Thrilling MPhil survey questions on the problem of evil

Whistler, BC

As some of you know, I completed questionnaires for both my PhD and MPhil research theses through Wales. Below are some selected survey questions from my MPhil.

For a change of pace, I included questions and subjects dealing with the problem of evil that have been dealt with less than some other topics on my blogs. In other words, I deleted questions primarily dealing with hell, free will and determinism which have been discussed in many articles.

I plan to publish my PhD questionnaire once the thesis is passed.

http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/01/mphil-wales-2003.html

CHAPTER SIX

Conclusion

1. The Survey

For my surveys, I have received fifty each, completed of Anglicans and Baptists who have attended a post-secondary denominational college, University or seminary, or are members of one of those denominations who have studied religion at a post-secondary level.

There were no other stipulations I set in drawing up the survey. I was not concerned with age, sex or theological position. I was simply looking for people who met the educational and denominational requirements. I used both regular mail and email to send out the questionnaires, and received back forms via both formats.

For my interviews, I selected five religious leaders from each denomination. These were a combination of people that I knew via my previous educational experiences, churches I had attended, and people that I had contacted via the Internet.

The findings from the surveys and interviews, and the examination of the four authors will shed light on the problem of evil and how it is being considered within two Christian groups. The statements within my survey were a result of my research on the problem of evil. I thought it best to make statements which seemed obviously required for the topic, and I wanted them to appear in a logical order. As well, I wanted to avoid only making statements that supported my own viewpoints on the topic. This means that I would make statements which could support an opposite viewpoint to previous statements. I wanted to demonstrate understanding of other viewpoints from my reading and, as well, I wanted the person filling out the survey to see a logical connection between statements and, that for the sake of consistency, to agree with one statement would sometimes mean that they could not agree with another.

I realize that this could be difficult for a person answering the questionnaire that had not researched the problem of evil, nor read any of my work, but I think a logical consistency in answers demonstrates better understanding of the topic. As well, a problem with the survey method is that the statements are short and do not always explain the full context of what is being stated. This can lead to confusion when answered. I was not, as accused by one person who answered my survey, trying to confuse Christians! I was simply attempting to put across relevant important statements on the problem of evil, and staying logical within that approach.

Statement sixteen:

This statement was stated as: The only true solution to the problem of evil is through the death and resurrection of Christ. Here we have 82% of Anglicans in agreement, 8% not certain, 10% in disagreement. With Baptists, there is definitely a stronger opinion, as 96% are in agreement, with 4% not certain. I placed this statement after the philosophical statements because I believe that the true solution to the problem of evil, in practical terms, is the work of Christ. His work leads to the culminated Kingdom of God where evil is arrested. At this point, the philosophical problem may still exist, but it is rather academic!

Statement eighteen:

This statement stated: The remedy set in motion through Christ’s atoning work on the cross will not culminate until Christ’s second coming. For Anglicans, 68% agreed, 18% were not certain, 14% disagreed. For Baptists, 66% agreed, 12% were not certain, and 22% disagreed. I am in agreement with this statement that obviously Christ’s work will not be culminated until he returns and fully establishes his kingdom.

Statement twenty:

The statement was: Satanic beings are a major force of evil. There was much more skepticism concerning these beings within the Anglican camp in comparison to the Baptist group; however, the ministry of Jesus and his Apostles interacted with Satanic beings and there is no scriptural indication that these beings would not exist today. With the Anglicans, 62% agreed, 18% were not certain, 20% disagreed. With the Baptists, 92% agreed, 6% were not certain, and 2% disagreed.

Statement twenty-one:

This statement was stated: Human suffering will decrease as the Gospel’s influence increases. For Anglicans 36% agreed, 20% were not certain, 44% disagreed. For Baptists, 36% agreed, 14% were not certain, and 50% disagreed.

