Again, all of Cayce's predictions and medical advice are available for public inspection through the Cayce Foundation. I'd suggest you first inspect these materials, then see the evidence to which we are referring.
There is no corollary between believers of Cayce and his critics. Critics can point to his recorded medical advice and compare it with known science. Critics can point to his prognostications and compare them with the actual events of history. Critics can point to Cayce's actual behavior, then compare it to the manner in which Cayce's supporters would have the public think he acted. Where is the corollary? One is based on hard evidence; the other is based on a willingness to believe in something based on no evidence.
It is errant to think that the passions that motivate both Cayce's critics and his supporters are in any way parallel. They are not.
I probably didn't express this point clearly.
The corollary has nothing to do with Cayce.
This is possibly OP worthy, but since you asked respectfully, I feel you deserve an honest response.
I have been watching the works, deeds, and writings of James Randi for about eight years. He has repeatedly said that there is a need to believe among believers which is not necessarily dependent on the object of belief.
According to Randi, a person who believes
needs to believe so badly that in their zeal they will abandon reason and even evidence to satisfy their needs while attempting to maintain the integrity of the objects of their beliefs and the surrounding thought systems at all costs--even at the cost of what some would call the rational. This is an excellent observation, and I would agree with it in many respects.
However, as I have experienced on numerous occassions here at the JREF, there is an equal amount of need in non-believers (notice absence of word
skeptics) and an equal amount of zeal to maintain their belief systems/worldviews. And though there is an inclination toward rationalism and science amongst non-believers, still the zeal to maintain their needs to discredit any thing with which they disagree has caused similar flights into the irrational and the prejudicial (and some would say outright out of control hostility).
Example. Look at this thread. There has been more than one case where someone says something to the effect of: "Look at the evidence (which I can't provide), and you'll see (quite quickly and quite prejudicially) I'm right." No dialogue. No "on the other hands." No regard for anything outside their "box" of 'what is and what isn't.' Abject close-mindedness.
To those who appeal to rationality, sound reasoning, science and evidence, the knee-jerk, prejudicial, and vitreolic nature of the posts in a "skeptic's forum" show a similarity to the irrationality of those who must maintain their needs and beliefs at all costs.
This is the corollary: the need and the zeal to maintain the belief/thought systems--at all costs--even the betrayal of their core principles.
