- #61
BoulderHead
Thank you, Ivan !
John Edwards: An overall positive or negative?
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the ethical implications of John Edwards, a medium known for his ability to communicate with the deceased, and whether his practices do more harm than good. Participants debate the value of comfort provided to grieving individuals versus the potential societal harm of promoting false beliefs. Some argue that if Edwards helps people cope with loss, the illusion may be justified, while others contend that embracing "happy lies" can lead to broader cultural issues, including a reluctance to accept painful truths in various aspects of life, such as medicine and politics. The conversation also touches on the role of religion and spirituality in providing comfort, questioning whether these beliefs hinder societal progress or serve a necessary psychological function. Ultimately, the thread explores the tension between truth and happiness, suggesting that while some may find solace in Edwards' claims, the long-term effects of such beliefs could be detrimental to individuals and society as a whole.
- #62
- 8,213
- 2,656
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.
really I agree. But, if we assume all religion is false...etc etc
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.
Me.
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.
Yes we agree too much.
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.
- #63
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,283
- 3
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?
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.
- #64
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
No, I meant there are two separate fallacies at work there. I wasn't connecting the two.
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.
Last edited:
- #65
BoulderHead
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...
- #66
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
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.
Heh, your post implies (correctly, I think - since I made the same point) that lack of evidence is in itself evidence of fraud.
- #67
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.
- #68
hypnagogue
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 2,283
- 3
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.
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.
Zero, it would be helpful if you actually informed us on the content of that article you refer to, buddy.
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.
Last edited:
- #69
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
Link? (I'm too lazy to Google).
- #70
sage
- 110
- 0
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.
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.
- #71
- 8,213
- 2,656
Real estate's scary side: Three beds, two baths, one ghost.
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.
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.
- #72
sage
- 110
- 0
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.
i did not understand what exactly you are saying. please clarify.
- #73
- 8,213
- 2,656
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.
- #74
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,739
- 11,188
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.
- #75
sage
- 110
- 0
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.)
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.)
- #76
- 8,213
- 2,656
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. 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].
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. 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].
Last edited:
- #77
sage
- 110
- 0
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.
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.
Last edited:
- #78
- 8,213
- 2,656
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
Last edited:
- #79
Beren
- 90
- 0
I find it interesting you used the word "opiate" with a positive connotation, since it's generally used as such a negative word. ;)
- #80
SkinWalker
- 14
- 0
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?
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.
- #81
- 8,213
- 2,656
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.
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 I knew this; hence the lack of quotes. This variation obviously works better for my evil purposes here.
Last edited:
- #82
Semper000
- 3
- 0
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
Last edited:
- #83
- 8,213
- 2,656
Why the hostility? Did I hit a nerve?
- #84
Semper000
- 3
- 0
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:
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:
- #85
- 8,213
- 2,656
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:
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!
- #86
Semper000
- 3
- 0
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?!
- #87
Tsu
Gold Member
- 420
- 63
Yes, but like most physicists, he is incapable of sticking to this particular diet.
- #88
- 8,213
- 2,656
Yes, in fact Tsunami demands that I never use the words "integral" or "derivative" in the house.
Sorry Integral, nothing personal.
Sorry Integral, nothing personal.
- #89
Tsu
Gold Member
- 420
- 63
You have to understand that, for SO LONG, I sat and listened to Ivan and his friends studying, night after night, and all I ever heard was "The integral of (blah blah blah)" and "the derivative of (yada yada yada)" that pretty soon I was thinking of them as the 'I' word or the 'D' word. It's been long enough now that it's actually OK to use them in the house again. Especially if it's in reference to YOU, Integral! (PLEASE don't abuse the privilege, Ivan, dear.
I still get to enjoy the daily physics or math lessons - whether I want them or not! )