John Edwards: An overall positive or negative? [Archive]

Beren

Sep21-03, 07:40 PM

How. I keep hearing the claim, but I don't see the evidence

John Edwards makes a ridiculous amount of money, and his seminars cost not a small amount, either. Think of what benefit we would have if that money went into research or a science program.

As for religion doing any good, at all, that's simply nonsense. (well, I'm two-sided on this account, but I'll get to that). First off, the amount of money poored into religion is astronomical. For an example, I went to church today, with a good friend. While listening to the preacher (who, among other things, screamed of the evils of homosexuality and modern progress) I discerned that the church within the past two years had made in excess of $120,000. Think of what that money could have done for research, for teaching, for children. But what are they doing with it? They're using it to build a larger church. It's sickening.

Another thing that struck me was how eager the people soaked up his biased and hateful opinions. There was a woman behind me, around 50 years old by sight, who repeated "Amen" and "Godbless" after every sentence. If we were anywhere but church, she would have been instantly diagnosed with a mental disorder. Think of how many people that applies to.

John Edwards is an extension of this (as most people seem to think that he communicates with "Heaven"). While churches do "Good" in bringing help to some, they bring misery and segregation (and have for many a year) to an equal amount of the populace. The ways that they impede progress and the sanity of human race are, in no other terms, appalling.

Now for the other side, I have (at times) a very low view of the human race, and religion continues to remind me that it keeps the brainwashed barbarians out of my way for at least a portion of the week. However, I would gladly give up that moment of un-madness for the sanity of my species.

Ivan Seeking

Sep21-03, 08:07 PM

Originally posted by Beren
John Edwards makes a ridiculous amount of money, and his seminars cost not a small amount, either. Think of what benefit we would have if that money went into research or a science program.

I understand the objection. For me, the same objection lies also with many, many other examples e.g. athletes, rock stars, TV stars, movie stars, Vegas magic acts, many CEOs, car salesmen, some lawyers, psychologists, VIDEO GAMES, etc. I can argue that he is no different than any other entertainer in this regard. ...

As for religion doing any good, at all, that's simply nonsense. (well, I'm two-sided on this account, but I'll get to that). First off, the amount of money poored into religion is astronomical. For an example, I went to church today, with a good friend. While listening to the preacher (who, among other things, screamed of the evils of homosexuality and modern progress) I discerned that the church within the past two years had made in excess of $120,000. Think of what that money could have done for research, for teaching, for children. But what are they doing with it? They're using it to build a larger church. It's sickening.

First, $120,000 for an institution like a church is not much money. This depends of course on the size of the congregation, but these terms, these are not big bucks by any means. Next, why is building a bigger church any more sickening than building the Astrodome, or Disneyland, or a theater? Finally, I agree, stay away from the fundamentalist if you expect tolerance. Don’t even get me started on hypocrisy. Enough said.

Another thing that struck me was how eager the people soaked up his biased and hateful opinions. There was a woman behind me, around 50 years old by sight, who repeated "Amen" and "Godbless" after every sentence. If we were anywhere but church, she would have been instantly diagnosed with a mental disorder. Think of how many people that applies to.

John Edwards is an extension of this (as most people seem to think that he communicates with "Heaven"). While churches do "Good" in bringing help to some, they bring misery and segregation (and have for many a year) to an equal amount of the populace. The ways that they impede progress and the sanity of human race are, in no other terms, appalling.

Strictly speaking, this is about Edwards and not religion in general. Though clearly a part of the discussion, religion plays no direct role in what Edwards does. He is in fact considered evil by some religious views. This is really about whether the truth is more important than happiness...in a social context of course.

Now for the other side, I have (at times) a very low view of the human race, and religion continues to remind me that it keeps the brainwashed barbarians out of my way for at least a portion of the week. However, I would gladly give up that moment of un-madness for the sanity of my species.

IMO, regarding your most basic objections [aside from money], it is not implicitly atheism or religion that is the problem, it is intolerance.

Beren

Sep21-03, 10:04 PM

IMO, regarding your most basic objections [aside from money], it is not implicitly atheism or religion that is the problem, it is intolerance.

My intolerance?

Not at all. I've kept an open mind, but I'm a humanitist. I whole-heartedily believe the only way to continue our species is to throw out the mythology.

Strictly speaking, this is about Edwards and not religion in general. Though clearly a part of the discussion, religion plays no direct role in what Edwards does. He is in fact considered evil by some religious views. This is really about whether the truth is more important than happiness...in a social context of course.

By some religious views, yes, but he's a metaphorical "Saint" to others. And to even ask whether or not truth is more important than happiness is one of the sickest things I've ever heard. Living your life in mass-delusia may be comforting, but it's also detrimental to the species.

It's coming to the point where the most intelligent people are those that don't believe in God, and they therefore mate with other intelligent people of the same persuasion. The Stupid get more so just as the intelligent stay intelligent.

First, $120,000 for an institution like a church is not much money. This depends of course on the size of the congregation, but these terms, these are not big bucks by any means.

For one small church in the relative middle of nowhere? Imagine the income of the papacy. It adds up very, very quicky, trust me.

Next, why is building a bigger church any more sickening than building the Astrodome, or Disneyland, or a theater? Finally, I agree, stay away from the fundamentalist if you expect tolerance. Don’t even get me started on hypocrisy. Enough said.

An Astrodome promotes public entertainment and physical development of athletes, plus the fact that athletics puts many many kids through school wouldn't otherwise have the chance. A Theatre is the new media for creative expression. If you're an artless person, say what you will, but it must be a terrible way to live. And Disneyland, well..honestly, everyone needs a vacation.

I understand the objection. For me, the same objection lies also with many, many other examples e.g. athletes, rock stars, TV stars, movie stars, Vegas magic acts, many CEOs, car salesmen, some lawyers, psychologists, VIDEO GAMES, etc. I can argue that he is no different than any other entertainer in this regard.

The exception is quite obvious. Those people give a liable service to humanity, where Jogn Edwards promotes only ridiculous psuedosciences with no basis in anything proven. He's just another example of duping the american populace into another manipulation of delusia.

Don't even get me started on the 700 club.

Zero

Sep21-03, 10:24 PM

I think true, lasting happiness comes from accepting the truth...telling lies is ultimately harmful to those sorry people who believe in it.

Beren

Sep21-03, 10:25 PM

Well said.

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by Beren
My intolerance?

Not at all. I've kept an open mind, but I'm a humanitist. I whole-heartedily believe the only way to continue our species is to throw out the mythology.

Therefore this is the truth. If someone disagrees? Shown later.

By some religious views, yes, but he's a metaphorical "Saint" to others. And to even ask whether or not truth is more important than happiness is one of the sickest things I've ever heard.

Then you have led a very sheltered life.

Living your life in mass-delusia may be comforting, but it's also detrimental to the species.

It got us this far didn't it? Who can say?

It's coming to the point where the most intelligent people are those that don't believe in God, and they therefore mate with other intelligent people of the same persuasion. The Stupid get more so just as the intelligent stay intelligent.

Now we see your religion - I'm right. I'm smarter.

For one small church in the relative middle of nowhere? Imagine the income of the papacy. It adds up very, very quicky, trust me.

I grew up in a Catholic church. We knew where all the money went and it wasn't to Rome.

An Astrodome promotes public entertainment and physical development of athletes, plus the fact that athletics puts many many kids through school wouldn't otherwise have the chance. A Theatre is the new media for creative expression. If you're an artless person, say what you will, but it must be a terrible way to live. And Disneyland, well..honestly, everyone needs a vacation.

So since these things have value to you they're OK. Let me write this down. Helping a hopelessly grieving mother is bad. Disneyland is good. Got it.

The exception is quite obvious. Those people give a liable service to humanity, where Jogn Edwards promotes only ridiculous psuedosciences with no basis in anything proven. He's just another example of duping the american populace into another manipulation of delusia.

Don't even get me started on the 700 club.

But drinking and gambling and video games that make our kids fat and lazy are OK? Oh yes, how many lives are ruined by extreme sports? Also, should we open the topic of athletes as role models. How about if we start with basketball?. Many woman will tell you that sports keep dads from spending time with their kids.

And don't get me started on the crud that the entertainment industry does to pollute the minds of kids. What are the lyrics for latest gang-rap cr*p.

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by Zero
I think true, lasting happiness comes from accepting the truth...telling lies is ultimately harmful to those sorry people who believe in it.

Even if true for you, what is your evidence that this is true for everyone?

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 03:24 AM

You are both ignoring the fact that many people never do recover from devestating loss. Sometimes, "we just can't handle the truth".

Tsu

Sep22-03, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Beren
Now for the other side, I have (at times) a very low view of the human race, and religion continues to remind me that it keeps the brainwashed barbarians out of my way for at least a portion of the week. However, I would gladly give up that moment of un-madness for the sanity of my species.
I'm assuming that, since you have no problem referring to people who attend church as 'brainwashed barbarians', you would have no problem to them addressing you as 'brainless moron'?