Statement twenty-two:

This statement stated: Evil and suffering would decrease if the church were more obedient. With Anglicans, 32% agreed, 20% were not certain, 48% disagreed. With Baptists, 36% of the people agreed, 12% were not certain, and 52% disagreed. I am not dogmatic with the issue of how much evil and suffering would decrease if the Gospel had more influence in the world and if the Church were more obedient. Indeed, they are hypothetical statements, but I cautiously lean toward believing the world would be a better place if the Gospel was more prominent in it, and if Christians were less secular in their thinking and more Christ focused. It can be seen that groups can have large impact on public views. Hollywood and the New York media have had a great impact upon western society. For example, western acceptance of homosexuality and abortion on demand has likely been influenced by these two groups. So I think high profile segments of society can definitely influence morality, and morality relates to the amount of evil in society. I do think that a more prominent, loving Christian Church would limit evil somewhat within the world.

Statement twenty-seven:

This statement stated: The case of Job demonstrates that the evil experienced by an individual may not be related to their level of personal godliness. With both groups, 96% agreed and 4% disagreed.

This response is good to see because a Theology which insists that people suffering in the greatest measure are the greatest sinners, is very dangerous as it is error. Job was a very righteous man and he suffered greatly because God willed it for the greater good.

Statement thirty-three:

The thirty-third statement stated: Social conditioning plays a major part in the development of human evil. I think that social conditioning with laws, and social rules can help somewhat to prohibit sinful human nature from exploring and developing evil in greater measure. The fact that we as human beings require laws to live by, shows that our sinful nature needs to be kept in check in order to prevent greater amounts of evil from taking place.

With this statement, 62% of Anglicans agreed, with 20% not certain, and 18% disagreeing. In the Baptist group, 52% of responders agreed, while 20% were not certain, and 28% disagreed.

Funny church signs:

More on fideism

More on fideism

20240402: London, my photo

Preface

Article originally published 20081001, revised for an entry on academia.edu, 20240630

Definitions

Blackburn writes that fideism takes a pessimistic view concerning the role of reason for achieving divine knowledge. The emphasis is instead on the merits of acts of faith. Blackburn (1996: 139).

Stanford.edu

Amesbury, Richard (2022) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fideism, Department of Philosophy, Stanford University.

 
'The term itself derives from fides, the Latin word for faith, and can be rendered literally as faith-ism.'

'Fideism” is the name given to that school of thought—to which Tertullian himself is frequently said to have subscribed—which answers that faith is in some sense independent of—if not outright adversarial toward—reason. In contrast to the more rationalistic tradition of natural theology, with its arguments for the existence of God, fideism holds that reason is unnecessary and inappropriate for the exercise and justification of religious belief.'

---

According to R.K. Johnston, fideism is a term used by Protestant modernists in Paris in the late 19th century. It is often used as a pejorative term to attack various strands of Christianity as forms of irrationalism. Johnston (1999: 415). Fideists, following Kant, who noted that reason cannot prove religious truth is said to base their religious understanding upon religious experience alone. Reason is believed to be incapable of establishing faith's certainty or credibility. Johnston (1999: 415). Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note that fideism states religious and theological truth must be accepted without the use of reason. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). An extreme form of fideism states that reason misleads one in religious understanding. Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling (1999: 51). Johnston explains that the concept of fideism has little value as most theologians would not deny the use of reason. The term fideism is useful when it describes an excessive emphasis on the subjective aspects of Christianity. Johnston (1999: 415).

More on fideism

From website writing, as expected, I have been in a few debates/discussions over the years. Now that I have a career with the government (2022 forward), those types of discussions will be especially very rare, as I am just too busy with career work during the week and then academic work on the weekend. With interactions persons are reasonable and kind most of the time as ideas can be exchanged and feelings are not hurt. However, at times a few people on certain issues seem to become very set in their ways and closed-minded. The same can be stated with church interactions.

Having studied for decades, I realize it often takes quite a bit of knowledge and understanding of an academic subject before I can become dogmatic concerning it. With all academic subjects, I am more of a student than a teacher. This is certainly the same, almost universally, for other persons if they are honest with themselves. My areas of expertise are within philosophical theology and theistic philosophy of religion, while holding to a Biblical, Reformed tradition. These are the nature of God, theodicy, the problem (s) of evil, free will and determinism. But I can still learn within these areas that I have been working on.

