Can the dead contact the living and other related issues

Great Debates
1

My wife and I had one of our *very, very infrequent *arguments the other day about this topic. We were flipping channels (okay, I was flipping channels) and we turned on Fox. I don’t know how many of you have seen this or not, but they have a show now where a guy claims to be able to contact dead people and convey their thoughts/messages/etc. to their living relatives. It’s done in kind of a Donahue/town hall format where he points at a person in the audience, asks them some questions and then passes on the message from their recently departed loved ones.

This was the second time we had flipped past this show in the last week or so (must be getting heavy air time). Because of the questions this guy was asking, he had my BS-meter pegged well into the red end of the spectrum. I said something to the effect of “I can’t believe that there is anyone stupid enough to actually believe this [crap].” Without turning this into a MPSIMS account of the discussion that followed - a discussion where I bravely ignored many warning signs and plunged ahead with the conversation - my wife indicated that while she thought this particular individual may be a fraud, she thought that it was possible that dead people could somehow contact the living. She mentioned that at an important time in her/our life, she felt the presence of my father. (My father was a Marine pilot whose plane disappeared during training in the Atlantic when I was about 18 months old.)

I told her (very inartfully) that this somewhat offended me because in my entire life I have never felt my father’s presence and that if he was going to appear to anyone, it should be me. I recognize that this may be a somewhat self-absorbed and petulent thought, but there it is in my brain anyway. I also stated (even more inartfully) that while I thought she may genuinely believe this, that she was wrong. – You can see how I got into trouble here.

Anyway, this caused a couple of detailed conversations where, after I finished apologizing for the way I said some of the things I said, we agreed to disagree. We ended up with two topics that after thinking about it, we thought would make good discussions here on the board.

First, can the dead contact the living? I say it’s absolutely impossible, there’s no scientific evidence for it, etc. My wife says that it is possible and shouldn’t be discounted out of hand.

The second argument is about the guy on the Fox TV show. Let’s assume, without any evidence but just for the sake of argument, that he’s full of [crap] and knows it. I believe that his deception of the audience and the people who may honestly believe that this type of contact is possible is unforgiveable and unjustifiable. This subject is too important for deception. My wife said that even if he is intentionally deceiving these people, it might be justifiable to the extent that he is offering comfort and consolation that these people genuinely need and can get from no other source (e.g., your mother wants you to know that she is proud of you and that everything will turn out okay). So, could a person doing this type of thing, knowing that they are not actually contacting the dead, be justified in acting as if they could?

Talk amongst yourselves.

2

In response to your first question: you are correct, your wife is wrong. Feel free to tell her this, tho I will not have to sleep on the couch.

Re question #2: he is perfectly justified as long as the stations carrying the show sell sufficient advertising.

3

I know of many instances where the dead contact the living. It’s called a last will and testament. Sometimes they even leave a videotape.

4

Squooshed said:

Is it “absolutely impossible”? Probably. But the more important point is that there is no scientific evidence for it. Concentrate on this rather than the possible/impossible argument next time you talk to your wife about it.

Absolutely. I agree 100%.

I’ve seen that argument 1000 times before, and I say it’s BS. “Making somebody feel better” should not come at the expense of the truth. This is especially true when the person who is “making them feel better” is raking in the bucks through his deception – and, of course, those bucks all come from those he has deceived.

Here are some links to articles about people like this. In particular, James Van Praagh is one of the most well-known (though there have been copycats since then – I don’t know who you’re talking about with the Fox show).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/joe_nickell/van_praagh.html
http://www.skepdic.com/vanpraagh.html
http://members.aol.com/garypos/Van_Praagh.html
http://www.csicop.org/si/9807/praagh.html
http://www.reall.org/newsletter/v06/n04/reallity-check.html (go down to the part subtitled “Beliefs about the dead”)

I also wrote a review of one of his books, and converted it to a two-part article on Themestream. However, because I get paid by that site (though it is free for readers), I cannot post the link here. You can either go there and search for it or e-mail me and I’ll tell you the link.