Zero

Sep22-03, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
You are both ignoring the fact that many people never do recover from devestating loss. Sometimes, "we just can't handle the truth". they need therapy, not false hope!

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by Zero
they need therapy, not false hope!

It is for closure, not false hope. Also, this does not exclude therapy. In fact, perhaps this mdeium stuff is really an excellent way to resolve the psychological trauma of loss...like roll playing. Don't psychologists use games to trick the mind into resolution or recognition? How is this different? We pay the shrink big bucks, why not Edwards? If it works, it works! Maybe Edwards can help more than psychologists can because people really believe in Edwards. They know that psychology is rational.

It's not like people go around talking with their dead relatives all the time just becuase they saw Edwards once. Edwards may simply act as a catalyst that aids the grieving process.

Look, in reality, this guy turns my stomach. I can hardly stand to watch him for more than a few minutes. I am only following the logic.

BoulderHead

Sep22-03, 03:21 PM

It is for closure, not false hope.
I thought funerals were for closure!
Also, this does not exclude therapy. In fact, perhaps this mdeium stuff is really an excellent way to resolve the psychological trauma of loss...like roll playing. Don't psychologists use games to trick the mind into resolution or recognition? How is this different? We pay the shrink big bucks, why not Edwards? If it works, it works! Maybe Edwards can help more than psychologists can because people really believe in Edwards. They know that psychology is rational.
I had an idea; Mr. Edwards should be given an honorary PhD and allowed to practice. He can set up shop next to Dr. Phil… [:D]

Edwards may simply act as a catalyst that aids the grieving process.
That’s assuming those people were grieving in the first place, which I’m unsure of. If someone in the audience had attended merely out of curiosity to see his performance and Mr. Edwards convinced them they had a relative existing in a state of horrible torment, burning away in Hell for example, he might be accused of opening old wounds rather than healing present ones. Oh yeah, but I forgot; Mr. Edwards only brings good tidings, which means 'healing' is the only thing he can be accused of...
I hope this actually means I will live happily ever after provided enough people still living are made to believe that I am.

Look, in reality, this guy turns my stomach. I can hardly stand to watch him for more than a few minutes. I am only following the logic.
It’s an individual choice whether to believe what we want to believe or to face uncertainty. In this respect I view Mr. Edwards as being but little different from a theologian, and people have the right to attend the service of their choice. It may be good for many, but it is not good for me, and ultimately society will consist of us all, born of the freedom to make these types of decisions for ourselves.

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I thought funerals were for closure!

You and I know it doesn't always work this way; especially when it comes to children. From what I have seen, the true believers do find solace through Edwards.

I had an idea; Mr. Edwards should be given an honorary PhD and allowed to practice. He can set up shop next to Dr. Phil… [:D]

Two peas in a pod?

It’s an individual choice whether to believe what we want to believe or to face uncertainty. In this respect I view Mr. Edwards as being but little different from a theologian, and people have the right to attend the service of their choice. It may be good for many, but it is not good for me, and ultimately society will consist of us all, born of the freedom to make these types of decisions for ourselves.

Compared to the snake handling, cyanide drinking fundamentalists that still practice in some states like Alabama, IMO Edwards is pretty harmless. What I see is people who seem find closure in unresolved issues. It seems clear to me that many of these people are greatly moved by Edwards: perhaps to the point of catharsis.

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 04:45 PM

It would be interesting to survey true believers that have suffered a terrible loss, that have been "read" by Edwards. I wonder how they feel about the experience a year or two later.

BoulderHead

Sep22-03, 05:32 PM

You and I know it doesn't always work this way; especially when it comes to children. From what I have seen, the true believers do find solace through Edwards.
I haven't seen Mr. Edwards work his magic with any children yet, though I admit neither have I been watching his show. I suppose it could be argued that adults are nothing but big kids, but the true believers are going to find solace whether Mr. Edwards is around or not, imo.

Two peas in a pod?
I don't know, but doesn’t Mr. Phil actually have some professional credentials as well as having a sense of humor? You suggested there was a connection between methods Mr. Edwards uses and those of a schooled professional, but I have a more difficult time picturing a trained professional using tactics they didn’t believe in, and/or in fact thought fraudulent, to help a patient. Of course, I am also making an assumption here that Mr. Edwards knows he is a fake, which I believe is the case.

Ultimately what I am saying is that it is ok with me if people need to resort to this in order to get through with their lives. But, I’d add that even if Mr. Edwards can help more people that psychologists can I still think he belongs on the side of the line with religion, not psychology.

Beren

Sep22-03, 05:41 PM

It is for closure, not false hope

But it is false hope, no matter if that's what it's for or not. He's point-blank lieing to them.

It's not like people go around talking to dead relatives...

No, they talk God, which is the exact same. Either way they're talking to nothing. That's generally referred to as schizophrenia.

On another note, Edwards has a lot of entertainment value (just as religion has a fair amount of literary value). I used to watch him every day last year in the one hour I had after coming home (more for the reason that it was background noise that I didn't have to pay much attention to, he has a very calming voice). But it still boils down to the fact that he's lieing to them, and they believe it.

The question is still whether or not truth is more important than happiness. Isn't living simply the search for truth? Religion is a search for truth, athiesm is that same search, just as philosophy. The search for truth (along for survival) is the single most important purpose of man.

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 07:33 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BoulderHead
I haven't seen Mr. Edwards work his magic with any children yet, though I admit neither have I been watching his show. I suppose it could be argued that adults are nothing but big kids, but the true believers are going to find solace whether Mr. Edwards is around or not, imo.

I don't know, but doesn’t Mr. Phil actually have some professional credentials as well as having a sense of humor? You suggested there was a connection between methods Mr. Edwards uses and those of a schooled professional, but I have a more difficult time picturing a trained professional using tactics they didn’t believe in, and/or in fact thought fraudulent, to help a patient. Of course, I am also making an assumption here that Mr. Edwards knows he is a fake, which I believe is the case.

Ultimately what I am saying is that it is ok with me if people need to resort to this in order to get through with their lives. But, I’d add that even if Mr. Edwards can help more people that psychologists can I still think he belongs on the side of the line with religion, not psychology. [/QUOTE

Whoooooaaaaa, I went right and you went left. [:D]

I mean parents that are grieving over lost children. I have never seen him "read" a child.

Next, I was only asking if you were putting Dr. Phil in this light. I would say that Dr. Phill is quite the entertainer; and his TV diagnoses are probably viewed negatively by many of his peers - just guessing - but I recognize that he is a professional. I meant no comparison in this sense.

I assumed from the start that Edwards is a complete fraud. No other interpretation of him personally is intended.

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Beren
But it is false hope, no matter if that's what it's for or not. He's point-blank lieing to them.

I completely agree. However, yours is is an ethical objection based on a moral premise. If we can put our own interpretations of good and evil aside, I am trying to consider what effect Edwards actually has on people. It is possible that people leave feeling better; having come to better terms with guilt, or perhaps a sense of unfinished business, or simply to feel that this lost person may somehow may still exist...let's say as the personification of fond memories. This may be a normal mechanism for healing.

No, they talk God, which is the exact same. Either way they're talking to nothing. That's generally referred to as schizophrenia.

...or as the expression of hidden feelings and emotions? If we assume that God does not exist, that the advent of spiritualism may have happened even in parallel with our species, could well imply that this is a necessary component of mental health. How can we rule out that brains have evolved in a way such that most or many people need spiritualism in order to be happy? If not, then why has this been a constant in human history; across cultures and geographical boundaries...unless of course there is really something to it? [;)]

But it still boils down to the fact that he's lieing to them, and they believe it.

But this is an pbjection based on biblical interpretations of morality. I would like to keep religion out of this. [:D]

The question is still whether or not truth is more important than happiness. Isn't living simply the search for truth? Religion is a search for truth, athiesm is that same search, just as philosophy. The search for truth (along for survival) is the single most important purpose of man.

These are philosophical questions and points of view. Mine is a sociological and psychological question. What impact does Edwards have on his believers.

Ivan Seeking

Sep22-03, 08:18 PM

In this light, could science be driving people to Prozac?
Perhaps we just can't handle the truth?

Beren

Sep22-03, 08:56 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In this light, could science be driving people to Prozac?
Perhaps we just can't handle the truth?

Hm, interesting question.

What exactly do you mean by "science". As in, science is uncovering much that people can't handle, so they try and deal with it with prozac. Or do you mean that science has invented such "wonder drugs" as prozac that people seem them as an end-all cure-all?

My opinion is that almost everyone can handle the truth. The problem arises when the truth conflicts something they already believe to be true. That's when they get undecisive.

From a mental health standpoint, this arises an interesting question. John Edwards and others like him may add to mental stability by telling people what they want to hear, but in the long run, are they better? Is living in a false sense of security better for the mind? Especially when that sense of security could be disturbed at any possible time.

Let's think of an analogy for this...Ok, let's say that someday a fleet of alien ships appear out of hyperspace and land in wrigley field. Now this sudden change of belief for everyone on earth (or, nearly everyone) that we're not alone, and indeed, not even the best thing in the universe. What would that suddenly do to our psyche?