It appears to me that many persons with both religious and non-religious worldviews at times concerning certain subjects are fideists. I realize that fideism is traditionally connected to religious belief, in particular Christianity. However, I am expanding the definition of fideist and fideism for this article. They operate with an over-reliance on faith, as they rely heavily on the understanding of their own worldview and perspective at the expense of reason, other views and evidence which may challenge their own ideas. Again, I realize fideism is usually defined in the context of religion, in particular, the Christian faith, but I reason some non-religious persons can also potentially rely too much on faith over reason in the rejection of a particular religious position and within the personal worldview held to. Fideism in an unorthodox fashion could be defined as faith over reason in the rejection of religious truth.

To use figurative language, just because someone is born onto the green team, or has had an intellectual and/or emotional experience with the green team and joined it, does not make the green team the team with the most truth in comparison to the blue, red, yellow, black, or white teams, etcetera. Whether or not the green team is essentially correct in worldview is dependent on reason and evidence, and faith can be involved.

My Biblical, Reformed view is that God is the ultimate judge of each person. New Testament theology means that salvation alone is through Jesus Christ's applied atoning and resurrection work for a person. Otherwise, post-mortem, a person is left to be judged according to works righteousness. At the same time having rejected the Gospel work of salvation.

Hebrews 9:27-28 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

27 And just as it is destined for people to die once, and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

I am not against faith. As finite, I lack infinite knowledge. I have can have finite knowledge only. Christianity is dependent on reasonable faith, as God revealed himself historically through scribes, prophets, apostles and Jesus Christ himself. This took place over 1500 years and through various persons and in various regions. It was documented in Scripture and individual books were copied many times. There was also an oral tradition. Christianity also relies on archaeology to verify that places described in the Bible actually existed as described.

There are primary issues in Christianity that require reason and faith, and there are secondary issues that require reason and faith. When Christians are dealing with critics of the faith, primary and secondary doctrines and positions can be challenged. When Christians are dealing with other Christians with differing views on certain subjects, for the most part, primary doctrines are agreed upon and secondary doctrines and positions can be challenged. In my humble opinion, near maximally efficient Christian witness in these areas requires significant use of reason, research and open-mindedness, to make sure that presentations are not largely blinded by bias and fideism.

I do not claim complete objectivity. In many ways, we are made up of what we read, hear, and experience. But, in a sense, all things are intellectually up for grabs, and up for the intellectual challenge. We hold the primary doctrines of Christianity as essential and they can be defended well with biblical manuscript evidence, Bible versions, theology and theistic philosophy of religion. As well, at times, other academic disciplines. Through documented religious history, within the Christian community, we trust that God has revealed himself and is guiding his own through the Holy Spirit. Christianity should consist of a most reasonable faith.

In a fideistic approach, human beings that insist something must be true will likely find an intellectual way for it to be true to him/her, no matter what the evidence. I personally always ask the Lord, as in biblically, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, for guidance when writing these articles and when discussing these subjects. Being guided by God in the process of finding the truth is of course of primary importance.

Bibliography

Tuesday, July 15, 2008 Fideism

AMERIKS, KARL (1999) ‘Kant, Immanuel’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

GUYER, PAUL AND ALLEN W, in KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

HUME, DAVID (1739-1740)(1973) ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press. 

HUME, DAVID (1779)(2004) Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Digireads.com/Neeland Media LLC, Lawrence, Kansas. 

JOHNSTON, R.K.(1996) ‘Fideism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan. http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co. http://philosophy.eserver.org/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt 

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

KLEIN, PETER D. (1996) ‘Certainty’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

KLEIN, PETER D. (1998, 2005). ‘Epistemology’, in E. Craig (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, London, Routledge. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (1981) Encountering Evil, Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Atlanta, John Knox Press. 

PHILLIPS, D.Z. (2005) The Problem of Evil and the Problem of God, Fortress Press, Minneapolis. 

