John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
Over in the Skepticism and Debunking forum, good ole John has suffered several rounds of debunking. If we assume that we have correctly debunked Mr. Edwards, and not to say that all persons would agree that we have, I still have to wonder: Is he really doing more harm than good? If millions of people are helped in their time of grief, which could potentially be the result of so many true believers, could that be worth the price paid for this illusion? If all of this afterlife stuff is boloney and when we die that's it - the big nada - who cares if John’s duping so many true believers? What is preferable about the alternative for the grieving? Maybe a majority of people can best cope with life if allow for some illusion. This is a question about human nature and is not one of ethics or morals; though clearly these consideration do weigh in.
 
Z

Zero

Guest
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Over in the Skepticism and Debunking forum, good ole John has suffered several rounds of debunking. If we assume that we have correctly debunked Mr. Edwards, and not to say that all persons would agree that we have, I still have to wonder: Is he really doing more harm than good? If millions of people are helped in their time of grief, which could potentially be the result of so many true believers, could that be worth the price paid for this illusion? If all of this afterlife stuff is boloney and when we die that's it - the big nada - who cares if John’s duping so many true believers? What is preferable about the alternative for the grieving? Maybe a majority of people can best cope with life if allow for some illusion. This is a question about human nature and is not one of ethics or morals; though clearly these consideration do weigh in.
He is lying to people...isn't that harm enough?
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
Re: Re: John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?

Originally posted by Zero
He is lying to people...isn't that harm enough?
What harm?
 
Z

Zero

Guest
Re: Re: Re: John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What harm?
The harm is in conditioning people to embrace happy lies...the damage can be seen in our culture today, and extends far beyond the 'supernatural' beliefs that people have. Medicine, politics, whatever, people need to accept truth, no matter how painful.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
Re: Re: Re: Re: John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?

Originally posted by Zero
The harm is in conditioning people to embrace happy lies...the damage can be seen in our culture today, and extends far beyond the 'supernatural' beliefs that people have. Medicine, politics, whatever, people need to accept truth, no matter how painful.
you Orwellian.

What if, as an example, we assume that all religious beliefs are false, but that people are happier and they live longer if they believe in spiritual fantasies?

Two particular groups that can lay claim to unique longevity are the Mormons and the Adventists. One can argue that this results from lifestyle, but from what comes the lifestyle? Also, stress and happiness are significant factor in longevity.

Perhaps it is just a matter of having the right fantasy. Also, you are proposing that politics is anything but a fiction now?
 
Last edited:
90
0
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
you Orwellian.

What if, as an example, we assume that all religious beliefs are false, but that people are happier and they live longer if they believe in spiritual fantasies?

Two particular groups that can lay claim to unique longevity are the Mormons and the Adventists. One can argue that this results from lifestyle, but from what comes the lifestyle? Also, stress and happiness are significant factor in longevity.

Perhaps it is just a matter of having the right fantasy. Also, you are proposing that politics is anything but a fiction now?
It's true that in the short run it may help the individual, but more importantly, it hurts the society. Look how much money and time is going into simple myths.

While they may live longer, they're doing much less good with their time. In the end, IMHO, it's a negative effect.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?

Originally posted by Beren
it hurts the society. Look how much money and time is going into simple myths.
How. I keep hearing the claim, but I don't see the evidence.

While they may live longer, they're doing much less good with their time.
So they would be better off gambling down at the bar while watching the football game? What good do people do who don't have religion; as opposed to the good done by the religious. Many if not most of the worlds charitable organizations are sponsored by churches. I think it becomes easy to argue that the religious do more good that the non-religious...by a long shot!

In the end, IMHO, it's a negative effect.
Again, why?
 
90
0
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
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.
 
Last edited:
90
0
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.
 
Z

Zero

Guest
I think true, lasting happiness comes from accepting the truth...telling lies is ultimately harmful to those sorry people who believe in it.
 
90
0
Well said.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
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.
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
You are both ignoring the fact that many people never do recover from devestating loss. Sometimes, "we just can't handle the truth".
 

Tsu

Older than Evo
Gold Member
321
64
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'?
 
Last edited:
Z

Zero

Guest
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

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
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.
 
Last edited:
B

BoulderHead

Guest
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…

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,781
169
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…
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.
 

The Physics Forums Way

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving
Top