This is just like what would happen with John Edwards. Say a person believes in Edwards, and continues to belief in his "abilities", until one day when John (or someone) comes out with the fact that he's a complete fraud. What would it do to this person's entire perception of reality?

Now, expand that to a society, and there is a potential negative effect of Edwards.

But there's no denying that most of the human race cannot live without some sense of afterlife. It's a very sad thing, but completely true. It is nearly an impossible thing to deny that an afterlife exists, and firm believers will probably always be around. Does this impede their social progress? Does the belief in an afterlife and other psuedoscience/paranormal impede a society?

russ_watters

Sep23-03, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
But this is an pbjection based on biblical interpretations of morality. I would like to keep religion out of this. [:D] Huh? What does religion have to do with lying being wrong? Lying (in general) is wrong under any legitimate moral standard.

Ivan Seeking

Sep23-03, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Huh? What does religion have to do with lying being wrong? Lying (in general) is wrong under any legitimate moral standard.

I wondered where you've been. [:D]

What other motivation makes us choose to believe that lying is wrong? What is meant by wrong? Any logical definition requires cicular reasoning in this context. If I can argue that Edwards is doing good - offers solace to the grieving - then the immorality of lying is not so clear.

Was it OK for Bush to lie about New York in order to preserve national security? Lying is always wrong?

Lying is always wrong: Sounds religious to me.

Ivan Seeking

Sep23-03, 04:28 AM

Originally posted by Beren
Hm, interesting question.

What exactly do you mean by "science". As in, science is uncovering much that people can't handle, so they try and deal with it with prozac.

In this context. As an example, an old aquaintence of mine was electronics tech who loved science. One day he explained to hiw wife what causes rainbows. She had never realized how this happens - and don't get me started on our system of lower education. When he explain to her how the different frequencies of light are separated, she said he had forever ruined rainbows for her. She was sad and felt a sense of loss. By no measure did she feel that this had improved her quality of life. She felt that something had been taken away. Perhaps many if not most people are "wired" this way. I know that what really turns me on in physics is upsetting to people who have little or no exposure.

From a mental health standpoint, this arises an interesting question. John Edwards and others like him may add to mental stability by telling people what they want to hear, but in the long run, are they better? Is living in a false sense of security better for the mind? Especially when that sense of security could be disturbed at any possible time.

Let's think of an analogy for this...Ok, let's say that someday a fleet of alien ships appear out of hyperspace and land in wrigley field. Now this sudden change of belief for everyone on earth (or, nearly everyone) that we're not alone, and indeed, not even the best thing in the universe. What would that suddenly do to our psyche?

This is just like what would happen with John Edwards. Say a person believes in Edwards, and continues to belief in his "abilities", until one day when John (or someone) comes out with the fact that he's a complete fraud. What would it do to this person's entire perception of reality?

Now, expand that to a society, and there is a potential negative effect of Edwards.

But there's no denying that most of the human race cannot live without some sense of afterlife. It's a very sad thing, but completely true. It is nearly an impossible thing to deny that an afterlife exists, and firm believers will probably always be around. Does this impede their social progress? Does the belief in an afterlife and other psuedoscience/paranormal impede a society?

I think the negative impact of lies like this is overestimated. Personally, I want to know the truth; but I don't think this applies to everyone. Obviously we all have problems when we cross fantasy with politics - as if they could be separated- or other subjects of importance. But the major effects of people like Edwards to me are mostly elusive at best. Were Edwards to be exposed, the true believers would tend to ingore the evidence anyway.

Honestly, I often wonder who really does more harm: Edwards or Randi? Randi destroys rainbows. For many people I suspect that no good ever comes of this.

This is why so many people flock to extreme beliefs like moths to a bright light. They need it. It's instictive.

Us science types are somewhat unique you know. Anyone disagree? We are more interested fundamental truth and facts than most. As for typical folks [not meaning to overgeneralize], like the song says, most guys just "pray the dog poop's hard".

Ivan Seeking

Sep24-03, 12:50 AM

On a related note:

http://www.mysonpeter.com/

Isn't this a heartbreaker? Man, I wanted to cry when I read this web site. I think this guy believes what he says.

hypnagogue

Sep24-03, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Beren
The question is still whether or not truth is more important than happiness. Isn't living simply the search for truth? Religion is a search for truth, athiesm is that same search, just as philosophy. The search for truth (along for survival) is the single most important purpose of man.

In a human psychological context, truth is importany only insofar as it brings happiness. From a practical standpoint, scientific truth brings us advanced technologies which improve quality of life-- more happiness for everyone in the long run. From a psychological standpoint, feeling that one possesses some measure of truth can be mentally and emotionally satisfying-- again, it brings a sort of abstract happiness. I believe that you (as well as I, and probably everyone else on this forum) indeed get this happiness, this psychological satisfaction/elation, from progressive acquisition of 'truth.' However, I think you are confusing the value of this truth-fed happiness with the value of truth itself.

Let me ask an admittedly extreme question to shed some light on the 'bottom line' value of happiness vs. truth. Suppose you are standing before a door that conceals the Ultimate Truth, whatever that might be. You are presented with the choice to either open it and unveil this Truth or to leave it concealed. If you do not open the door, humanity will lose all of its advanced (scientific, mathematical, philosophical etc) knowledge but will become a Utopia where everyone leads an ineffibly loving, blissful and peaceful life free of any sort of hate, pain or conflict. If you open the door, humanity will collectively be granted Ultimate Truth, but will also be cursed to collectively lead the most miserable psychological existence imaginable, with great suffering and devoid of any semblence of happiness. Do you open the door or leave it closed?

Zero

Sep24-03, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
On a related note:

http://www.mysonpeter.com/

Isn't this a heartbreaker? Man, I wanted to cry when I read this web site. I think this guy believes what he says. This is the sort of psychosis that people like John Edward promote...how can you heal in a healthy way with liars and con artists standing in the way?

Ivan Seeking

Sep24-03, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by Zero
This is the sort of psychosis that people like John Edward promote...how can you heal in a healthy way with liars and con artists standing in the way?

Yes this is one reason that I posted this. It does tend to undermine my argument a bit. I guess I tend to separate genuine psychosis from typical grieving in this regard. I tend to think that his hallucinations are going to stop or continue independent of Edward's influence. I don't know if Edwards can really do more harm in situations like this or not.

by hypnagogue
If you open the door, humanity will collectively be granted Ultimate Truth, but will also be cursed to collectively lead the most miserable psychological existence imaginable, with great suffering and devoid of any semblence of happiness. Do you open the door or leave it closed?

Well, in that context I can only impart to you the same widsom that has worked it way through the generations before me, and that finally came to my father from his father, and then to me through my father: Keep the d*mned door closed!

Although I am a lover of knowledge, it seems at times that human needs and human curiosity may be in conflict.

Ivan Seeking

Sep24-03, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Yes this is one reason that I posted this. It does tend to undermine my argument a bit. I guess I tend to separate genuine psychosis from typical grieving in this regard. I tend to think that his hallucinations are going to stop or continue independent of Edward's influence. I don't know if Edwards can really do more harm in situations like this or not.

Well, in that context I can only impart to you the same widsom that has worked it way through the generations before me, and that finally came to my father from his father, and then to me through my father: Keep the d*mned door closed!

Although I am a lover of knowledge, it seems at times that human needs and human curiosity may be in conflict.

I wanted to add a modifier to my statements: I feel that eventually the truth must come out. The questions for me are when, how quickly should this happen, and by what means? Should we allow the truth of something to spread at a natural rate, one death at a time, like in physics, or should we force this truth down the throats of the true believers using attack dogs like James Randi? [who can often be and should be debunked himself].

The debunking of belief systems is a risky business. One might create an anti-science backlash that results in the exact opposite to that desired.

I think this has already happened.

Beren

Sep24-03, 08:26 PM

James Randi? [who can often be and should be debunked himself].

What on earth is wrong with James Randi?! He's one of the activists for reason!

Ivan Seeking

Sep24-03, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Beren
What on earth is wrong with James Randi?! He's one of the activists for reason!

I have corresponded with Mr Randi on a number of occasions - regularly for a short time - and I have watched him in action for many hours. I think Randi gets most of it right. However, I have also seen him blow off any significant result much like Edwards claims successes - only in his own mind. If you question Mr Randi with such pentrating questions as "who judges the evidence", you may get a page of near raving as a response like I did. It took me three emails to convince him that I was only asking questions. He has exactly the same disposition as any other true believer; when it comes to his own cause. For this reason I find him lacking credibility. IMO, his judgement can't be trusted.

Note that I started out by saying that I think he gets most things right.

Beren

Sep25-03, 07:07 PM

Ah, yes, very well put. I see your point now. I agree wholeheartedily. Mr.Randi is excellent on most occasions but a slight bit too...headstrong on others.