WITTGENSTEIN, LUDWIG (1951)(1979) On Certainty, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fideism 

 

The Phantom

Have I been a 'bad boy' with all my debating lately on my websites? I think not, but I expressed the desire by email to a few supporters for a few of us to back off from such pursuits for awhile, while at the same time continuing to support our reciprocal links and commenters. I of course do not have control over outside commenters other than deciding whether or not to publish their comments. I cannot guarantee how I will need to approach a comment, but this article expresses my current mood and attitude. I debate at times for the sake of learning about the truth and defending the truth. I am more concerned with defending Biblical, Reformed theology, philosophically, than I am being an apologist for a Reformed, Calvinist position. I have never claimed to be a Calvinist.

However, many of my positions are Reformed and so after many years of intense study I am comfortable stating I am within the Reformed theological camp. Those of other views, Christian or non-Christian, liberal Christian or conservative Christian, are welcome. But, I do not want to argue on and on in circles. At times we need to simply state a case and then leave it at that, as we have made our best points and there is no point repeating them over and over. In other words, there is no point beating an opponent over the head. I am interested in loving others as much as I love myself (Mark 12, Matthew 22, Luke 10, Galatians 5). I will not tolerate ad hominem attacks. 

Douglas Walton explains that argumentation ad hominem is an argument against the man. It is a personal attack against an arguer to refute the argument. In the abusive form the character of the arguer is attacked. These arguments are often used to attack an opponent unfairly. Walton (1996: 374). Simon Blackburn explains that ad hominem is attempting to disprove what a person is stating by attacking the person, or less commonly by praising the person. Commonly it is a way of arguing forcefully or not, against a view without advancing the counter argument. Blackburn (1996: 24). This latter concept would be that of arguing against a held perspective without making any reasonable counter-arguments. 

From: logical fallacy 

Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem) Definition: The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps. There are three major forms of Attacking the Person: ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion. ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances. ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches. 

I will not, with God's help attack someone personally within the context of a debate or discussion in order to strengthen my case, because it does not work. I also will not accept this treatment in return. This is not to conclude that it is ad hominem to state that someone is 'this or is that' if it is accurate and out of the context of a debate and discussion. I can avoid the use of ad hominem against someone in a debate that is being 'a this or that', but I simply do not use a personal attack within the argument. So, yes, sometimes someone is being a jerk, but I do not use that as a form of argumentation.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

WALTON, DOUGLAS (1996) ‘Informal Fallacy’, in Robert Audi, (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

   

Autumn

Infinite revisited

Belgium, (photo from trekearth.com)

My Infinite article was first presented in 2006, but I did not receive many comments. I now have more readers and wish to present this article with some slight changes.

Brian Davies writes that the English word infinity comes from the Latin word infinitas, meaning boundless or endless. Davies (1999: 298). Davies states that some have ascribed the term infinity with various degrees of understanding of substance, time, space, the universe, numbers, and classes. Davies (1999: 298). Davies mentions that many philosophers have dealt with the issue of infinity through the centuries, but Biblically speaking there is not a doctrine of infinity. Davies (1999: 298). I can give Davies this point if by this he means that within Scripture there is not a specific explanation of a doctrine of the infinite God. Davies writes that God's infinity is viewed as marking his perfection, and that God alone is understood as infinite. As God is uncreated and uncreatable, he is infinite. Davies (1999: 298). God would not be limited by time and space, and so contrary to the previous comments time and space would be considered finite and not infinite within traditional Christian thought. God would be superior to all creatures and would be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and eternal. Davies (1999: 298).

Davies notes that process theology has postulated that God's personal nature means that he can change as he works within created time. Davies (1999: 228). Process theology reasons that God possibly develops in personality as he deals with his created beings. Davies (1999: 228).

I would state that if God's nature can be changed and develop within time, then he is not infinite, but rather the most advanced finite being in existence. A finite being that is beyond matter, perhaps. I reject process theology's notion of a finite God, for at least the following reasons.

If God is not infinite then he cannot posses any infinite attributes, and this would prohibit God from being eternal. To be eternal would mean that one has unlimited life. If God is not eternal, then how did God come to exist? If there was a God that created God and so on, we have the problem of vicious regress in which we are stuck with an infinite regressions of Gods. If it is suggested at some point the regression ends, why cannot we simply reject the vicious regress and state that the Biblical God, or a God, is the only God? To state that God simply came to exist from nothing does not seem reasonable, and the suggestion answers nothing. If God is merely finite, then we have a problem of determining the first cause.

