, it is in fact a scapegoat for what unknowingly
could be occuring. This being a horrible assumption made
by the investigator; one which only propagates ignorance
and a senseless concern or fear; does nothing positive
for the situation in question and does not even attempt
to understand or address a potentially deeper problem
which could be the actual source of the alleged "demonic"
activity (ie. severe depression, mental instabilty, abuse,
etc.). If the pursuit of science is the corner stone
of the work of a paranormal investigator, then no assumptions
can be made and any and all situations are approached
and handled in an appropriate manner and are noticed,
or realized, prior to any investigation or serious investment
of time on the part of the researcher.
Regardless
of the absurdity of using the term "demon" or
even the consideration of the possible presence of such
a being during an investigation, the concept is still
often used by ignorant researchers who have even been
so bold as to use the term "nonhuman" as a substitution
for the term "demon," as if that is anymore
relealistic or knowledge based. Regardless of the name
used, it would seem that the interest of understanding
the unknown has been abandoned or replaced by the potential
fear of relearning about the nature of existence, which
could in fact alter or challenge their current belief
system. Or the seeming presence of a violent entitity
or evidence of harm and chaos in an environment, as the
result of paranormal phenomenon, is instantly used as
a means of confirming their beliefs instead of allowing
their scientific curiosity to cause them to question and
analyze what is going on without previous conceived notions
or assumptions.
Besides
being unscientific, it is also extremely unethical to
use such a religiously charged word like the word "demon"
since this phrase conveys too much faulty information.
At the same time, it allows for just as much interpretation
on the part of the listener, which could intensify or
negatively embellish the given situation.
For
example, using the term "demon" may cause one
to believe...
Some
of these examples may seem extreme or ridiculous, but people
often don't know any better and in some cases only know
what they are told, which can be an unfortunate thing unto
itself.
Aside
from the unscientific side of using this word, the term
"demon" can have a huge effect on some households,
which is another reason why it should never be used (examples
listed above). So, what is one to call "demonic activity"
if this word should not be used? One suggestion is if the
alleged activity fits the protocol of a poltergeist, then
call it a poltergeist, if not then simply call it what it
is, ex: "violent paranormal phenomena". As obvious
as that suggestion sounds, a realistic and simple logical
approach often eludes a lot of researchers. Other words
to use are "entity" to refer to that which seems
to exist or "presence" to refer to a feeling one
may get. If one needs to refer to something or describe
particular phenomena the best words to use are those which
aren't loaded terms or words which may convey too much or
may potentially upset or effect others by their use.
If
you consider yourself a scientist, then you may agree
that a part of knowing and learning as a scientist is
first realizing what is currently unknown or unknowable.
If one is able to realize this, then it is in that moment,
when they realize the short comings of their understanding,
when they truly begin to understand.
A
big part of pursuing paranormal research as a science
is recognizing results, activity, and phenomena for what
they are. It is important to realize that not everything
odd captured on video or by a recorder is evidence of
the paranormal and some paranormal evidence is just too
questionable to use as evidence. As scientists pursuing
a skeptical field of research we have to be careful of
what we do and what we present to the world. By doing
so, we are better able to understand the paranormal and
our experiences, but more so the better we are able to
help unknowing individuals understand their experiences
and their lives.
Related
Articles
Demonology
and Paranormal Research by Christopher Orapello
Occultism
and the Occult by Christopher Orapello