Ivan Seeking

Sep25-03, 10:47 PM

Originally posted by Beren
Ah, yes, very well put. I see your point now. I agree wholeheartedily. Mr.Randi is excellent on most occasions but a slight bit too...headstrong on others.

WOW! I don't know if anyone has ever agreed with me on this point. You are now in my will.

I leave you my Ouija board. [:D]

russ_watters

Sep27-03, 01:17 AM

Originally posted by Zero
This is the sort of psychosis that people like John Edward promote...how can you heal in a healthy way with liars and con artists standing in the way? This kind of thing makes me mad beyond rational thought - and I'm a pretty level-headed guy. All I can say is I agree with Zero.

Ivan Seeking

Sep27-03, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
This kind of thing makes me mad beyond rational thought - and I'm a pretty level-headed guy. All I can say is I agree with Zero.

I assume that you mean the link? I see no reason to assume that someone like Edwards has any influence here. Edwards exists only because of what people believe in the first place. I think the problem with this guy is that his wife and son died.

Like I said though, I found this site very upsetting.

Also, if there are any giant holes in my argument, I grant you, this is likely one of them.

Beren

Sep27-03, 01:25 PM

Edwards exists only because of what people believe in the first place.

Is the problem the liars who seduce people into their false image, or is it the people who willingly go?

TENYEARS

Sep28-03, 09:37 AM

I am listening to this idiotic conversation. John Edwards is he real. Don't know. The after life is, is he don't know. Is he playing the guitar to peoples emotions don't know. I do recall the movie "network". The illogic of this converstion is based on the fact the an atheist belives that there is no after life but does presently belive he is alive and that he is conccious and that is something special. You are intelligent engough to understand and yet you do not. Threw you the ball and it was dropped again. Go figure.

Ivan Seeking

Sep28-03, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by TENYEARS
The illogic of this converstion

Could you explain what you mean. Your post is very difficult to read.

TENYEARS

Sep28-03, 10:52 AM

Ivan, I like your posts and it was not towards you but the bandwagon. It is so plain that if it was any closer it would be them.

Beren

Sep30-03, 04:25 PM

Again, what?

russ_watters

Sep30-03, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I assume that you mean the link? I see no reason to assume that someone like Edwards has any influence here. Edwards exists only because of what people believe in the first place. I think the problem with this guy is that his wife and son died.

Like I said though, I found this site very upsetting.

Also, if there are any giant holes in my argument, I grant you, this is likely one of them. No, I'm sure Edwards had no influence on that particular site. But did you read some of the posts on the little bulletin board? These are the very people who are the target of Edwards' fraud. I'm sad for those people, and mad as hell at Edwards. He must realize the power he has over these people - more than just their money. He can destroy people's lives. It sickens me.

hypnagogue

Oct1-03, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
No, I'm sure Edwards had no influence on that particular site. But did you read some of the posts on the little bulletin board? These are the very people who are the target of Edwards' fraud. I'm sad for those people, and mad as hell at Edwards. He must realize the power he has over these people - more than just their money. He can destroy people's lives. It sickens me.

OR... as has been the point of this thread... he can help people come to terms with their lives. Just because his 'treatment' would never work for you, or even outrages you so, does not mean that other people can't get some peace of mind from him. Plus, if he himself believes he has these abilities, then I doubt he really 'realizes' all this massive harm he is certainly doing. I think you're projecting your attitude on the matter a tad too much, without considering the attitudes of the people involved. If it works for them, frankly, does it matter what you think?

russ_watters

Oct1-03, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
OR... as has been the point of this thread... he can help people come to terms with their lives. Just because his 'treatment' would never work for you, or even outrages you so, does not mean that other people can't get some peace of mind from him. Plus, if he himself believes he has these abilities, then I doubt he really 'realizes' all this massive harm he is certainly doing. I think you're projecting your attitude on the matter a tad too much, without considering the attitudes of the people involved. If it works for them, frankly, does it matter what you think? I think all of this has been covered before by myself and others, but I'll reiterate:

1. He cannot help people, period. He may think he can (doubt it) and they may think he can (certainly) but he provides them with FANTASIES at a time when they need to be dealing with REALITY. That is the precise opposite of what a psychologist does. "Peace of mind" through self-delusion is unhealthy. Heck, you even used the words: "come to terms with their lives." How exactly can you come to terms with your life by buying into fairy tales? That's self-contradictory.

2. He does not believe he has these abilities. No, I can't prove that, but I consider myeslf pretty good at detecting lies. And I have read some reports that he bugs the waiting rooms to make the fishing a little easier when he gets into the show. He's a fraud and should be in jail. In any case, it doesn't much matter if he is a fraud or not, it doesn't change he is doing, just WHY. There are some "psychics" who believe they are psychic and they should get in line to see the psychologist after the people they think they are helping. Psychics are either frauds exploiting impressionable (delusional) people or delusional people sharing their delusions with other delusional people. Don't kid yourself though - he's doing this for one reason: MONEY. Thats the easiest way to detect a fraud.

3. No, it doesn't matter what I think. I wish we had the opinion of a real psychologist and a lawyer here to say the same things I just said. As I pointed out before though - Ms. Cleo has been shut down for fraud. It isn't uncommon among "psychics".

4. The "attitudes of the people involved" are for the most part not relevant. Its not unlike people addicted to drugs. They need to learn how their attitudes are harming them. THEN they will start to get better. You are suggesting that since drugs make them feel good they should just take more drugs.

Beren

Oct1-03, 11:05 PM

If it works for them, frankly, does it matter what you think?

Now think about that logically for a second. Suicide works for quite a lot of people, so we should let just let them do what they want? Just because something is the easiest way out, doesn't mean it's the best.

Ivan Seeking

Oct2-03, 12:02 AM

By nearly all accounts, human's have shown a preoccupation for the mystical since Mitochondrial Eve. Assuming that all mystical/supernatural beliefs are false, then we have every reason to consider that this tendency comes as necessary part of our very nature. Could these beliefs be a manifestation of the healthy mechanism for psychological healing? Could this be an evolved mechanism? If so, then the majority of the population may need these beliefs for healthy healing. Someone like Edwards may only help to facilitate this process. How can this be ruled out?

Nature vs nurture; what is the source of this need for the John Edwards of the world?

I wonder when the concept of an afterlife first popped into someones head. Likewise, when was the concept of death as an absolute end first conceptualized? Was it first the natural expectation that life continues somehow, or was it implicit in our nature to think that physical death was the end.

hypnagogue

Oct2-03, 12:45 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
I think all of this has been covered before by myself and others, but I'll reiterate:

1. He cannot help people, period. He may think he can (doubt it) and they may think he can (certainly) but he provides them with FANTASIES at a time when they need to be dealing with REALITY. That is the precise opposite of what a psychologist does. "Peace of mind" through self-delusion is unhealthy. Heck, you even used the words: "come to terms with their lives." How exactly can you come to terms with your life by buying into fairy tales? That's self-contradictory.

To come to terms with something means to emotionally accept it. It may be for some people that they cannot fully emotionally recover from a death to a loved one unless they experience some sort of closure, and feeling as if the loved one is still alive in some sense may give a person that sort of closure. Not to say that everyone needs this, but for some people it just might be the thing that works. In that case, who are you to try to interfere with that process?

2. He does not believe he has these abilities. No, I can't prove that, but I consider myeslf pretty good at detecting lies. And I have read some reports that he bugs the waiting rooms to make the fishing a little easier when he gets into the show. He's a fraud and should be in jail. In any case, it doesn't much matter if he is a fraud or not, it doesn't change he is doing, just WHY. There are some "psychics" who believe they are psychic and they should get in line to see the psychologist after the people they think they are helping. Psychics are either frauds exploiting impressionable (delusional) people or delusional people sharing their delusions with other delusional people. Don't kid yourself though - he's doing this for one reason: MONEY. Thats the easiest way to detect a fraud.

There's obviously more to the psychology of a so-called psychic than money-making, since people throughout history have at least claimed to have such abilities, and most of them were not getting rich from it. If one sincerely believed that one truly had a psychic ability, it would only make sense to try to help people with this ability and make money from it at the same time-- that's how capitalism works, after all. Note that I am not claiming that this is the case-- rather, it is a possibility that contradicts your assessment, and you can't prove that that possibility is not really the case. Nor, for that matter, can you conclusively state that there is no life after death, and thus you can't state so conclusively that this Edwards fellow is an absolute fraud. Again, I am not asserting the existence of life after death, I just welcome you to prove that there is none. If you can't, then maybe you should be more reasonable about the tone of your argument.

3. No, it doesn't matter what I think. I wish we had the opinion of a real psychologist and a lawyer here to say the same things I just said. As I pointed out before though - Ms. Cleo has been shut down for fraud. It isn't uncommon among "psychics".

So you're saying all psychics are of the same nature as Ms. Cleo, hmm?

4. The "attitudes of the people involved" are for the most part not relevant. Its not unlike people addicted to drugs. They need to learn how their attitudes are harming them. THEN they will start to get better. You are suggesting that since drugs make them feel good they should just take more drugs.