Many scientists and scholars reason that the universe is 15-20 billion years old, and believe in a 'Big Bang Theory'. Whether the universe is billions, millions, or thousands of years is not the primary concern of this article, but with a big bang model or like, the universe in agreement with the Bible, is not eternal. Billions, millions, or thousands of years is more time than any of us can comprehend and may be considered perhaps from a human perspective, virtual eternity, but is not actual eternity, and therefore is not infinite. Since God created matter in Genesis, Chapter 1, it is clear that nothing within the material, physical realm existed prior to creation. This would leave us with God, and perhaps the angelic beings prior to the existence of matter. It can be deduced that angels cannot be infinite in nature, because if they were limitless in nature they would themselves be God. We cannot have two or more limitless beings by definition as they simply would be an aspect of one infinite, eternal God of one substance. Thiessen notes angels are not eternal although the Bible does not state when they were created. Thiessen (1956: 191). Thiessen thinks angels may have been formed at the Genesis 1 creation or just after. Thiessen (1956: 191). I would of course have no definite idea, but think that angels were created within time. I do not reason that angels existed in a timeless state with God. I would deduce that even non-physical finite spiritual beings must exist within time, although not necessarily within physical matter, in order to process thought patterns, as God alone is all-knowing and does not need to process thoughts within time. I would conclude this point by stating that God alone existed before the creation of matter and angelic beings.

Millard J. Erickson discusses the Scriptural concept of God's existence in contrast to that of his creation. In Acts 17: 24-25 it states that God does not dwell physically, but is the creator of everything. Erickson notes that God is called the first and last in Isaiah 44: 6, and the Alpha and Omega in Revelation 1:8, 21:6, and 22:13. The idea being shown here is that God has always existed and will always exist. Erickson (1994: 273-274).

As pointed out previously, before the creation of matter and the angels nothing else would have existed. There is also the idea put across in Scripture that God is immutable and does not change in his nature. Malachi 3:6 states that the Lord does not change and Erickson views this as referring to God’s nature and attributes.

It can be stated here that the God of the Bible is not pantheistic as the creator is totally independent in nature from his creation. Erickson (1994: 303). God existed before the creation of matter as a purely spiritual being, and was not dependent on matter or anything other than himself for existence. God is not equal to his creation or matter, he is beyond it. God is also not to be considered in a panentheistic context as although the creator does sustain all of his creation through his power he is not the vital force within all he creates. Erickson (1994: 307). God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree. God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it, where as in my view a traditional Christian understanding would be that God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. If God is the vital force within a tree, it could be argued that the tree’s essence is infinite and eternal and I think that this would be error. In contrast, I think that God sustains and energizes all of his creation while allowing it existence separate from his own. The tree remains finite although it is sustained by God. When the tree dies so does its essence, although the related finite matter continues to exist.

God and not his creation, is alone infinite.

DAVIES, BRIAN (1999) ‘Infinity’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.



I do not want to dwell on graphic evils, but the extreme case below can serve as an example of why certain religious views need to be strongly intellectually challenged at times.

From Sky News

satanists

Eight suspected Satanists have been arrested in Russia for allegedly stabbing to death and eating the body parts of four teenagers, reports claim.

Russian police officers have 'arrested eight'

The four victims were lured one by one to a country cottage in the region of Yaroslavl on the Volga River, a popular Russian tabloid said.

The teenagers were then stabbed "666 times" each, as part of a Satanic ritual, the daily said, quoting investigators.

The victims were allegedly forced to get drunk before being stabbed and dismembered.

Their killers then lit a bonfire under a tree near the cottage where they cooked and ate their victims' body parts, the report claimed.

Hair from the victims was apparently found in the embers of the bonfire.

The report also quoted interrogations with the suspects and said police had intercepted their phone calls following the killings.

The victims - three girls and one boy - were all aged between 16 and 17 and belonged to local "goth circles", a subculture that is very popular in provincial Russia, Komsomolskaya Pravda said.