rainbow walking

Is there life after death? One popular TV show “Crossing Over” is making an extremely strong case in the affirmative. The show is vastly becoming a popular hit and achieving international acclaim. As a theist I have always assumed the afterlife to be a fact of reality as an attribute of my faith. But I don’t believe any human has the power to connect people who are alive with their relatives who aren’t. I guess you could say I’m an extreme skeptic when it comes to making merchandise of a religiously held conviction.

So how does this show, and its host, do it? Do they pay actors to portray normal people that have dead loved ones they want to communicate with? Is there a complicity between certain members of the audience and the host? I don't think so. Their reactions of shock, surprise, relief, joy, sorrow, relieved guilt are very real and that is what makes this show successful. It is the reactions of the parties involved that actually convinces everyone that the host is legit.

But is he legit? Does he actually make contact with people in the afterlife? How does he do it?

It really isn’t that difficult to do in this modern age of the internet. What!? Are you saying he contacts them over the internet? No, not literally, but informationally.

Ever heard of a Profiler? Law enforcement makes use of this process all the time and has actually developed it into a science. The process is relatively simple and requires only a picture and a name to begin. It begins quite simply. Set up a video camera in a discreet location and snapshot every face that passes within range. For instance people moving down a narrow hallway into a studio. Shuffle the photos through special software connected to a special database until you make a positive ID of a face. The database I’m speaking of here is the one kept by the FBI that is based on a “mug shot” made by anyone who’s ever been arrested. Out of 50 people someone in that set will fit into this category.

Once the positive ID is made and a name is attached to the picture the Profiler goes to work. The first step is to update the information if the arrest date is old. This can be accomplished easily with tax, employment, credit and medical searches. Next step is to run a family tree profile to ascertain the persons family make-up, birth and most importantly “DEATH” records. Having isolated one or more DEAD family members the next step is to shift focus to the deceased.

All death records contain extremely pertinent info like date of death, age of the deceased, CAUSE of death and many other circumstantial facts related to the deceased. After having accumulated this info the Profiler then reverts his attention back to the person in the audience. Personal information is needed to connect the living to the deceased in such a way as to leave no doubt in the living person’s mind that the deceased being described is his or her loved one.

This is usually accomplished by focusing on the areas that most people consider personal and private and unsuspectingly don’t realize just how public they really are. One’s home, for instance, is a good place to start. What could be more personal and private than the comfort and lay-out of one’s personal residence? How could this TV Host possibly know anything about my home? He absolutely has to be getting this info from my deceased loved one, right?

Don’t bet on it. Remember the Profiler has your name and any updated info will surely include your address. So his next stop is your counties building codes and inspections department. You’d be amazed at the records kept in databases pertaining to your home. The Profiler will find a wealth of info on your homes construction, architectural design, number of rooms, whether it is a split level, two story, ranch or other special design; if it has a basement, attic, garage, pool, or other distinctive feature…well, you see the implications. Now the Profiler has some personal information to work into the program.

But that isn’t enough. What could be more personal than your private hobbies that you’ve enjoyed for years? The Profiler has a wealth of data to access on your SPENDING habits by accessing info taken from credit card purchases, mail orders, on-line shopping, travel plans made, etc. and so forth.

The list could go on almost exhaustively and can be compiled in a relatively short period of time by a skilled technician. Once compiled and PROFILED for specifics that would serve the purposes of the Host, the rest is just clever psychological gimmickry.

But let’s examine the psychology used in conjunction with this information and see how it leads to the duping of millions of people. It is crucial when seeking a connection in the audience that the Host not be too specific. This might arouse un-wanted suspicion. So he tosses out things that begin to catch the attention of the unsuspecting person until he or she can no longer deny that this is their loved one with which a connection has been established and dutifully raise their hand. Once the person in the audience becomes convinced enough to raise their hand they effectively become a co-host to the show.

Now the Host can focus on that person and begin to SUGGEST more personal tidbits that the co-host has already convinced themselves he couldn’t possibly know. Each step of the journey is designed to accomplish one thing and one thing only: THE FACIAL AND AUDIBLE EXPRESSIONS of the co-host. These are the real targets that CONVINCE everyone else that the host is legitimate and his claims are coming from the “other side”.

Almost all humans have a natural built in sense of judgment when considering the reactions of other humans. Almost all humans intuitively know when another human’s behavior is genuine or manufactured. Some are more adept at it than others but no one can mistake the genuine emotional reactions of a human who genuinely believes something so strongly that he cannot possibly fake such a reaction. And that is what the Host is counting on. All he has to do is convince the one or two individuals in the audience. They will do the rest.

Now all of this leads to several very pertinent questions that need asking. Is the TV Studio complicit in this? There is no way the Host can pull it off alone. He has to have accomplices’. But that isn’t near as problematic as the next question:

Are the Host’s actions morally reprehensible and deplorable enough to be exposed? Your initial reaction to this question will likely be as incredulous as mine was when it occurred to me. “It sure is”, was my initial thought. But then I started asking myself how the Hosts actions affected the lives of his un-witting co-hosts? In every case examined the co-hosts experienced some very intense emotions and eventually seemed to find a sense of peace and healing in the experience. So I guess the real question is:

Is it morally wrong to deceive someone intellectually if it benefits them emotionally?