The attitudes of the people involved are completely relevant! They are the people we're arguing about, after all. They're the ones who are trying to put their lives back together.

Tell me precisely what harm it does to believe that a deceased love on lives on in the afterlife. Saying "it deceives them into believing something that is not the case" doesn't cut it. I want concrete descriptions of what harm it brings to their own lives, not abstract hand waving about how it doesn't agree with your picture of reality, or your ideal that the "truth" (or more accurately, what you believe to be the truth) is always the best course.

If you want to use a drug analogy, let me make my own so as to more accurately characterize my argument. Say you have a patient, Bob, who is going through treatment for cancer. Naturally his treatment is very exhausting and painful. Bob would like terribly to alleviate his pain to help him along on his road to recovery. A Mr. Eduardo comes along and gives Bob some marijuana to smoke-- Bob smokes it and it helps him deal with his situation. Then some anti-drug fanatics come along and take away Bob's marijuana. They scold him, saying things like, "What's the matter with you? Don't you realize that drugs are bad for you, Bob?" Furthermore, they remind him that "smoking marijuana can only bring you harm. It only gives you illusory relief; the only way to get over your problems, Bob, is to face them head on! Face your pain, and accept it!" Now, marijauna can be harmful in certain contexts, sure. But that doesn't mean that it's always a bad thing. Bob, for one, was able to cope with his pain much better when he had his marijuana and any bad side-effects he experienced from smoking it really were insignificant compared to all the great things it was doing for him-- until some people who didn't really understand his situation came and took it away from him, that is.

russ_watters

Oct2-03, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by hypnagogue
To come to terms with something means to emotionally accept it. How can you accept/come to terms with something you won't even face? Death is final and thats a fact. By thinking you are talking to someone who is dead, you aren't accepting that they are really dead and so you can't come to terms with it.There's obviously more to the psychology of a so-called psychic than money-making I did say there were two possibilities, not just one. But Edwards is making a lot of money, so that tends to make the needle point more in that direction.Nor, for that matter, can you conclusively state that there is no life after death, and thus you can't state so conclusively that this Edwards fellow is an absolute fraud. That is of course the fallacy of the religion vs science arguement as well as the "open minded" fallacy I've been battling Ivan on. Being open minded means objectively evaluating evidence and drawing a logical conclusion that fits it. Staying open to a possibility that defies all logic and evidence is called GULLIBILTY. Afterlife or not, John Edwards is NOT talking to dead people.So you're saying all psychics are of the same nature as Ms. Cleo, hmm? No, I said there are TWO kinds of psychics. The attitudes of the people involved are completely relevant! They are the people we're arguing about, after all. They're the ones who are trying to put their lives back together. Beren's response to this one was perfect. But I'll add to it anyway. There can be no question these people need help. Thats why they go on the show in the first place. But what they THINK they need has no bearing whatsoever on what they actually need. In fact, with mental/emotional problems, seeking the WRONG kind of help is actually a symptom of the real problem.

They go to someone else for help because they can't help themselves. Unfortunately, they went to the wrong place so they need someone to tell them where the right place is.

Its a lot like medicine. There is a case right now I really should start a thread on. A kid in Utah was diagnosed with cancer and four different doctors said he needed chemotherapy or he would die. The parents don't believe in that and want some alternate form of treatment (ie, non-medical). They fled the state. Rest assured, that kid is going to die and the parents will be arrested and charged with homicide.

When you are sick and need help, you need to talk to the experts because - they are the experts.
Tell me precisely what harm it does to believe that a deceased love on lives on in the afterlife. None whatsoever. This isn't the issue, you miss the point completely. I am NOT debating whether or not there is an afterlife. The issue is John Edwards. These people's loved ones may very well be living on in the afterlife, but John Edwards is NOT talking to them. If you want to use a drug analogy, let me make my own so as to more accurately characterize my argument.... Thats a reasonable story, but it doesn't fit your arguement. Pot in that case is essentially pain medication. It doesn't fix the cancer - thats what the cancer medicine is doing. The analogy only fits if you smoke pot as a SUBSTITUTE for the cancer medicine. Thats the problem with John Edwards. It substitutes temporary pain relief for permanent healing. In John Edwards's case, the result is prolonged mental anguish but with a temporary reduction in its severity. In your analogy, the result is death but with less pain.

hypnagogue

Oct2-03, 02:52 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
How can you accept/come to terms with something you won't even face? Death is final and thats a fact. By thinking you are talking to someone who is dead, you aren't accepting that they are really dead and so you can't come to terms with it.

Again, emotional acceptance. In these people's eyes, they are facing the problem, and they're getting a comforting answer. As a result they feel a little better about it. That's all that matters.

I did say there were two possibilities, not just one. But Edwards is making a lot of money, so that tends to make the needle point more in that direction. That is of course the fallacy of the religion vs science arguement as well as the "open minded" fallacy I've been battling Ivan on. Being open minded means objectively evaluating evidence and drawing a logical conclusion that fits it. Staying open to a possibility that defies all logic and evidence is called GULLIBILTY. Afterlife or not, John Edwards is NOT talking to dead people.

You did acknowledge two possibilities, sorry I missed that in my response.

Now, I don't think the possibility that Edwards believes in what he is doing defies logic at all. It certainly might not seem that way to you, but that doesn't make your conclusion right. There are plenty of examples (especially in psychology) where a conclusion seems to be logically and empirically fixed into place, but it winds up being false or a half-truth.

Anyway, I don't want to get too sidetracked on this point. The issue at hand is if it is beneficial to some people to get psychological closure from a person like Edwards.

Beren's response to this one was perfect. But I'll add to it anyway. There can be no question these people need help. Thats why they go on the show in the first place. But what they THINK they need has no bearing whatsoever on what they actually need. In fact, with mental/emotional problems, seeking the WRONG kind of help is actually a symptom of the real problem.

They go to someone else for help because they can't help themselves. Unfortunately, they went to the wrong place so they need someone to tell them where the right place is.

Its a lot like medicine. There is a case right now I really should start a thread on. A kid in Utah was diagnosed with cancer and four different doctors said he needed chemotherapy or he would die. The parents don't believe in that and want some alternate form of treatment (ie, non-medical). They fled the state. Rest assured, that kid is going to die and the parents will be arrested and charged with homicide.

When you are sick and need help, you need to talk to the experts because - they are the experts.

Again, why is this method of psychological closure "wrong" or "harmful"? Beren's example, and your drug abuse example, are cases where the person's behavior is self-destructive. What is self-destructive or harmful about believing that a psychic can verify that your loved ones are alive and well in some other place?

Thats a reasonable story, but it doesn't fit your arguement. Pot in that case is essentially pain medication. It doesn't fix the cancer - thats what the cancer medicine is doing. The analogy only fits if you smoke pot as a SUBSTITUTE for the cancer medicine. Thats the problem with John Edwards. It substitutes temporary pain relief for permanent healing. In John Edwards's case, the result is prolonged mental anguish but with a temporary reduction in its severity. In your analogy, the result is death but with less pain.

Coming to terms with death is a natural psychological process over time. I don't see how believing in Edwards necessarily cuts one off from this natural healing process-- the only way to damage it would be to take a negative or fatalistic view, clinging to the despair of the death and failing to accept it emotionally. On the contrary, Edwards' claims only assist people in coming to emotional acceptance of death and approaching it with a positive attitude, so they can be seen as being complementary to the natural psychological healing process.

BoulderHead

Oct2-03, 12:58 PM

The issue at hand is if it is beneficial to some people to get psychological closure from a person like Edwards.
I see a more basic question being asked; Is “psychological closure” so beneficial to an individual that regardless of where it’s coming from it should be accepted?

No doubt the snake oil salesmen would all chant to the affirmative.

Coming to terms with death is a natural psychological process over time.
How is the misguided belief, coming from a phony, that dear old Aunt Betsy is sending you messages from the grave a part of coming to terms with death? It surely doesn’t seem to be helping anyone to come to grips with reality, but then perhaps reality isn’t the most important consideration.
Also, this coming to terms with death business is a very open topic, and depends a great deal on what one’s own personal view of death is. I think what is taking place with Edwards can just as easily be seen as an avoidance of coming to terms with death by accepting the lies of a con artist.

…On the contrary, Edwards' claims only assist people in coming to emotional acceptance of death and approaching it with a positive attitude, so they can be seen as being complementary to the natural psychological healing process.
Being high helps many people to cope with this life too. Perhaps drug use should likewise be seen as complementary to the natural psychological healing process?

Gimme another happy pill, doctor.

[edit]

"One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both."
- Robert A. Heinlein

Ivan Seeking

Oct2-03, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I see a more basic question being asked; Is “psychological closure” so beneficial to an individual that regardless of where it’s coming from it should be accepted?

No doubt the snake oil salesmen would all chant to the affirmative.?

How is this different from any others religion; going with our assumption of course that all mystical/supernatural beliefs are false? The majority of the world seeks solace through prayer; not psychological counseling.