5

Is this phoney justified? Magicians do it and we buy it everytime. Humans have a strange need to believe in the unbelievable.

The basis for this guy’s special talent is absurd. If you believe he is actually communicating with the dead relatives of his audience, you must also conclude that the dead have nothing better to do than hover around us waiting for this chap to come along so they can communicate vague messages that do little more than confirm their relationship to the person. If you had the opportunity, as a dead person, to give a message to your loved ones, wouldn’t it have a little more substance?

Hogwash…Poppy-cock…BS!

6

No can do.

Harry Houdini spent years exposing fraudulent mediums, and he and his wife made up a secret code. If it were possible to come back after he died, he told her he would. P.S. He didn’t.

Besides, if the dead could contact us, don’t you think they’d ALL be doing it, constantly? Most people never shut the hell up when they’re alive. We would be barraged 24 hours a day with deceased friends and relatives—not to mention nosey total strangers—giving us advice from beyond.

7

Duck Hook said:

Yes, and we know we are being fooled. That is the point of a magician.

There is a world of difference between a person who says, “Watch how well I can fool you,” and one who says, “This is real!”

8

There’s a Pot-Shot from a guy named Ashleigh Brilliant that says, “When I reach full enlightenment, you’ll be the first to know (if letting you know still seems important).”

I mention this only to counteract the argument that goes, “If the dead could give us messages, wouldn’t they be specific?”

There are a host of reasons they might not be; we have no idea if, assuming the dead have any sentient existence at all, under what conditions they are laboring.

It is more appropriate, in my view, to simply ask what evidence we have for communication from beyond the grave. As the proponent of an extraordinary claim, it would fall to me to adduce compelling evidence for that claim. If I cannot, my claim must be dismissed - not “out of hand,” but rather simply as a failure of sufficient evidence.

Period.

  • Rick
9

The first issue doesn’t seem at this point to be much of a debate. I’m kind of surprised. Since it seems we always have people willing to argue all kinds of positions, there’s got to be someone out there who believes that the dead can contact the living. Anyone?

Regarding the second issue (is the phony justified) …

Dinsdale said:

It seems to me that while this statement is correct from a free market perspective, I’m more interested in whether he is morally justified in using this tactic to make money. I believe that there are some activities that although potentially profitable should not be pursued for moral reasons. This is one of them, IMHO. Are you saying, Dinsdale, that all activities are justified in a free market, or just that this one is?

DavidB said:

[gratuitous fawning] Although I have developed great respect for David through the evolution threads [/gratuitous fawning], it seems to me that the truth cannot always be the highest goal. Certainly we have all been in situations where telling a small lie is preferable to the consequences of telling a harsh truth. Chef Troy’s thread regarding his bisexuality seems to me to be an example of a big lie being preferable, at least in his opinion, to a very harsh truth. Now, my personal opinion is that the phony medium is telling a very big lie that is not justified by the comfort it brings. But are you, David, saying that lies are never justified to make someone feel better?

10

Yeah, that was a tad flippant and overly cynical. Sorry.

But I see the line as pretty darn thin between the guy you describe and, say, televangelists/faith healers/fortune tellers/psychic hotline/etc. And each of these categories, say televangelists, represents a continuum from the apparently sincere to the charlatan. Say from Billy Graham to Jim Bakker.

Is this guy better or worse if he is simply mistaken concerning his ability, intentionally deceiving for various reasons, or insane? And, what steps should who make to protect persons from voluntarily responding to his message in different manners? Tough decisions which I feel are probably best left to the marketplace.

(As soon as I post this, I’m certain to regret that I failed to completely agree and defer to the inestimable Mr. B! Humbly, I await my deserved lashing.)

11

My best friend died in a car accident three years ago.

If it were possible for the dead to communicate with the living, he would have contacted me in some way. This is beyond question. He hasn’t.

