I just picked up the book "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan and it's actually leading me to a lot of interesting directions...

 

Anyways, in the book, Sagan talks about it being common knowledge that Ronald and Nancy Reagan visited and counted on psychics for counsel before, after and during Regan's presidency. After doing a little online research I found out that the Reagan's actively believe in clairvoyant phenomena, even going so far as to have an astrological phone-line that would immediately connect them with their psychic reader at the time, Joan Quigley, to the White House.

 

How do you feel about political leaders turning to psuedo-science for advice?

I think those that do have at least some issues.

 

Rumor has it that Lincoln's wife had a seance in the White House one time.

I'd agree, obviously.

 

However, if we feel this way about this issue, what about when we turn to religion as guidance for other issues? Isn't it kind of the same thing?

Bringing in a spiritualist or a clairvoyant or whatever is no worse than consulting a priest or rabbi for advice, or for advising people to pray.

 

Now, where one may draw the line (as I myself do) is how far one takes such advice or how much belief is placed in it.

 

I mean, in as non-sacriligous a way as possible, there is almost no difference from blindly believing in religion and believing in clairvoyance.

 

I believe in both to a degree and really the only issues should be how far one takes that belief when making decisions as a leader whom many are dependant upon.

I'd agree, obviously.

 

However, if we feel this way about this issue, what about when we turn to religion as guidance for other issues? Isn't it kind of the same thing?

 

 

Astrology and psychics lack morality as a basis for their counsel.

I'd agree, obviously.

 

However, if we feel this way about this issue, what about when we turn to religion as guidance for other issues? Isn't it kind of the same thing?

 

 

Astrology and psychics lack morality as a basis for their counsel.

 

I'll agree with that. There's some morality in the bible.

 

However, it still has it's fault. If you take counsel with God, or a religious leader, how reliable are they, really? What makes you put them above the psychic? Are you apt to say all religious leaders could be considered reliable at all?

I'd agree, obviously.

 

However, if we feel this way about this issue, what about when we turn to religion as guidance for other issues? Isn't it kind of the same thing?

 

 

Astrology and psychics lack morality as a basis for their counsel.

 

I'll agree with that. There's some morality in the bible.

 

However, it still has it's fault. If you take counsel with God, or a religious leader, how reliable are they, really? What makes you put them above the psychic? Are you apt to say all religious leaders could be considered reliable at all?

 

Well, if you take counsel with God, I'd say that's pretty reliable. As far as spiritual advisors, while they certainly have extensive knowledge of their respective religion, the problem lies in their human tendencies (meaning they pretty much always build the advice in {insert Holy Text here} around their agenda, rather than building their agenda around the written word of God).

 

This goes deeper than leaders and their relationships with spiritual advisors, it is a problem that is plaguing Christianity. People call them "fundamentalists" but I don't, I think a true "fundamentalist" would take into account all facets of, say, the words of Christ and the Apostles, rather than justifying their desire to start a culture war against homosexuals by citing laws of the Tanakh and ignoring Christ's instructions to show love and acceptance towards everybody that accepts it, exemplifying the way God feels about us. This is according to Christianity of course.

 

And my statement about the us vs. them complex that Christians have with homosexuals is just one example of many problems with many religious people (NOT with religions themselves)

Well, if you take counsel with God, I'd say that's pretty reliable.

 

 

See, I hold issue with this. How could you hold counsel with a being that you can't even concievably physcially or mentally explain? How is holding grounds for doing action based on this counsel rational?

Well, if you take counsel with God, I'd say that's pretty reliable.

 

 

See, I hold issue with this. How could you hold counsel with a being that you can't even concievably physcially or mentally explain? How is holding grounds for doing action based on this counsel rational?

 

Well you're not going to sit down with God over coffee and shoot the breeze, obviously. I actually intended slight sarcasm in my post. I mean if you were literally speaking with God, assuming He exists, that'd be good advice, no?