How is the misguided belief, coming from a phony, that dear old Aunt Betsy is sending you messages from the grave a part of coming to terms with death? It surely doesn’t seem to be helping anyone to come to grips with reality, but then perhaps reality isn’t the most important consideration.
Also, this coming to terms with death business is a very open topic, and depends a great deal on what one’s own personal view of death is. I think what is taking place with Edwards can just as easily be seen as an avoidance of coming to terms with death by accepting the lies of a con artist.

Given our assumption, this same argument can be made for most religions.

Being high helps many people to cope with this life too. Perhaps drug use should likewise be seen as complementary to the natural psychological healing process?

Gimme another happy pill, doctor.

[edit]

"One may bask at the warm fire of faith or choose to live in the bleak certainty of reason- but one cannot have both."
- Robert A. Heinlein

This discussion is about human nature. Your objections really sound more like value judgments. Although the issue of morality is surely a valid one here, I wanted to ignore this concern for the sake of discussing the raw effect. What originally motivated this discussion was my observation that Edwards appears to help provide closure. Just as with most any religious belief system, the belief here is that life continues after death. This conviction is why I think religion can offer solace to many people. Edwards may simply help to reinforce this belief.

Where is the evidence that logic makes people happy? I think most of human history demonstrates just the opposite. That is to say, this is why people flock to mysticism, and this is why the John Edwards’ exist in the first place. No one seems to be addressing this point. What if many people need this sort of thing? I don’t see how we can assume otherwise. Would Prozac be better?

Ivan Seeking

Oct2-03, 10:32 PM

By the way, congrats Mr. Philosopher of the Year! [6)]

Ivan Seeking

Oct2-03, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
That is of course the fallacy of the religion vs science arguement as well as the "open minded" fallacy I've been battling Ivan on.

No its not. Being open minded has nothing to do with faith based arguments; in fact they are really opposites.

Beren

Oct2-03, 11:24 PM

I'm going to post something completely nonconsequential for only the reason that I love Heinlein and would like to thank whoever quoted him. Anyway, yeah, go on.

BoulderHead

Oct2-03, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
How is this different from any others religion; going with our assumption of course that all mystical/supernatural beliefs are false? The majority of the world seeks solace through prayer; not psychological counseling.
It doesn’t have to be different from religion, I’m taking it on it’s own merit, not making a comparison. But with that said, there is a difference between a sincere religionist preaching of an afterlife and a fraud claiming to be in contact with it while knowing full well he is not. One can actually believe the religionist to be sincere, if misguided, and cut them some slack. But a phony leaves a bad taste in the mouth and deserves less consideration, imho.

Given our assumption, this same argument can be made for most religions.
I’m not trying to extend this into religion. I consider what Edwards does to be nothing but a case of outright fraud and to put him on the same level with religion does a disservice to the sincere religionist.

This discussion is about human nature. Your objections really sound more like value judgments. Although the issue of morality is surely a valid one here, I wanted to ignore this concern for the sake of discussing the raw effect. What originally motivated this discussion was my observation that Edwards appears to help provide closure. Just as with most any religious belief system, the belief here is that life continues after death. This conviction is why I think religion can offer solace to many people. Edwards may simply help to reinforce this belief.
Ok, then if you want me to agree that Edwards has proved beneficial to some, then sure, I wouldn’t doubt that he has. But if that is all this topic is about then this should surely be the end of the conversation.

Where is the evidence that logic makes people happy?
Well, I never said that logic should make people happy, so I don’t feel a need to defend that position. Who says that ‘closure’ has to have a happy ending in the first place?

I think most of human history demonstrates just the opposite. That is to say, this is why people flock to mysticism, and this is why the John Edwards’ exist in the first place. No one seems to be addressing this point.
I never heard this point being raised, (maybe I missed it?). I, for one, would have guessed that such a point would have already been understood by the readers, but maybe it isn’t. Perhaps it is just a little too obvious to me that humans have a religious nature about them and so I skipped over mentioning this.

What if many people need this sort of thing?
I already touched on this and explained;
“In this respect I view Mr. Edwards as being but little different from a theologian, and people have the right to attend the service of their choice. It may be good for many, but it is not good for me”

I don’t see how we can assume otherwise.
I wasn’t assuming people didn’t need it, I know many do.

Would Prozac be better?
Well, my point in mentioning drugs (and I do mean any drug) was because I’ve read more than once in this topic that what needs to be considered is whether or not Mr. Edwards has the ability to comfort people and help with the healing process and closure. Now, if that is as deep as this topic is allowed to run than for me it becomes no different than asking if some people find solace while taking drugs, a visiting a sandy beach, or talking to their pet cat. The answer would have to be YES, people can and do find comfort in any number of ways, but I also tried to present the flip side that his antics could just as easily be viewed in a negative way too.

BoulderHead

Oct2-03, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
By the way, congrats Mr. Philosopher of the Year! [6)]
Thank you, Ivan !

Ivan Seeking

Oct3-03, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
It doesn’t have to be different from religion, I’m taking it on it’s own merit, not making a comparison. But with that said, there is a difference between a sincere religionist preaching of an afterlife and a fraud claiming to be in contact with it while knowing full well he is not. One can actually believe the religionist to be sincere, if misguided, and cut them some slack. But a phony leaves a bad taste in the mouth and deserves less consideration, imho.

Well, personally I'm with you. In fact, by my beliefs Edward's is likely spiritually dangerous. But, if I dissociate my opinons from the logic, there is really no significant difference. In fact, one might argue that Edwards is less dangerous because he presumably doesn't believe in what he does. In effect, by being a nonbeliever, Edwards offers less chance of fanaticism.

I’m not trying to extend this into religion. I consider what Edwards does to be nothing but a case of outright fraud and to put him on the same level with religion does a disservice to the sincere religionist.

really I agree. But, if we assume all religion is false...etc etc

Ok, then if you want me to agree that Edwards has proved beneficial to some, then sure, I wouldn’t doubt that he has. But if that is all this topic is about then this should surely be the end of the conversation.

I am looking for the direct evidence that he does sociological or psychological damage. Many value judgements would imply that he does. I tend to agree but I don't really see the evidence.

Well, I never said that logic should make people happy, so I don’t feel a need to defend that position. Who says that ‘closure’ has to have a happy ending in the first place?

Me.

[:D] OK. But we do see a lot of grief counseling used these days. Also, drugs are often prescribed during times of personal loss by both physicians and psychiatrists. As an example, I was thinking in contrast to this.

I never heard this point being raised, (maybe I missed it?). I, for one, would have guessed that such a point would have already been understood by the readers, but maybe it isn’t. Perhaps it is just a little too obvious to me that humans have a religious nature about them and so I skipped over mentioning this....

Yes we agree too much. [:D]

It seems to me that debunking religious beliefs, when possible, is assumed without proof to be "good". The logic is implicitly that truths are better than lies. I don't see the evidence. I agree on moral grounds which for me are rooted in religion. I don't see a purely logical argument by which we arrive at the same conclusion. Perhaps I just can't think like a good atheist. [!:)]

hypnagogue

Oct3-03, 12:26 AM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I see a more basic question being asked; Is “psychological closure” so beneficial to an individual that regardless of where it’s coming from it should be accepted?

I don't see why not, as long as the positives outweigh the negatives. And really, if someone attends one of Edwards' shows, gets a reading and feels better about the death of their loved one, what is the great negative impact of this? That their beliefs are 'false,' or that Edwards benefits from it? The former I don't see as a negative at all, really; having a spurious belief system in itself is certainly not bad, so long as it does not compel the individual to do harmful things to himself or society. The latter some may find the outrageous result of a con man getting money for his lies, but what is more important: that someone's moral scruples are addressed, or that suffering in the world is reduced?

How is the misguided belief, coming from a phony, that dear old Aunt Betsy is sending you messages from the grave a part of coming to terms with death? It surely doesn’t seem to be helping anyone to come to grips with reality, but then perhaps reality isn’t the most important consideration.

Also, this coming to terms with death business is a very open topic, and depends a great deal on what one’s own personal view of death is. I think what is taking place with Edwards can just as easily be seen as an avoidance of coming to terms with death by accepting the lies of a con artist.

Being high helps many people to cope with this life too. Perhaps drug use should likewise be seen as complementary to the natural psychological healing process?

Gimme another happy pill, doctor.

This seems to be a crucial point in this discussion, as it keeps cropping up again and again. Let me try to distinguish again why I think the 'psychological closure' of an Edwards reading is not an avoidance of the issue, as is (for instance) taking a drug.

Let us distinguish between an emotional acceptance of death, and an ontological acceptance of death. By the former I mean that one comes to terms emotionally with death by directly confronting their emotional conflicts arising from the death; as a result, their psychological pain is soothed to some extent, the grieving is over, the sense of loss is not so acute, life can go on 'as normal,' etc. By the latter I mean that ones comes to terms with the ontology of death, assuming the standard scientific view of death is accurate; they recognize the (apparent) truth that death is absolute, their loved one is no longer alive in any meaningful sense, and so on.