Not only would he have contacted me; given his twisted sense of humor, he would have scared the shit out of me at some moment when it would be especially effective. Hasn’t.

I’m not one to dismiss things out of hand because the scientific evidence isn’t there. We don’t know everything there is to know about science or its laws. Believing that we do (as many in this forum often seem to) could come back a millenium or two from now and make us look very silly, like the flat-earth proponents of long ago.

I believe our consciousness (“soul,” if you’d rather) transcends our bodily functions, and continues to exist in some other capacity after our “meat-taxi” here on earth gets worn out. I also think that this continued existence after our bodily experience is incapable of contact or interaction with the existential plane it is departing.

I have no evidence for this whatsoever. Just a feeling. Which makes it pretty difficult to debate, I know.

12

“Meat-taxi.”

Me like!

Yours, Milo?

13

Why yes, thank you. :slight_smile:

Although I’ve always wondered if the band The Meat Puppets is thinking along the same lines.

14

I watch the guy all the time, since I watch Sci-Fi channel a lot. His name is John Edwards, he has a website attached to the Sci-Fi Channel website. I guess he’s a fraud, but he’s soft spoken and often entertaining.

As far as him being some kind of “confidence or con-man” who gives a shit! Those people are there by choice. All of them look over 18 to me. If they are willing to believe all that stuff why attach some kind of arbitrary morality code to what he’s doing? He’s providing a service that people want. He isn’t selling crack to school kids for goodness sake.

Besides nobody knows what happens to our “energy” when we die. If we have a soul or not. Scientists have found ways now to explain near death experiences, etc., but in the end (pardon my pun) they are just theories after all. Since many people who have “come back from the dead” and related similar experiences, scientists have been hard at work finding ways to “scientifically explain” what these people felt and saw. The truth is nobody really knows and won’t until you’re worm fodder.

Needs2know

15

Dinsdale said:

It sounds like we probably agree on this, but are just focusing on different aspects. I agree that the line does get pretty thin, and I would not call for some type of regulation to prevent Fox from putting whatever the hell it wants on TV. However, I believe that the actions of someone who is intentionally decieving someone else about something this important are morally repugnant, from a personal viewpoint. I suspect you would also agree with this.
Needs2know said:

I agree that there is nothing immoral about a “medium” giving messages to people who know that the whole thing is a fraud. That’s no more unethical than a magic act, as stated by previous posters. The important difference is that I suspect and assume (wrongly?) that there are people who genuinely believe that they are getting messages from dear Aunt Betty, or whoever. It is the morality of deceiving these people that bothers me.

16

But how would you enforce such a standard?

Do you need to protect adults from giving up their money for nothing substantial or proveable? Is there an intent to defraud? How do you treat religions? Can they prove they are giving their parishoners anything other than “a good feeling”? How about the firms that offer cryogenic services? How bout sharpies selling risky options on stock futures to retirees?

Is this the distinction? If I dress up like a gypsy, and pretend to tell fortunes for a fund raising event, and everyone knows I’m just old Dinsdale and not really a fortune-teller, but they give money during the fund raiser because it’s a good cause, that’s okay. But, if I move to a different locale, market myself as Dinsdale the magnificant, and prey on the gullible by telling fortunes for profit, that’s bad?

This is a toughie, because I have little sympathy for otherwise arguably competent adults who voluntarily choose to give their money to hucksters. OTOH, I feel sympathy when I hear about old folks getting fleeced by phony home repair flimflam men. I generally end up, however, on the side of caveat emptor. If you earned the money, you should be able to piss it away any damn way you choose. And I’m not a big advocate of governmental intervention to protect people from their own stupidity.

I don’t think I agree with you, Squooshed, that this is an especially repugnant topic concerning which outrage or protection is required. Not sure the promise of a message from beyond is all that worse than a promise of everlasting life. What benefit do churchgoers get, other than a sense of well being and (hopefully) an incentive to lead a “better” life? Wouldn’t have to twist too much to say the same about the spiritualist.