 

You're right, it's not that simple. But it's simpler than you think. A Christian (obviously) believes that Jesus Christ was God, and thus you can find the words and counsel of God in the letters printed in red. I don't know if you've read the Gospels, but you can find hordes of advice from Christ in there and when you're willing to put His commands above your own agenda, you can apply what Christ says to just about anything.

 

This is just my illustration of a how a Christian leader would turn to their faith to answer questions they may have. That is how and when they should turn to their faith. Too many people use their faith as their platform after deciding where they stand, and not enough people let their faith shape them.

Good answer. I'm willing to go with it, on some level.

 

Although, the more I think about it, shouldn't a leader appeal moreso to what's best for the people, aside from any kind of future-reading nonsense, or even holding counsel with God? I mean, the people put him there, he's there to serve their will and hopefully make it better for their benefit and not his own or any kind of deity.

 

So, in some sense, the leader shouldn't have to go any further than: "What's best for the people in my charge?" Probably consult with his cabinet and some experts.

Well, if you take counsel with God, I'd say that's pretty reliable. As far as spiritual advisors, while they certainly have extensive knowledge of their respective religion, the problem lies in their human tendencies (meaning they pretty much always build the advice in {insert Holy Text here} around their agenda, rather than building their agenda around the written word of God).

 

 

 

One person's interpretation of waht God is saying can be completely different than another persons.

 

 

 

And every religion interprets whatever holy text they believe in to meet their own personal agenda.

Well, if you take counsel with God, I'd say that's pretty reliable. As far as spiritual advisors, while they certainly have extensive knowledge of their respective religion, the problem lies in their human tendencies (meaning they pretty much always build the advice in {insert Holy Text here} around their agenda, rather than building their agenda around the written word of God).

 

 

 

One person's interpretation of waht God is saying can be completely different than another persons.

 

 

 

And every religion interprets whatever holy text they believe in to meet their own personal agenda.

 

Yes, you just paraphrased what I said.

How do you feel about political leaders turning to psuedo-science for advice?

 

 

As long as they don't blindly follow the advice, I have no problem with it. Same thing with religion. As long as they don't blindly follow, i don't care. Everybody needs advice sometimes, and everyone has the capability of giving good advice. Heck, most of the time, psychics and such don't really give advice but help you realize what you want to do. Works very similar to prayer.

 

Either way, at least is isn't as bad as Caligula.

Well, if you take counsel with God, I'd say that's pretty reliable. As far as spiritual advisors, while they certainly have extensive knowledge of their respective religion, the problem lies in their human tendencies (meaning they pretty much always build the advice in {insert Holy Text here} around their agenda, rather than building their agenda around the written word of God).

 

 

 

One person's interpretation of waht God is saying can be completely different than another persons.

 

 

 

And every religion interprets whatever holy text they believe in to meet their own personal agenda.

 

Yes, you just paraphrased what I said.

 

so who really cares where people get advice from?

 

 

*shrugs*

 

 

few speak directly to god in power, most goto some 'holy person' who is just as biased as the next.

But aren't they going to bad sources? I mean, it's like going to McDondalds for tacos. It's not really relevant to the matter at hand. Don't they have a whole crew of specialists in their cabinet to turn to, or to even consider, "Hey, what's best for the people?" than to turn to something where you either don't get results, or you could have arrived at on your own anyways?

Aside from the potential moral reprocussions of clairvoyant advice for politcal figures, in a free country you can do as you please, and if psychics are your thing then the government of a free country cant do anything about it.

Aside from the potential moral reprocussions of clairvoyant advice for politcal figures, in a free country you can do as you please, and if psychics are your thing then the government of a free country cant do anything about it.

 

 

Well, they do technically work for us. Who's to say we can't say it's bulls*** and find a way to get more informed sources than hoodoo as reference for our leaders?

 

Granted, it does fall on the people's shoulders for electing a nut.