Now, one can emotionally accept death without ontologically accepting death, and vice versa. It is true that if one believes Edwards, then one is not ontologically accepting death, insofar as their ideas of what death is do not correspond to what (we are assuming) death actually is. So one who believes in Edwards is ontologically avoiding death, yes. However, for those who believe Edwards, their belief can only assist them in coming to an emotional acceptance of death. They are not emotionally avoiding death; rather, they are tackling death head-on from an emotional standpoint, insofar as they are resolving some remaining emotional conflicts surrounding the issue. What is important in coming to terms with death, of course, is emotional acceptance of it; whether you ontologically accept death or not is really ultimately unimportant.

Belief in Edwards' claims can be contrasted with use of a drug since these two treatments differ in at least one important respect. Belief in Edwards entails directly confronting death from an emotional standpoint, if not an ontological one, and thus the believer actually resolves some lingering internal emotional conflict. On the other hand, taking a drug to ease emotional pain actually does constitute emotional avoidance of death, insofar as the drug user is not directly confronting his internal emotional conflicts but rather is using the drug to try to 'sweep them under the rug' and hope he won't notice them anymore.

russ_watters

Oct3-03, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
No its not. Being open minded has nothing to do with faith based arguments; in fact they are really opposites. No, I meant there are two separate fallacies at work there. I wasn't connecting the two. I am looking for the direct evidence that he does sociological or psychological damage. Many value judgements would imply that he does. I tend to agree but I don't really see the evidence. That is of course the beauty of his fraud: there isn't much if any evidence he's doing harm. The only way to get it would be to track down and study the subjects of his fraud. And I highly doubt that will ever be done. And even evidence of his fraud (I've seen some, but its thin) doesn't prove he's doing harm (kinda been discussed already).

Its just like illicit drugs: you see the benefits immediately but the harm comes later. With John Edwards though, the show ends and you NEVER see the long-term effects.

BoulderHead

Oct3-03, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by russ_watters
With John Edwards though, the show ends and you NEVER see the long-term effects.
I'd add that it is likely what short term effects are seen will only be those casting a favorable light on Mr. Edwards.
I mean, are they going to air a clip of someone saying; "that guy was so off the mark it was pathetic, what a fraud"?
No, you will only hear the hits, not the misses, which is one-sided and to me amounts to propaganda.
Am I wrong about this??

Perhaps it's time that we asked ourselves if we even have enough data to cast an informed and intelligent verdict...

russ_watters

Oct3-03, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by BoulderHead
I see a more basic question being asked; Is “psychological closure” so beneficial to an individual that regardless of where it’s coming from it should be accepted?

No doubt the snake oil salesmen would all chant to the affirmative. Your refution (refutation? damn, I can never remember that one...) of that point is a good one (so I won't add to it right now), but I think the question is a little presumptuous - there is another question even more basic: Is colusure even POSSIBLE without acceptance of reality? IMO, no.

The basic cause of pain associated with the death of a loved one is the loss - the fact that you won't ever see or talk to your loved one again (in this life anyway). John Edwards relieves the pain by temporarily removing the loss. But the loss is still there and sooner or later the people are going to have to deal with it. My guess would be as soon as they leave the show they'll start thinking about it again. This particular drug likely wears off fast. What's more, I doubt any of the "conversations" taking place on the show really reach a conclusion. It is a tv show afterall. So the subjects will likely just end up with MORE unfinished business. Perhaps it's time that we asked ourselves if we even have enough data to cast an informed and intelligent verdict... Heh, your post implies (correctly, I think - since I made the same point) that lack of evidence is in itself evidence of fraud.

Zero

Oct3-03, 02:07 PM

Has anyone read the latest Skeptic magazine? There's a pretty good article about the specific psychological harm of people like John Edward, written by a grief counselor.

hypnagogue

Oct3-03, 03:38 PM

For what it's worth, from what I have seen of the show, Edwards usually shows 'follow ups' of particular cases, wherein the people who had received readings in a previous show some weeks before typically report, among other things, their continued feelings of well-being. Not to say this conclusive of anything, but for at least some people it continues to provide psychological benefits at least some amount of weeks after the reading.

Zero, it would be helpful if you actually informed us on the content of that article you refer to, buddy. [6)]

Russ, you say "Is colusure even POSSIBLE without acceptance of reality? IMO, no." I would appreciate if you addressed this point in response to my last post on this thread.

edit: for instance, are you saying that any religious person who believes in an after-life cannot attain psychological closure after the death of a loved one? Clearly one does not have to agree with science's view of death in order to come to terms with it emotionally.

In fact, I wonder what the results would be of a psychological survey which profiled the average emotional health over time of Christians or Muslims or somesuch after the death of a close loved one, as opposed to staunch materialists/atheists. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the former were actually able to emotionally tolerate death better.

russ_watters

Oct3-03, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Zero
Has anyone read the latest Skeptic magazine? There's a pretty good article about the specific psychological harm of people like John Edward, written by a grief counselor. Link? (I'm too lazy to Google).

sage

Oct3-03, 11:22 PM

Ivan you said- seems to me that debunking religious beliefs, when possible, is assumed without proof to be "good". The logic is implicitly that truths are better than lies. I don't see the evidence.

lie has a negative connotation attached to it. so instead i will use the word illusion. there is a problem about truth. they change constantly. thus in 12th century the idea of a square world was "truth". remembering this in mind can you give me any example at all that a deliberate illusion has been beneficial to human civilisation as a whole? i at least think that 1)if someone knows that an idea is not true and 2) still he preaches it to others as if it is true, then in the long run it shall do incalculable harm because 1)since he knows that he is lying surely other people can discover that he is in fact a fraud hence 2)as his influence grows through his false doctrines he will try to suppress the means by which other people can get at the truth. the only way he can do so is to discourage and ultimately destroy rational modes of thinking and learning and eliminate dissenting voices. if he succeeds the society he will create is one brainwashed into believing in only what he is saying. i am not saying that this John Edward will do such a thing, only that he has the potential to do such a thing, and the potential is very real. all religious and political dictators begin like inocuous and apparently well meaning frauds like john edward. hitler, poll pot, priestly class, north Korean dictatorship and many many more- all begin by trying to do good through a well contrived illusion.

Ivan Seeking

Oct22-03, 07:55 PM

But one kind of property that causes real nightmares is a house that carries a supernatural stigma. "Psychologically impacted" houses -- in which a murder, suicide, or illness took place -- are a tough sale.

The reason: fear of ghosts.

http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/21/pf/yourhome/househaunting/

My counter argument is that Edwards is the effect; not the cause.

Sage, in a political sense your words are most omninous. This gets tough to argue because I tend to agree.

How many other examples exist where people live well adjusted but deluded lives? Most all who have ever lived well adjusted lives; say I the skeptic of all spirituality.

sage

Oct24-03, 10:30 AM

quote-How many other examples exist where people live well adjusted but deluded lives? Most all who have ever lived well adjusted lives; say I the skeptic of all spirituality.-end quote.

i did not understand what exactly you are saying. please clarify.

Ivan Seeking

Oct24-03, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by sage
quote-How many other examples exist where people live well adjusted but deluded lives? Most all who have ever lived well adjusted lives; say I the skeptic of all spirituality.-end quote.

i did not understand what exactly you are saying. please clarify.

If I take the position of being a non-believer of anything spiritual, then I can argue that throughout history we find that most people who lived happy lives, also believed in spiritual fantasies. Only in rare instances do we find any real evidence of damage. For example, I don't think the pope has caused any trouble lately. Almost any church has a spiritual leader. It is not reasonable to make them all Hitlers. Next, need we cite the longevity and health studies done on the Mormons [LDS] and the Adventist? Here we can point to scientific evidence that these beliefs [fantasies in this context] make for a healthier and longer life.

russ_watters

Oct25-03, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
If I take the position of being a non-believer of anything spiritual, then I can argue that throughout history we find that most people who lived happy lives, also believed in spiritual fantasies. Only in rare instances do we find any real evidence of damage. You aren't looking hard enough then. Happy or not, religion has led to quite a bit of unhappiness, death, destruction, and hate. Some (though not me, though they have some convincing arguments) would argue that it is THE root of all political/social problems in the world thruout history.

sage

Oct27-03, 12:42 PM

but even you ivan must agree that belief without reason can lead to bigotry which leads to hatred, war etc. religion is a different matter , because if god is a lie created by some unscrupulous fraud far back in the past, he must be a good one as the whole world believes in HIM. i don't think that god is a kind of lie that was created deliberately by some individual(s) for his own benefit, it is an illusion that is necessary for the survival of a human being in the face of adversities and was created by evolution and is a part of our psyche(taking god in his broadest sense). so a bishop may truly believe that god exists, for him and for most of us god is as real as a tree that stands in the garden. but a bishop does not claim to have miraculous powers, and hence is no fraud.

but a person like john edward claims such powers and hence is certainly a fraud. his claims are falsifiable and so he will fear that his trickery may be exposed one day. thereby hangs my argument. but then again was hitler a fraud? did he not believe in what he preached? i think he did, and that made him a dangerous lunatic. but not all his followers were mad. they were frauds and did everything to defend the lies created by hitler.(note my observations are on people like john edwards in general, because i don't know him. but such people abound in our country too and i give here the reasons why they should not be tolerated, whatever the motives.)