Disclaimer - As an atheist, I believe deceiving people for profit is a significant element of most organized religions. Most people disagree with me on this. Doesn’t necessarily make them right. And doesn’t make my “belief” wrong! (assume smilie)

17

Squooshed said:

Never? No. I would never say never. Like you, I feel this is a very big lie. Do I know exactly where to draw the line? No. But when the person telling the very big lie is also making very big bucks by scamming these very sad people, I know that one definitely went too far.

Dinsdale said:

No argument there. One con-man is pretty much like another.

I’d say he’s better if he really does believe what he’s saying. At least he’s not purposely conning people. That said, I don’t think most of these folks really do believe in their own abilities. Some “psychics” do, I’ll certainly grant that. But these guys in question here are big names, and have been debunked big-time. If they don’t realize that their powers are bogus, they deserve a gold medal in self-deception.

Man, I’m getting quite a reputation. First Scylla, now you. :wink:

Needs2Know said:

I was wondering if this was the guy in question, but the OP mentioned Fox, not the Sci-Fi Channel.

Yeah! Who cares if he scams them all!

Give me a break. Are you going to say that about all victims of con-men? Who cares if that little old lady lost her life’s savings to a con man? She’s old enough to know better! Let her live in a cardboard box!

No, he’s lying (presuming that he doesn’t believe in himself) and taking people’s money. That’s called a scam.

Dinsdale said:

Protect them? Not necessarily. But inform them? Yes. Then if they still want to shell out their hard-earned bucks, that’s their problem. Though the issue of fraud still may be one to address (see below).

No. But you can’t prove that they aren’t giving them a ticket to heaven. However, you can show that these “mediums” are just doing cold-reading (as some of the articles I listed discuss). Van Praagh, for example, has even been caught cheating on television!

Yes. In one case, they are using you as entertainment and both sides know that it’s just a show. In the second case, you are claiming to provide a service and they believe you are providing it; that’s fraud.

18

Responding primarily to Dinsdale:

I would not enforce a standard. I’m not advocating any particular standard in the sense of prohibiting people from being slimeballs who take advantage of other people in this manner.* In my personal sense of morality, I can believe that someone is doing something wrong, without believing that they should be stopped from doing it.

The debate was not intended to be about whether this individual should be stopped from having his program or passing along messages. Instead, it was just that if he is intentionally deceiving these people, is that wrong or not? My wife thought that in some situations, the deception may be justified because the people need this comfort and cannot get it in any other way. Her point of view - it might be ok (insert multiple disclaimers here). My point of view - it is wrong.

I have no interest in enforcing my own morality on the rest of society. I believe that what he is doing is wrong. I believe that he should stop, if he is intentionally deceiving his audience. I don’t believe that I should stop him. I don’t believe that his “marks” need to be protected. They’re adults and can presumably protect themselves.

Where you said:

I would respond by saying that I do feel outrage. In fact the whole concept kind of pisses me off. However, I do not feel that protection is required.

    • I include the “in this manner” because obviously some form of protection is required for commercial fraud and the like. How commercial fraud may play into this, I haven’t fully thought about. My initial reaction is that to the extent this individual is charging people for his “services” and his services are intentionally fraudulent, then the fraud laws should apply to him as well. But, proving it is a big issue and that would spin off into an entirely separate debate from the first two already posted here.
19

The assumption here seems to be that John Edwards’ audience is NOT part of the gag. I might be beyond cynical about this, but, it is TV after all.

Truly great magicians can make you question the laws of physics or have you asking: “Is this bull-shit or is it real?”

We, the viewers, are the suckers. The participants on the show are part of the act.

20

Minor correction: I thought it was Fox, but maybe it was the Sci-Fi channel now that I think about it some more. Both channels are in the path I flip through as I go. It was a white male, standing in the bottom of a bowl shaped auditorium pointing up at the people around him. If I see it again, I’ll let you know.