I would love to have some feedback on that question.

Bookman

I briefly address the question that you raised in conclusion.

I don't think so. I've told many a white lie in my life, and think that I can justify my actions morally (whatever that means) as creating the greatest happiness for all involved. In other words, as I don't believe that lying, in and of itself, is morally (whatever that means) wrong. Lies can frequently cause pain though, and as such, should generally be avoided.

However, with regard to John Edwards I think that the question itself, in the absence of further argument and evidence, is a non sequitur. I do not believe that Edwards' clients actually benefit from his services. Just because it feels good temporarily doesn't mean its good for them in the long term.

Bookman

rainbow walking

rw: Thanx for the response Bookman, I'm just a bit confused. What do you see as the difference between I've told many a white lie in my life, and think that I can justify my actions morally (whatever that means) as creating the greatest happiness for all involved.

and...I do not believe that Edwards' clients actually benefit from his services.?

I guess I'm trying to determine how your white lies produced happiness and thus alleviated moral culpability and Edward's show producing emotional releases in his audience?

Is it the difference between public and private?

scigirl

Rainbow walking,

Wow, that stuff about profilers is kinda spooky isn't it? Excellent analysis.

Very interesting question.

I agree with bookman above. Sometimes we deceive others for a short-term benefit.

But I believe that seeking the truth is always the more moral option, even if the truth hurts.

Sure, Edwards may make those people feel better that day. But if he is knowingly promoting a lie (and making big bucks doing it?) He may be prolonging the grieving process, which harms people in the long run. He may be giving them false hope, which may cause them to live their lives differently.

I could live my life such that I only try to make people feel better. For instance, if I'm mad at my boyfriend, I could lie and say, "No hon,you didn't make me mad. You never do." Perhaps he would feel better that day. But our relationship, based on deceit, would eventually suffer.

scigirl

Bookman

No. I thought about that after I submitted it, though. Good catch -- it certainly wasn't clear from my OP what the lack of moral equivalence was based on.

If a white lie that I have told has worked (i.e. created less pain overall than telling the truth) then I consider it moral.

What I believe may be true is that the services that Edwards provides are immoral(whatever that means) because they cause more pain than they alleviate. Believing that someone who has passed away not only exists somewhere else but that they have a need/ desire to send messages to us and that they can't do it save through a medium like John Edwards strikes me as a not-ultimately-very-comforting thing.

Despite what anyone may believe about life after death, or heaven, or what-have-you people who die are, in a very real way, gone. I believe that it is healthy for people to achieve closure about relationships that have ended due to death, and I believe that the snake oil that Edwards is selling is a barrier to closure.

It may make a person feel good temporarily to believe that they are making a connection with a lost love, but ultimately I believe that this will do more harm than good to actual relationships they need to have with the earthbound.

Just my opinion. I'm willing to entertain an argument that what Edwards does is good for people; I'm not willing to accept that a priori.

Bookman

Edited to include RW question due to cross-post.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bookman ]</p>

scigirl

I think there is a huge difference between telling someone their new haircut looks great when it sucks, and telling someone they spoke to your dead son.

And the expectations we have from each event are also vastly different.

Darwin's Finch

Rainbow Walking: "Is it morally wrong to deceive someone intellectually if it benefits them emotionally?"

IMO, not always. We often find ourselves in situations where the truth would be gratuitously hurtful (I'm reminded of the hideous baby episode on Seinfeld), and a white lie is the kind way out.

However, when we are talking about some slimeball huckster like Edwards, who is making big money pandering to the emotional "needs" of grieving people, exposure and denunciation cannot come too soon or be too shrill.

Like most people, I have lost loved ones. Fortunately, in my case, these were grandparents whose deaths were not untimely or unexpected. As an atheist, I have never been tempted to believe that they were anywhere but the grave, and I hope that I would not be so tempted even if I were to unexpectedly lose my wife or a child, crushing as such a loss would be. Acceptance of the shortness and fragility of life and the finality of death is, again IMO, simply a question of emotional maturity. To spread comforting fairy tales on a question of such importance, whether they come from a TV host or a church, is irresponsible in the extreme.

Of course, I don't expect that you and I will see eye-to-eye on this since you believe in an afterlife. An atheist's response to your question is less interesting than what your response would be. After all, Edwards is peddling the same snake oil that religions have been selling (at a considerable markup) for centuries. Do you, for instance, place a higher value on comfort than on truth?

rainbow walking

rw: Good response, scigirl, and one that occurred to me also.

rainbow walking

rw: I wouldn't try to defend Edwards actions Bookman, I happen to agree with your assessment in this case. However, I can't help but wonder why those people in his audience even came? Obviously there must be a longing within them to believe his abilities are real enough to warrant a trip to the studio. So they, at least in some small way, play a complicitious role in the scam. What I also wonder about is the emotional well being of all the other members of the audience who got left out because, of all reasons, they had no prior criminal history from which to build a profile. Kinda sad.

DRFseven

And what of your (hypothetical) ninety-year-old Christian grandmother who loves you? Will you burden her with your profession of atheism, or will you let her live the rest of her days in peace, secure in the knowledge that her beloved grandchild will not be tortured for eternity? This was my actual dilemma, by the way, though it really was no dilemma; I was happy to lie and avoid breaking her sweet old heart.