The discussion centers around the impact of John Edwards, a public figure known for his claims of communicating with the deceased, on society and individuals. Participants explore whether his actions cause more harm than good, particularly in the context of grief, belief, and the societal implications of such beliefs. The conversation touches on themes of ethics, human nature, and the role of illusion in coping with loss.
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the overall impact of John Edwards and the role of belief in society. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the value of illusion versus truth and the implications of religious beliefs.
Participants express varying assumptions about the nature of belief, the definition of harm, and the societal roles of religion and entertainment. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the evidence for claims made regarding the effects of belief systems on individual and societal well-being.
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.
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?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.
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?
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?
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.
James Randi? [who can often be and should be debunked himself].
Originally posted by Beren
What on Earth is wrong with James Randi?! He's one of the activists for reason!
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.
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.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?
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.
Edwards exists only because of what people believe in the first place.
Originally posted by TENYEARS
The illogic of this converstion
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.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.
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.
I think all of this has been covered before by myself and others, but I'll reiterate: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?
If it works for them, frankly, does it matter what you think?
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.
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.
How can you accept/come to terms with something you won't even face? Death is final and that's 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.Originally posted by hypnagogue
To come to terms with something means to emotionally accept it.
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.There's obviously more to the psychology of a so-called psychic than money-making
That is of course the fallacy of the religion vs science argument 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.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.
No, I said there are TWO kinds of psychics.So you're saying all psychics are of the same nature as Ms. Cleo, hmm?
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.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.
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.Tell me precisely what harm it does to believe that a deceased love on lives on in the afterlife.
Thats a reasonable story, but it doesn't fit your argument. Pot in that case is essentially pain medication. It doesn't fix the cancer - that's 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.If you want to use a drug analogy, let me make my own so as to more accurately characterize my argument...
Originally posted by russ_watters
How can you accept/come to terms with something you won't even face? Death is final and that's 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.
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 argument 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.
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.
Thats a reasonable story, but it doesn't fit your argument. Pot in that case is essentially pain medication. It doesn't fix the cancer - that's 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.
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?The issue at hand is if it is beneficial to some people to get psychological closure from a person like Edwards.
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.Coming to terms with death is a natural psychological process over time.
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?…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.
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 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.
[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
Originally posted by russ_watters
That is of course the fallacy of the religion vs science argument as well as the "open minded" fallacy I've been battling Ivan on.
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.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.
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.Given our assumption, this same argument can be made for most religions.
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.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.
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?Where is the evidence that logic makes people happy?
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.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 already touched on this and explained;What if many people need this sort of thing?
I wasn’t assuming people didn’t need it, I know many do.I don’t see how we can assume otherwise.
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.Would Prozac be better?