Ivan Seeking

Oct27-03, 10:10 PM

Greed for wealth and power creates the horrors - survival!, genetics, competition - not the belief in ultimate goodness. The horrors of life come from Darwin, not Edwards. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Most dictators [edit: iron handed tyrants] that come to mind did not use religion as a vehicle; a few did - esp. in the middle ages - but many have used nationalism and patriotism, political ideology, cultural ideology, social ideology, geographical disputes, fear, genetics, as well as historical disputes whose bases are nearly lost. Any ideology can be manipulated to do evil.[:D] Why pick on Edwards? His "fantasy" leads to, or at least corresponds to a belief that we are accountable for our deeds. On the average, this probably has a more favorable impact on society than does a belief that life has no objective meaning - the latter being the truth in my eyes as an atheist [if I were an atheist].

sage

Nov4-03, 01:13 PM

who is targeting john edwards? i am against irrational belief systems, i am against conclusions accepted as true without proof or logical reasoning. be it fanatical patriotism(my country is the greatest), racism (my race is superior), political bigotry (nothing is better than x-ism) or religious bigotry (there is only one god, mine and HIS words are inviolable).

irrational beliefs lead to fanatism. fanatism leads to suffering and war. so irrational beliefs must be uprooted. you see some people may feel extreme emotional crises when faced with darwin, but that does not mean one should deny its facts or say it is false simply because they wish it were wrong. hiding from the truth is not the best way to go about in life. and whoever said rationality does not in fact justify our belief in ultimate goodness. truth tells us where we are now but it also tells us where we can be in future. and that future is not bleak at all- far from it. and it is in this grand sphere where life and this universe as a whole is perceived from the broadest perspective yet conceived that scientific thought and religion freed from their petty falsities merge into one.

Ivan Seeking

Nov4-03, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by sage
i am against irrational belief systems

This is a completely subjective statement. For one, all beliefs are ultimately irrational. But even with the deeper philosophical argumemts aside, at least all religious beliefs are irrational.

Are you denouncing religion in all forms? If not, then who gets to say what is and is not OK?

Also, you completely ignore the most important point
Greed for wealth and power creates the horrors - survival!, genetics, competition - not the belief in ultimate goodness. The horrors of life come from Darwin, not Edwards. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Beren

Nov4-03, 04:53 PM

Greed for wealth and power creates the horrors - survival!, genetics, competition - not the belief in ultimate goodness. The horrors of life come from Darwin, not Edwards. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

I find it interesting you used the word "opiate" with a positive connotation, since it's generally used as such a negative word. ;)

SkinWalker

Nov4-03, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
This is a completely subjective statement. For one, all beliefs are ultimately irrational.

So, if I believe Mount Everest to be 29,035 feet above sea level, would that be an irrational belief? I've never been to Mount Everest. I've never measured it. Yet, I fully believe that to be the correct measurement to the nearest 5 feet.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
But even with the deeper philosophical argumemts aside, at least all religious beliefs are irrational.

Not necessarily, many religions have many, very rational, beliefs. Taboos against killing, incest...etc. I concede, however, that many of the religious beliefs of the world are quite irrational.
Are you denouncing religion in all forms? If not, then who gets to say what is and is not OK?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Beren
[B]I find it interesting you used the word "opiate" with a positive connotation, since it's generally used as such a negative word. ;)

Actually, the original quote by Karl Marx was, "organized religion is the opiate of the people," but I've seen it in this modified form many times. There are many instances in which this appears to be true, but there are also times when it seems not to be.

Freud's view on religion was that Man needs a "parent" figure, which stems from the god-like characteristics that parents represent to their children (reward when actions are appropriate, punish when not). His view was interesting, but not universally applicable.

I haven't read the whole thread yet... will go back tonight or tomorrow and do so... but I have some opinions of my own about John Edwards. I don't want to restate something already covered, though.

I'll be back. :cool:

Ivan Seeking

Nov6-03, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by SkinWalker
So, if I believe Mount Everest to be 29,035 feet above sea level, would that be an irrational belief? I've never been to Mount Everest. I've never measured it. Yet, I fully believe that to be the correct measurement to the nearest 5 feet.

This really gets into what we mean when we say believe. There is a slightly greater than zero chance that for some reason our measurement is wrong. Since belief in this case [and in all cases] implies faith, however little, this choice for belief is not based entirely in logic. Logically we can never have certitude so belief is never really justified by reason.

Though I meant this chance of error as extremely small, hence my allusion to the philosophical, funny enough this number has changed quite a bit over the years. Still, I did mean as an extremely remote possibility.
EVEREST FACTS: Check EverestHistory.com for much more than is listed here...

Mt. Everest 8848 meters or 29,029 ft*
*Note the National Geographic Society has determined the height as being 29,035 feet. However, this "new" height is not yet determined as official to our knowledge. As the norm with Everest, nothing is simple.
http://www.everestnews.com/everest1.htm

My 1976 Guinness book lists the peak at 29028, but this is clearly out of date. Obviously satellites make the difference.

Actually, the original quote by Karl Marx was, "organized religion is the opiate of the people," but I've seen it in this modified form many times.

Actually I knew this; hence the lack of quotes. This variation obviously works better for my evil purposes here. [:D]

Semper000

Nov29-03, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Us science types are somewhat unique you know. Anyone disagree? We are more interested fundamental truth and facts than most. As for typical folks [not meaning to overgeneralize], like the song says, most guys just "pray the dog poop's hard".

Oh shame on you. You want disagreement? Here I am. Many of "us science types" are quite banal --rather than unique-- in our narrow mentality you know. There are countless "science types" who have an equal investment in the pursuit of "fundamental truth and facts" and spirituality. And by gosh I'd bet many of them are more unique, smarter and probably more interesting than you, smarty pants.

The problem is, quite a few of them seem to have no backbone and therefore won't discuss their spirituality because they fear how "unique" they'll be to their little atheistic geeky scientific circle of peers.

So don't be such a snobbola yo [g)]

Ivan Seeking

Nov29-03, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Semper000
Oh shame on you. You want disagreement? Here I am. Many of "us science types" are quite banal --rather than unique-- in our narrow mentality you know. There are countless "science types" who have an equal investment in the pursuit of "fundamental truth and facts" and spirituality. And by gosh I'd bet many of them are more unique, smarter and probably more interesting than you, smarty pants.

The problem is, quite a few of them seem to have no backbone and therefore won't discuss their spirituality because they fear how "unique" they'll be to their little atheistic geeky scientific circle of peers.

So don't be such a snobbola yo [g)]

Why the hostility? Did I hit a nerve?

Semper000

Nov30-03, 09:57 PM

In fact, you did hit a nerve by making a statement that sounded irritatingly close-minded and elitist to me; one I hear too often. This is a pet peeve of mine that I have difficulty tolerating in others AND in myself.

While I offer no apology for my point of view, I do admit I could have been a little less caustic toward you personally.

Hey! I definitely meant it when I said this: [g)]

[:)]

Ivan Seeking

Dec1-03, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Semper000
In fact, you did hit a nerve by making a statement that sounded irritatingly close-minded and elitist to me; one I hear too often. This is a pet peeve of mine that I have difficulty tolerating in others AND in myself.

While I offer no apology for my point of view, I do admit I could have been a little less caustic toward you personally.

Hey! I definitely meant it when I said this: [g)]

[:)]

Well, after reading my post I can see why this might have seemed offensive. I don't mean to be elitist by any means. I only reference the hard learned lesson for me that not to many people care to discuss or think about such philosophical issues [much]. I only realized this after boring to death most of my family and family-friends for about 10 years. When I finshed college, I gave my wife a signed contract promising not to discuss physics with her more than once a year. True story! [:)]

Semper000

Dec18-03, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Well, after reading my post I can see why this might have seemed offensive. I don't mean to be elitist by any means. I only reference the hard learned lesson for me that not to many people care to discuss or think about such philosophical issues [much]. I only realized this after boring to death most of my family and family-friends for about 10 years. When I finshed college, I gave my wife a signed contract promising not to discuss physics with her more than once a year. True story! [:)]

I think I see what you're saying. You know, I notice that a lot --not all-- ppl in the scientific community seem to avoid philosophical issues/discussions. I find this ironic in the extreme, since most successful scientific pioneers operate/d on hunches/intuition first, on ideas not yet proven prior to applying their formulaic theories and algorithms to the world of matter.

Another piece of irony (as I see it): I think a significant LACK of exploration and research into the areas of spiritualism/ paranormality may be the reason many science types remain closed-minded to the existence of one or more spiritual realities.

Your wife has put you on a special physics diet?! [*(]

[:D]